# War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon!



## protectionist

I am certainly no fan of Lindsey Graham (he's a immigrationist), but his ideas about Iran are correct. And he was challenged by a writer in an article in _the Atlantic_, who attempted to refute Graham, in the article linked at the bottom of this page. I will now refute that author's article. *It's necessary to first click the link and read the article (not too long)*, in order to understand what this OP is talking about.

1. No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT "a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS"  Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.

2. Iran’s _“capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends"_, is only on the basis of the current security situation. But is war against Iran were to ensue, it wouldn't until US national security, et al, would be strengthened to war levels, which is now not the case. So the author is using a false parameter for judgement.

3. Oh so _"you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program"_ ? Well, what do you know about that ? EARTH TO AUTHOR: like Iran needs a reason to continue their nuclear program. Like they're not going to, NO MATTER WHAT ? Sheeeesh!

4. Here's a good one too. >> _"a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming." _Time for a history lesson. And a question for the author. Do you think the World War II Japanese didn't know months in advance what was coming ? You think Nazi generals thought Roosevelt and Eisenhower were going to sit it out ?

5. Here's another beaut >> _"the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has,"_ 2 words answer that. So what ? You mount a full scale invasion of Iran, you fight the Iranians, you defeat them, you take over the country 100%, And you scour every square foot of the country, leaving no stones unturned, with Jack Bauer in charge of interrogations. You destroy everything that resembles nuclear. And you keep there troops there forever. If troop can still be in Germany and Japan 70 years after world War II, they can stay in Iran where they really are needed. And anything less than this, is going to imperil the American people with the risk of nuclear attack (if not annihilation). It simply must be done.

6. Iran would not have a vendetta against the US. Does Germany have one now ? Does Iran ?
Even Vietnam doesn't , and they could justify one. The young Iranian people hate the jihadist lunatics who rule them. Those old rulers will die off, or if need be we could expedite that.

Lindsey Graham on War with Iran and the Lessons of Iraq - The Atlantic


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon!"

One of many, many good reasons to keep a republican out of the WH come 2017.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Saudi arabia can fight it...America should focus on ourselve for once...

-more investment into our infrastructure and science programs...Reforms for our educational system.


----------



## frigidweirdo

As I've said numerous times.

In 2001 there were four enemies of the US that were OPEC members. 

In 2002 there was a coup against Chavez, leader of Venezuela.
In 2003 the invasion of Iraq.
In 2011 the bombing and helping to oust Gaddafi. 
Iran has suffered sanctions, as has Venezuela recently. 

So, is there any surprise that the right feel Iran needs to be invaded? Is there any surprise that they hate this deal with Iran that takes away their excuse for invading? 

It's ridiculous, thinly veiled attempt at invasion, we know why, it's not because of nukes, it's not because of their religion, it's because they're OPEC and hate the US.

The funny thing is though that the Saudis are the main player in OPEC going against the wishes of the US. But as they're "allies" the US won't do anything.


----------



## gipper

Have we learned nothing from decades of military intervention?

War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE...which is why a dipshit warmongering fool like Sen. Graham supports war against Iran.


----------



## Jantje_Smit

protectionist said:


> I am certainly no fan of Lindsey Graham (he's a immigrationist), but his ideas about Iran are correct....



Indeed, you just know they have WMD, they have links to 9/11, you'll be welcomed as liberators, the war will pay for itself...

Sounds a bit familiar though


----------



## Mr Natural

Let the ragheads deal with their own problems for once.

With any luck at all, they'll wipe themselves out and rid the planet of their kind forever.


----------



## Freewill

I think it is a great idea to let them have their approximately 120 billion dollars back.  They have already told us what they will do with it.  They themselves, not some right winger hack, said they would continue to buy military hardware and continue to fund terrorism.  Both of which have been defended by the liberal left as the price of peace.

Think about it.  Obama placed most of the sanctions on Iran.  But to listen to the left it is the right that caused the problem.  The Iraq war had nothing to do with Iran except Iran was very glad we removed the Butcher of Baghdad from power, something they failed to do.

So how has Iran reformed?  Anyone?  Please tell me how this deal is going to change Iran's leadership.  We let them have their 120 billion and the buy the newest in SAM missiles.  They then close the strait of Hormuz which would cause the world to stumble and they are even a more fordable foe.  

So either they were never really a threat and Obama placed sanctions for nothing.  Or we are now just closing our eyes and saying "peace in our time."  While funding an admitted terrorist nation.  Seems to me we wait for leadership change before funding  the radicals now leading Iran.


----------



## Freewill

Jantje_Smit said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am certainly no fan of Lindsey Graham (he's a immigrationist), but his ideas about Iran are correct....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you just know they have WMD, they have links to 9/11, you'll be welcomed as liberators, the war will pay for itself...
> 
> Sounds a bit familiar though
Click to expand...


Isn't the comparison more in line with Obama's failed war in Afghanistan?  Are we not going to fund a terrorist nation that admitted did and will fund terrorism with the money they receive?


----------



## rightwinger

You want a war with Iran......vote Republican

Bomb, bomb, bomb........bomb, bomb Iran


----------



## Freewill

You want bombed by Iran then vote democrat.  Bomb bomb bomb....


----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Dear Conservatives

you all do know if we go to war against Iran a lot of Iranian fetuses and pregnant women will be killed...do you want abortions done with Military weapons  ?*

*Yes _____*

*No_____*


----------



## Freewill

So, according to the left the alternative to not entering into an agreement, which only the US will honer, is to bomb Iran?  Reall?  Either we agree to fund their terrorism or we bomb them, really?

But of course with Kerry negotiating and the threat of war actually being off the table I am sure Iran is agreeing to everything we like.  Like not funding terrorism, although they said they would.  Or not building up their military, although they said they would.

Who, BTW is attacking Iran to the point where they need to build their military?  Certainly their biggest enemy was removed by no other then the USA.  They should be thanking us.  They should be fearing what would happen to them if they declined in not funding terrorism or declined in building a bomb they don't need.

The best I hope for is this is a "Mouse that Roared" situation.  Where Iran will actually come out of this and build a better society instead of war.  But by listening to them that is not where they are heading.  At least Hitler lied to Chamberlain, the Iranians are telling us what they are going to do straight up.


----------



## MisterBeale

Why is it okay for the US to fund terrorism, but not Iran?


----------



## Jantje_Smit

Freewill said:


> Isn't the comparison more in line with Obama's failed war in Afghanistan?  Are we not going to fund a terrorist nation that admitted did and will fund terrorism with the money they receive?



Not really, nobody cared about the evil WMD in Afghanistan. 

And you guys really love sponsors of terrorism so why should you be upset about that?


----------



## Freewill

MisterBeale said:


> Why is it okay for the US to fund terrorism, but not Iran?



Neither is OK.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

If we have a war against Iran a lot of Iranians will die ...for US political reasons


----------



## Freewill

Jantje_Smit said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the comparison more in line with Obama's failed war in Afghanistan?  Are we not going to fund a terrorist nation that admitted did and will fund terrorism with the money they receive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, nobody cared about the evil WMD in Afghanistan.
> 
> And you guys really love sponsors of terrorism so why should you be upset about that?
Click to expand...


"You guy?"  Who in the hell are you talking about?  Obama has been in office for 7 disastrous years.  If the US is funding terrorism, which is BS if you don't back that bit of BS up, then it is Obama doing so.  And here he goes again that is the point.

What the hell is wrong with the left that they don't seem to realize that the democrats have been making policy for the last 8 years.  Policy that it seems that the left doesn't like so they blame the Right.  Really takes quite a detachment from reality.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Freewill said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it okay for the US to fund terrorism, but not Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is OK.
Click to expand...

*who is going to stop the Empire from funding terrorism ???*


----------



## eagle1462010

Trump on negotiating with Iran.
From the onset of negotiations...................double Sanctions and do nothing..............within 3 months they would come to us...............if not simply wait.
To not even come to the table without our 4 people being released.  Just to come to the table.
Miss a dead line it's over...............sanctions..........up the ante..........................


----------



## Freewill

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it okay for the US to fund terrorism, but not Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *who is going to stop the Empire from funding terrorism ???*
Click to expand...


It is so cute when the left wing tries to act smart.

What terrorist group is Obama funding today?  Or ever?  You need to name them or what you are saying is pure BS.  

So apparently to the left terrorism really isn't a problem, along with abortion.  Apparently to the left when Iran tells us that they are going to keep funding terrorism, in other countries, not theirs.  They are either joking to save face or the left really doesn't give a crap. 

Obama and the left want an agreement to booster Obama's weak legacy.  Let the next president worry about the ramifications, just like did Clinton.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

eagle1462010 said:


> Trump on negotiating with Iran.
> From the onset of negotiations...................double Sanctions and do nothing..............within 3 months they would come to us...............if not simply wait.
> To not even come to the table without our 4 people being released.  Just to come to the table.
> Miss a dead line it's over...............sanctions..........up the ante..........................


Except the rest of the world will not agree to sanctions.....


----------



## Freewill

TyroneSlothrop said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump on negotiating with Iran.
> From the onset of negotiations...................double Sanctions and do nothing..............within 3 months they would come to us...............if not simply wait.
> To not even come to the table without our 4 people being released.  Just to come to the table.
> Miss a dead line it's over...............sanctions..........up the ante..........................
> 
> 
> 
> Except the rest of the world will not agree to sanctions.....
Click to expand...


You mean the sanctions already in place?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Freewill said:


> [  Let the next president worry about the ramifications, just like did Clinton.


*
Clinton left weakling 43 a nightmare of Peace and prosperity and projected Government budget surplus..........*

You did say neither Iran no the US should fund terrorism correct..? that means a tacit agreement that the US does fund terrorism ...it does and then some

since the end of World War II, the United States has:

 * Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.

* Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.

* Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

* Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.

* Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries, according to Chapter 18 of his book Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Freewill said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump on negotiating with Iran.
> From the onset of negotiations...................double Sanctions and do nothing..............within 3 months they would come to us...............if not simply wait.
> To not even come to the table without our 4 people being released.  Just to come to the table.
> Miss a dead line it's over...............sanctions..........up the ante..........................
> 
> 
> 
> Except the rest of the world will not agree to sanctions.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the sanctions already in place?
Click to expand...

The ones about to be lifted...


----------



## eagle1462010

TyroneSlothrop said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump on negotiating with Iran.
> From the onset of negotiations...................double Sanctions and do nothing..............within 3 months they would come to us...............if not simply wait.
> To not even come to the table without our 4 people being released.  Just to come to the table.
> Miss a dead line it's over...............sanctions..........up the ante..........................
> 
> 
> 
> Except the rest of the world will not agree to sanctions.....
Click to expand...

European banks will not favor Iran over the United States in holding money and take us on for Iran............It's a small amount versus the cost of challenging us on that policy.

Russia and China has never fully implemented the sanctions anyway..............they have been selling to Iran for a long time for economic reasons.......................and that will never change .......................As they sell advanced weapons systems to them for a buck.  They are in it for economic reasons.............and the fact that they know that Iran is a thorn in our side..................


----------



## Freewill

*The Iran Nuke Documents Obama Doesn’t Want You to See*
Seventeen unclassified Iran deal items have been locked in ultra-secure facilities ordinarily used for top secret info. Why is the Obama administration trying to bury this material?
Scattered around the U.S. Capitol complex are a series of Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facilities, or SCIFs, which are typically used to hold Top Secret information.

But today in these deeply secure settings are a series of unclassified documents—items dealing with the Iran nuclear deal that are not secret, but that the Obama administration is nevertheless blocking the public from reading.

The Obama administration delivered 18 documents to Congress on July 19, in accordance with legislation requiring a congressional review of the nuclear deal. Only one of these documents is classified, while the remaining 17 are unclassified.


----------



## MisterBeale

Freewill said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it okay for the US to fund terrorism, but not Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is OK.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  People can't support going to war against Iran till we curtail all clandestine operations in the ME.  As long as we are mucking about in Syria, funding _Al_-_Qaeda_, funding this rebel group or that rebel group to achieve our goals, etc.  We have no right to be launching an invasion of Iran or criticizing them for "supporting" terrorists.  We do that same damn thing.

Our elites have policy goals in the ME, their elites have policy goals in the ME.  Our press is going to spin it one way, their press is going to spin it the other way.  If you believe everything our corporate and state press push on us with out thinking about it in an unbiased critical fashion, you have become a jingoistic partisan tool of the establishment.  Nothing more than cannon fodder.


----------



## Freewill

TyroneSlothrop said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump on negotiating with Iran.
> From the onset of negotiations...................double Sanctions and do nothing..............within 3 months they would come to us...............if not simply wait.
> To not even come to the table without our 4 people being released.  Just to come to the table.
> Miss a dead line it's over...............sanctions..........up the ante..........................
> 
> 
> 
> Except the rest of the world will not agree to sanctions.....
Click to expand...


Are you actually on the negotiating team with Kerry?  You seem to know so much about what the other countries will or will not do.  Care to share with us how you know?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Freewill said:


> What terrorist group is Obama funding today?  Or ever?  You need to name them or what you are saying is pure BS.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> *Syrian official: US 'supporting terrorism' with rebel training ...*
> *
> Al-Nusra raids rival US-trained militants in Syria, kills 11: Group
> 
> 
> The terrorists fighting us now? We just finished training them ...
> *


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Freewill said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump on negotiating with Iran.
> From the onset of negotiations...................double Sanctions and do nothing..............within 3 months they would come to us...............if not simply wait.
> To not even come to the table without our 4 people being released.  Just to come to the table.
> Miss a dead line it's over...............sanctions..........up the ante..........................
> 
> 
> 
> Except the rest of the world will not agree to sanctions.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you actually on the negotiating team with Kerry?  You seem to know so much about what the other countries will or will not do.  Care to share with us how you know?
Click to expand...

You are very sure they will salute T-Rump's hair piece and apply new sanctions...detail how come you are so sure.........


----------



## eagle1462010

Freewill said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump on negotiating with Iran.
> From the onset of negotiations...................double Sanctions and do nothing..............within 3 months they would come to us...............if not simply wait.
> To not even come to the table without our 4 people being released.  Just to come to the table.
> Miss a dead line it's over...............sanctions..........up the ante..........................
> 
> 
> 
> Except the rest of the world will not agree to sanctions.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you actually on the negotiating team with Kerry?  You seem to know so much about what the other countries will or will not do.  Care to share with us how you know?
Click to expand...

He could start by explaining the secret deals of the IAEA AND IRAN.................That would be nice of him since our own Senators and congressmen don't even know the secret deals.


----------



## Freewill

MisterBeale said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it okay for the US to fund terrorism, but not Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  People can't support going to war against Iran till we curtail all clandestine operations in the ME.  As long as we are mucking about in Syria, funding _Al_-_Qaeda_, funding this rebel group or that rebel group to achieve our goals, etc.  We have no right to be launching an invasion of Iran or criticizing them for "supporting" terrorists.  We do that same damn thing.
> 
> Our elites have policy goals in the ME, their elites have policy goals in the ME.  Our press is going to spin it one way, their press is going to spin it the other way.  If you believe everything our corporate and state press push on us with out thinking about it in an unbiased critical fashion, you have become a jingoistic partisan tool of the establishment.  Nothing more than cannon fodder.
Click to expand...


The US is funding Al-Qaeda?  How is Obama doing that?  Why do you think Iran cares about Syria?  Or Libya?


----------



## eagle1462010

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump on negotiating with Iran.
> From the onset of negotiations...................double Sanctions and do nothing..............within 3 months they would come to us...............if not simply wait.
> To not even come to the table without our 4 people being released.  Just to come to the table.
> Miss a dead line it's over...............sanctions..........up the ante..........................
> 
> 
> 
> Except the rest of the world will not agree to sanctions.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you actually on the negotiating team with Kerry?  You seem to know so much about what the other countries will or will not do.  Care to share with us how you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very sure they will salute T-Rump's hair piece and apply new sanctions...detail how come you are so sure.........
Click to expand...

Who the fuck cares................he'd double down on sanctions which have helped force them to the table now...................It didn't matter then that we got a deal and it doesn't matter now.................we could impose them until hell freezes over and it wouldn't make a damned difference................................

There was never a reason to force the issue now on their terms................which is what happened...................and we will give them more money to play with.  It is money that will not go to the people there................It will go into the hands of the leadership there.............and will continue to be used for increased military procurement..........................including cruise missiles from Russia with Love, and ICBM tech which only use is to deploy Nuclear warheads................

Only a fool would think they need them............and only a fool would recognize that it is for the purpose other than their lies on it's for nuclear power................

A fool runs this country supported by foolish posters like tyrone.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

apparently the ME is not in sufficient shambles after the destruction of Iraq and Libya we want to now attack Iran too..


*Too many in government do not realize that the cause of the problems in Iraq was the US invasion and occupation and that more of the same will not solve the problem,*


----------



## Freewill

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump on negotiating with Iran.
> From the onset of negotiations...................double Sanctions and do nothing..............within 3 months they would come to us...............if not simply wait.
> To not even come to the table without our 4 people being released.  Just to come to the table.
> Miss a dead line it's over...............sanctions..........up the ante..........................
> 
> 
> 
> Except the rest of the world will not agree to sanctions.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you actually on the negotiating team with Kerry?  You seem to know so much about what the other countries will or will not do.  Care to share with us how you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are very sure they will salute T-Rump's hair piece and apply new sanctions...detail how come you are so sure.........
Click to expand...


I am only sure of a few things, you sure are a cute one.  Iran has said they will continue to sponsor terrorism.  Iran has said they will start a military buildup.  In 10 years it is reported that they can then build a bomb.  Meanwhile the enrichment continues.  So I am not quite sure what the world is getting out of this agreement.

Maybe you need to start there.  Tell me why we release their billions of dollars after they have already told us what they are going to do with those dollars.


----------



## eagle1462010

TyroneSlothrop said:


> apparently the ME is not in sufficient shambles after the destruction of Iraq and Libya we want to now attack Iran too..
> 
> 
> *Too many in government do not realize that the cause of the problems in Iraq was the US invasion and occupation and that more of the same will not solve the problem,*


Continued Sanctions don't mean War...............It impedes their progress....................this deal doesn't do that.......and sucked so bad that they couldn't even get our people back....................

Kerry and Obama are fing wimps..............................

and we can take out those sites without going to War................and end the danged problem for a decade...............take out their arms factories supplying IED tech while we are at it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Freewill said:


> Maybe you need to start there.  Tell me why we release their billions of dollars after they have already told us what they are going to do with those dollars.




Sure right after you tell me why they should trust the US with all the treachery the US has practiced against Iran
Here is a musical John McCain to illustrate OK "cutie"
*Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran*


----------



## Freewill

TyroneSlothrop said:


> apparently the ME is not in sufficient shambles after the destruction of Iraq and Libya we want to now attack Iran too..
> 
> 
> *Too many in government do not realize that the cause of the problems in Iraq was the US invasion and occupation and that more of the same will not solve the problem,*



Who wants to attack Iran?  Someone who has that power wants to attack Iran?  Will the attack be ordered by the same man who attacked Libya and Syria and had a surge in Afghanistan?  The same man who has been running our foriegn affairs for the last 7 years, in a way you seem to disagree yet don't seem to put any blame on him?  That guy?

How does sitting with the sanctions we have today equate to going to war?  We are now hurting Iran or they wouldn't be negotiating.  I find it quite interesting that what they say they will do with their money is completely ignored by the left.  All to protect the king.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *

*maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

who wants to attack Iran? 
please look at the title of this thread 
*War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon! *


----------



## frigidweirdo

Freewill said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it okay for the US to fund terrorism, but not Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  People can't support going to war against Iran till we curtail all clandestine operations in the ME.  As long as we are mucking about in Syria, funding _Al_-_Qaeda_, funding this rebel group or that rebel group to achieve our goals, etc.  We have no right to be launching an invasion of Iran or criticizing them for "supporting" terrorists.  We do that same damn thing.
> 
> Our elites have policy goals in the ME, their elites have policy goals in the ME.  Our press is going to spin it one way, their press is going to spin it the other way.  If you believe everything our corporate and state press push on us with out thinking about it in an unbiased critical fashion, you have become a jingoistic partisan tool of the establishment.  Nothing more than cannon fodder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US is funding Al-Qaeda?  How is Obama doing that?  Why do you think Iran cares about Syria?  Or Libya?
Click to expand...


No, the US is funding the US.


----------



## eagle1462010

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to start there.  Tell me why we release their billions of dollars after they have already told us what they are going to do with those dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure right after you tell me why they should trust the US with all the treachery the US has practiced against Iran
> Here is a musical John McCain to illustrate OK "cutie"
> *Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran*
Click to expand...

Iran's purpose is control of the region and the 12th Imam and Caliphate.......................I don't give a rats ass about them.

They have been a terrorist supporting country for 35 years..........

And now we got this paper they signed that suddenly they'll be nice...............LOL

It's not worth the paper it's written on to us.............to them it's worth about 160 billion...................and a shopping trip to Russian arms merchants.


----------



## Penelope

Jantje_Smit said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am certainly no fan of Lindsey Graham (he's a immigrationist), but his ideas about Iran are correct....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you just know they have WMD, they have links to 9/11, you'll be welcomed as liberators, the war will pay for itself...
> 
> Sounds a bit familiar though
Click to expand...


Lets see no we do not, Just what links to 911 does Iran have? I can't wait for our answer?  Has any war ever paid for itself?


----------



## eagle1462010

TyroneSlothrop said:


> who wants to attack Iran?
> please look at the title of this thread
> *War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon! *


War and taking out their facilities is a different scenario...................and the Sanctions doubled down with the threat of attack is how this deal should have went down.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

eagle1462010 said:


> It's not worth the paper it's written on to us.............to them it's worth about 160 billion...................and a shopping trip to Russian arms merchants.



and what is the GOP saying that they are not going to honor any agreement

let me refresh who is doing what in this world you seem to have problems ...thank me later for the information

since the end of World War II, the United States has:

 * Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.

* Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.

* Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

* Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.

* Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries, according to Chapter 18 of his book Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.


----------



## Penelope

eagle1462010 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to start there.  Tell me why we release their billions of dollars after they have already told us what they are going to do with those dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure right after you tell me why they should trust the US with all the treachery the US has practiced against Iran
> Here is a musical John McCain to illustrate OK "cutie"
> *Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran's purpose is control of the region and the 12th Imam and Caliphate.......................I don't give a rats ass about them.
> 
> They have been a terrorist supporting country for 35 years..........
> 
> And now we got this paper they signed that suddenly they'll be nice...............LOL
> 
> It's not worth the paper it's written on to us.............to them it's worth about 160 billion...................and a shopping trip to Russian arms merchants.
Click to expand...


They have not been a terrorist supporting country for years, you had best provide proof if you post this fictional statement again, because just saying it does not make it so.


----------



## Freewill

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to start there.  Tell me why we release their billions of dollars after they have already told us what they are going to do with those dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure right after you tell me why they should trust the US with all the treachery the US has practiced against Iran
> Here is a musical John McCain to illustrate OK "cutie"
> *Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran*
Click to expand...


You keep doing it, just saying whatever without one bit of evidence.  What treachery has Obama inflicted on Iran?  Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, maybe but Iran?

Besides, if I read what the left wing has to say correctly, bombing is not the same as going to war.  Clinton terror bombed Serbia for 72 days, perfectly justified by the liberal left, but not Congress.  Obama bombs Libya and Syria and that is not considered war because we didn't risk our ground troops.

So without a doubt in my mind if Obama were to bomb Iran's enrichment plants the left would become deaf mutes, which in and of itself would be a blessing.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

eagle1462010 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> who wants to attack Iran?
> please look at the title of this thread
> *War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon! *
> 
> 
> 
> War and taking out their facilities is a different scenario...................and the Sanctions doubled down with the threat of attack is how this deal should have went down.
Click to expand...

If you take out their facilities there wont be war ?
*
*
*get this guy some meds and soon*


----------



## eagle1462010

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*


Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
Who started the attack on Libya..............
Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
Who doubled down in Afghanistan................

Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............


----------



## MisterBeale

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*



What are you talking about?  PAY for a war?

  Hell, the war on Iraq still hasn't been "paid" for.  That'll never be paid for. 


Just like socialists think shit is free and government can do anything w/o paying for it, war mongers feel the same way.  _Carte blanche_  Debt can just pile up.  Who cares?

That should be your first sign as to what is really motivating this war propaganda.  The House Rothschild.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Gallup poll, 2013:

Question asked: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”

Replies:


United States 24%
Pakistan 8%
China 6%
Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea, each 5%
India, Iraq, Japan, each 4%
Syria 3%
Russia 2%
Australia, Germany, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Korea, UK, each 1%


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

eagle1462010 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*
> 
> 
> 
> Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
> Who started the attack on Libya..............
> Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
> Who doubled down in Afghanistan................
> 
> Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............
Click to expand...

*what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*


----------



## eagle1462010

TyroneSlothrop said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> who wants to attack Iran?
> please look at the title of this thread
> *War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon! *
> 
> 
> 
> War and taking out their facilities is a different scenario...................and the Sanctions doubled down with the threat of attack is how this deal should have went down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you take out their facilities there wont be war ?
> *
> *
> *get this guy some meds and soon*
Click to expand...

We've hit many facilities over time without a full scaled war Mr. Liberal...............Mr. Clueless...........and I said to double down on the sanctions and use as option of last resort now didn't I..................Unlike this BS agreement going on now.


----------



## eagle1462010

TyroneSlothrop said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*
> 
> 
> 
> Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
> Who started the attack on Libya..............
> Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
> Who doubled down in Afghanistan................
> 
> Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*
Click to expand...

They are saying they would use force if necessary to take out the sites.............and I agree.


----------



## Penelope

eagle1462010 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently the ME is not in sufficient shambles after the destruction of Iraq and Libya we want to now attack Iran too..
> 
> 
> *Too many in government do not realize that the cause of the problems in Iraq was the US invasion and occupation and that more of the same will not solve the problem,*
> 
> 
> 
> Continued Sanctions don't mean War...............It impedes their progress....................this deal doesn't do that.......and sucked so bad that they couldn't even get our people back....................
> 
> Kerry and Obama are fing wimps..............................
> 
> and we can take out those sites without going to War................and end the danged problem for a decade...............take out their arms factories supplying IED tech while we are at it.
Click to expand...


Any continued sanctions will ensure they will join the Brics countries if they have not done so already.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Dr Tyrone Slothrop says* "War is contra Indicated"*


----------



## Jantje_Smit

Freewill said:


> "You guy?"  Who in the hell are you talking about?  Obama has been in office for 7 disastrous years.  If the US is funding terrorism, which is BS if you don't back that bit of BS up, then it is Obama doing so.  And here he goes again that is the point.



"You guys" as in you, US warmongers, I don't make a distinction between democrats or republicans. Obama is just as corrupt as the rest, how do you think ISIS ended up with 2,000+ humvees? Bu$h sucked up to the Saudis (you know, the guys who did 9/11), Reagan thought the Taliban were real patriots....



> "What the hell is wrong with the left that they don't seem to realize that the democrats have been making policy for the last 8 years.  Policy that it seems that the left doesn't like so they blame the Right.  Really takes quite a detachment from reality.



Left?Right?

You really think there's a fundamental difference between a Bu$h and a Clinton (or an Obama)?

Well maybe on some social issues but concerning foreign policy they're all sucking up to AIPAC and doing the bidding of Netanyahoo.


----------



## eagle1462010

Penelope said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to start there.  Tell me why we release their billions of dollars after they have already told us what they are going to do with those dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure right after you tell me why they should trust the US with all the treachery the US has practiced against Iran
> Here is a musical John McCain to illustrate OK "cutie"
> *Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran's purpose is control of the region and the 12th Imam and Caliphate.......................I don't give a rats ass about them.
> 
> They have been a terrorist supporting country for 35 years..........
> 
> And now we got this paper they signed that suddenly they'll be nice...............LOL
> 
> It's not worth the paper it's written on to us.............to them it's worth about 160 billion...................and a shopping trip to Russian arms merchants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not been a terrorist supporting country for years, you had best provide proof if you post this fictional statement again, because just saying it does not make it so.
Click to expand...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

eagle1462010 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*
> 
> 
> 
> Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
> Who started the attack on Libya..............
> Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
> Who doubled down in Afghanistan................
> 
> Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are saying they would use force if necessary to take out the sites.............and I agree.
Click to expand...

would you also agree they would have the right of self defense including asymmetric warfare


----------



## Freewill

Penelope said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to start there.  Tell me why we release their billions of dollars after they have already told us what they are going to do with those dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure right after you tell me why they should trust the US with all the treachery the US has practiced against Iran
> Here is a musical John McCain to illustrate OK "cutie"
> *Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran's purpose is control of the region and the 12th Imam and Caliphate.......................I don't give a rats ass about them.
> 
> They have been a terrorist supporting country for 35 years..........
> 
> And now we got this paper they signed that suddenly they'll be nice...............LOL
> 
> It's not worth the paper it's written on to us.............to them it's worth about 160 billion...................and a shopping trip to Russian arms merchants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not been a terrorist supporting country for years, you had best provide proof if you post this fictional statement again, because just saying it does not make it so.
Click to expand...

 
Obama and the state department does not agree with you.

Since the declaration of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the government of Iran has been accused by members of the international community of funding, providing equipment, weapons, training and giving sanctuary to terrorists.[1]

The United States State Department describes Iran as an “active state sponsor of terrorism.”[2] US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice elaborated stating, "Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq."[1] Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You can also look here: http://www.clarionproject.org/sites/default/files/Iranian-Support-For-Terrorism.pdf

Also read here:

Obama Admits Lifting Sanctions Against Iran Will Fund Terror

In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”

The President said that a “military option” is still available.

“Iran has proven that it is willing to change its priorities and its strategy,” Mr. Obama added. “We have sent a clear message to the Iranians – though we closed the deal, we still have not closed account. I hope that solutions will be reached diplomatically, but if necessary, there is also a military option.”

Iran has admitted that the regime funds and arms terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi insurgency in Yemen.


----------



## eagle1462010

Penelope said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently the ME is not in sufficient shambles after the destruction of Iraq and Libya we want to now attack Iran too..
> 
> 
> *Too many in government do not realize that the cause of the problems in Iraq was the US invasion and occupation and that more of the same will not solve the problem,*
> 
> 
> 
> Continued Sanctions don't mean War...............It impedes their progress....................this deal doesn't do that.......and sucked so bad that they couldn't even get our people back....................
> 
> Kerry and Obama are fing wimps..............................
> 
> and we can take out those sites without going to War................and end the danged problem for a decade...............take out their arms factories supplying IED tech while we are at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any continued sanctions will ensure they will join the Brics countries if they have not done so already.
Click to expand...

They are going to do that anyway.  Russia has already sent them the invitation.


----------



## Freewill

TyroneSlothrop said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*
> 
> 
> 
> Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
> Who started the attack on Libya..............
> Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
> Who doubled down in Afghanistan................
> 
> Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are saying they would use force if necessary to take out the sites.............and I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> would you also agree they would have the right of self defense including asymmetric warfare
Click to expand...


Of course they do, but who is attacking them?


----------



## eagle1462010

TyroneSlothrop said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*
> 
> 
> 
> Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
> Who started the attack on Libya..............
> Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
> Who doubled down in Afghanistan................
> 
> Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are saying they would use force if necessary to take out the sites.............and I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> would you also agree they would have the right of self defense including asymmetric warfare
Click to expand...

They will try.............Try and lose..................Let them pound 165 degree index sand.....................I'm not talking about a ground invasion or a occupation here.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Jantje_Smit said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You guy?"  Who in the hell are you talking about?  Obama has been in office for 7 disastrous years.  If the US is funding terrorism, which is BS if you don't back that bit of BS up, then it is Obama doing so.  And here he goes again that is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You guys" as in you, US warmongers, I don't make a distinction between democrats or republicans. Obama is just as corrupt as the rest, how do you think ISIS ended up with 2,000+ humvees? Bu$h sucked up to the Saudis (you know, the guys who did 9/11), Reagan thought the Taliban were real patriots....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What the hell is wrong with the left that they don't seem to realize that the democrats have been making policy for the last 8 years.  Policy that it seems that the left doesn't like so they blame the Right.  Really takes quite a detachment from reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Left?Right?
> 
> You really think there's a fundamental difference between a Bu$h and a Clinton (or an Obama)?
> 
> Well maybe on some social issues but concerning foreign policy they're all sucking up to AIPAC and doing the bidding of Netanyahoo.
Click to expand...

Mr Dutch ....they do not know that they do not know about the MICE the dreaded *Military Industrial Complex Empire *....they are in other words "mental"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

eagle1462010 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*
> 
> 
> 
> Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
> Who started the attack on Libya..............
> Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
> Who doubled down in Afghanistan................
> 
> Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are saying they would use force if necessary to take out the sites.............and I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> would you also agree they would have the right of self defense including asymmetric warfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will try.............Try and lose..................Let them pound 165 degree index sand.....................I'm not talking about a ground invasion or a occupation here.
Click to expand...

and you know all of this how ?

If I am them I go balls to the wall to get a Nuke from Korea or something...why....to preserve the Peace...once they get a Nuke  the MICE calms down


----------



## eagle1462010

TyroneSlothrop said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
> Who started the attack on Libya..............
> Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
> Who doubled down in Afghanistan................
> 
> Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............
> 
> 
> 
> *what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are saying they would use force if necessary to take out the sites.............and I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> would you also agree they would have the right of self defense including asymmetric warfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will try.............Try and lose..................Let them pound 165 degree index sand.....................I'm not talking about a ground invasion or a occupation here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you know all of this how ?
> 
> If I am them I go balls to the wall to get a Nuke from Korea or something...why....to preserve the Peace...once they get a Nuke  the MICE calms down
Click to expand...

As you deny their ultimate goals of controlling the region...............all in the name of Allah and the 12th Imam..............
I don't care what they think..........they support terrorism.........they provided IED's to kill our people..........and they want a nuke.............

They can go screw a camel for all I care..............and they can't be trusted to honor any deal..........a deal that is a just a BS piece of paper that they will not honor.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

By the way Mr Dutch what is the cost of living like down Amsterdam way ?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

eagle1462010 said:


> As you deny their ultimate goals of controlling the region.....



*what would you says is our ultimate goal...roughly ....*


----------



## Penelope

Freewill said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to start there.  Tell me why we release their billions of dollars after they have already told us what they are going to do with those dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure right after you tell me why they should trust the US with all the treachery the US has practiced against Iran
> Here is a musical John McCain to illustrate OK "cutie"
> *Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran's purpose is control of the region and the 12th Imam and Caliphate.......................I don't give a rats ass about them.
> 
> They have been a terrorist supporting country for 35 years..........
> 
> And now we got this paper they signed that suddenly they'll be nice...............LOL
> 
> It's not worth the paper it's written on to us.............to them it's worth about 160 billion...................and a shopping trip to Russian arms merchants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not been a terrorist supporting country for years, you had best provide proof if you post this fictional statement again, because just saying it does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and the state department does not agree with you.
> 
> Since the declaration of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the government of Iran has been accused by members of the international community of funding, providing equipment, weapons, training and giving sanctuary to terrorists.[1]
> 
> The United States State Department describes Iran as an “active state sponsor of terrorism.”[2] US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice elaborated stating, "Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq."[1] Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You can also look here: http://www.clarionproject.org/sites/default/files/Iranian-Support-For-Terrorism.pdf
> 
> Also read here:
> 
> Obama Admits Lifting Sanctions Against Iran Will Fund Terror
> 
> In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”
> 
> The President said that a “military option” is still available.
> 
> “Iran has proven that it is willing to change its priorities and its strategy,” Mr. Obama added. “We have sent a clear message to the Iranians – though we closed the deal, we still have not closed account. I hope that solutions will be reached diplomatically, but if necessary, there is also a military option.”
> 
> Iran has admitted that the regime funds and arms terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi insurgency in Yemen.
Click to expand...



http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg997.aspx

talks about Hezbollah

The Saudi ambassador to Egypt Ahmed Abdulaziz Qattan announced that the kingdom will support the Palestinian Authority's budget with $60 million.

Qattan said in a statement released by the Saudi Embassy media office in Cairo yesterday: "The Saudi Fund for Development has transferred a total of $60 million to the Palestinian Finance Ministry." This is equivalent to the kingdom's monthly contributions to support the Palestinian National Authority's budget for the three months from April to June.

"Saudi Arabia will always support the Palestinian cause at all levels," Qattan said adding that "the kingdom has been keen, since January 2013, to increase its share in the Palestinian Authority's budget from $14 million to $20 million a month."

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/20065-saudi-transfers-60m-to-the-pa

*Saudi Arabia and Hamas: A Pragmatic Partnership *

*Analysis*

July 27, 2015 | 09:30 GMT

Saudi Arabia and Hamas have a long history of interaction. Hamas is far from financially independent; it has always depended on multiple sources of external support. In the early 2000s, Saudi Arabia was Hamas' chief patron, with some reports claiming that Saudi Arabia provided as much as 50 percent of Hamas' operating budget. Starting in 2004, however, Riyadh reduced this funding, in part because the West began to more closely scrutinize Saudi Arabia's financing of terrorist groups in the wake of Sept. 11 and various suicide attacks claimed by Hamas during the Second Intifada.

When Hamas was briefly elected to head the Palestinian National Authority in 2006, Saudi Arabia publicly defied the United States by ignoring Washington's request to cut off funding to the group. Then, in February 2007, Riyadh helped negotiate what would be a short-lived coalition government between Fatah and Hamas. Even afterward, Saudi Arabia maintained financial support to Hamas and still emphasized the importance of cooperation between Hamas and its rival, Fatah.

Saudi Arabia and Hamas A Pragmatic Partnership

Syria and Lebanon are allies of Iran, just like Israel is an ally to the US, and we fund them billions plus weapons.


----------



## Freewill

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Gallup poll, 2013:
> 
> Question asked: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”
> 
> Replies:
> 
> 
> United States 24%
> Pakistan 8%
> China 6%
> Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea, each 5%
> India, Iraq, Japan, each 4%
> Syria 3%
> Russia 2%
> Australia, Germany, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Korea, UK, each 1%



Same percentage as there are deluded liberals in the US, not surprising since they don't think much of Obama's foreign policy.


----------



## Freewill

Penelope said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to start there.  Tell me why we release their billions of dollars after they have already told us what they are going to do with those dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure right after you tell me why they should trust the US with all the treachery the US has practiced against Iran
> Here is a musical John McCain to illustrate OK "cutie"
> *Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran's purpose is control of the region and the 12th Imam and Caliphate.......................I don't give a rats ass about them.
> 
> They have been a terrorist supporting country for 35 years..........
> 
> And now we got this paper they signed that suddenly they'll be nice...............LOL
> 
> It's not worth the paper it's written on to us.............to them it's worth about 160 billion...................and a shopping trip to Russian arms merchants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not been a terrorist supporting country for years, you had best provide proof if you post this fictional statement again, because just saying it does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and the state department does not agree with you.
> 
> Since the declaration of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the government of Iran has been accused by members of the international community of funding, providing equipment, weapons, training and giving sanctuary to terrorists.[1]
> 
> The United States State Department describes Iran as an “active state sponsor of terrorism.”[2] US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice elaborated stating, "Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq."[1] Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You can also look here: http://www.clarionproject.org/sites/default/files/Iranian-Support-For-Terrorism.pdf
> 
> Also read here:
> 
> Obama Admits Lifting Sanctions Against Iran Will Fund Terror
> 
> In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”
> 
> The President said that a “military option” is still available.
> 
> “Iran has proven that it is willing to change its priorities and its strategy,” Mr. Obama added. “We have sent a clear message to the Iranians – though we closed the deal, we still have not closed account. I hope that solutions will be reached diplomatically, but if necessary, there is also a military option.”
> 
> Iran has admitted that the regime funds and arms terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi insurgency in Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg997.aspx
> 
> talks about Hezbollah
> 
> The Saudi ambassador to Egypt Ahmed Abdulaziz Qattan announced that the kingdom will support the Palestinian Authority's budget with $60 million.
> 
> Qattan said in a statement released by the Saudi Embassy media office in Cairo yesterday: "The Saudi Fund for Development has transferred a total of $60 million to the Palestinian Finance Ministry." This is equivalent to the kingdom's monthly contributions to support the Palestinian National Authority's budget for the three months from April to June.
> 
> "Saudi Arabia will always support the Palestinian cause at all levels," Qattan said adding that "the kingdom has been keen, since January 2013, to increase its share in the Palestinian Authority's budget from $14 million to $20 million a month."
> 
> https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/20065-saudi-transfers-60m-to-the-pa
> 
> *Saudi Arabia and Hamas: A Pragmatic Partnership *
> 
> *Analysis*
> 
> July 27, 2015 | 09:30 GMT
> 
> Saudi Arabia and Hamas have a long history of interaction. Hamas is far from financially independent; it has always depended on multiple sources of external support. In the early 2000s, Saudi Arabia was Hamas' chief patron, with some reports claiming that Saudi Arabia provided as much as 50 percent of Hamas' operating budget. Starting in 2004, however, Riyadh reduced this funding, in part because the West began to more closely scrutinize Saudi Arabia's financing of terrorist groups in the wake of Sept. 11 and various suicide attacks claimed by Hamas during the Second Intifada.
> 
> When Hamas was briefly elected to head the Palestinian National Authority in 2006, Saudi Arabia publicly defied the United States by ignoring Washington's request to cut off funding to the group. Then, in February 2007, Riyadh helped negotiate what would be a short-lived coalition government between Fatah and Hamas. Even afterward, Saudi Arabia maintained financial support to Hamas and still emphasized the importance of cooperation between Hamas and its rival, Fatah.
> 
> Saudi Arabia and Hamas A Pragmatic Partnership
Click to expand...


I thought we were talking about the US and Iran.


----------



## Jantje_Smit

TyroneSlothrop said:


> By the way Mr Dutch what is the cost of living like down Amsterdam way ?



Well, the dream of the austerity clowns in The Hague is to become just like you guys and they're making great progress.

Just a few more months and then TTIP will make that dream a lot closer to reality

I can hardly wait


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Freewill said:


> Same percentage as there are deluded liberals in the US, not surprising since they don't think much of Obama's foreign policy.


His foreign policy is in the tradition of the Military Industrial Complex Empire..the dreaded the abominable MICE


----------



## Freewill

Penelope said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently the ME is not in sufficient shambles after the destruction of Iraq and Libya we want to now attack Iran too..
> 
> 
> *Too many in government do not realize that the cause of the problems in Iraq was the US invasion and occupation and that more of the same will not solve the problem,*
> 
> 
> 
> Continued Sanctions don't mean War...............It impedes their progress....................this deal doesn't do that.......and sucked so bad that they couldn't even get our people back....................
> 
> Kerry and Obama are fing wimps..............................
> 
> and we can take out those sites without going to War................and end the danged problem for a decade...............take out their arms factories supplying IED tech while we are at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any continued sanctions will ensure they will join the Brics countries if they have not done so already.
Click to expand...


You mean they won't be our friends any more?  You mean they will continue to say things like death to America?


----------



## eagle1462010

Penelope said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to start there.  Tell me why we release their billions of dollars after they have already told us what they are going to do with those dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure right after you tell me why they should trust the US with all the treachery the US has practiced against Iran
> Here is a musical John McCain to illustrate OK "cutie"
> *Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran's purpose is control of the region and the 12th Imam and Caliphate.......................I don't give a rats ass about them.
> 
> They have been a terrorist supporting country for 35 years..........
> 
> And now we got this paper they signed that suddenly they'll be nice...............LOL
> 
> It's not worth the paper it's written on to us.............to them it's worth about 160 billion...................and a shopping trip to Russian arms merchants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have not been a terrorist supporting country for years, you had best provide proof if you post this fictional statement again, because just saying it does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama and the state department does not agree with you.
> 
> Since the declaration of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the government of Iran has been accused by members of the international community of funding, providing equipment, weapons, training and giving sanctuary to terrorists.[1]
> 
> The United States State Department describes Iran as an “active state sponsor of terrorism.”[2] US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice elaborated stating, "Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq."[1] Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You can also look here: http://www.clarionproject.org/sites/default/files/Iranian-Support-For-Terrorism.pdf
> 
> Also read here:
> 
> Obama Admits Lifting Sanctions Against Iran Will Fund Terror
> 
> In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”
> 
> The President said that a “military option” is still available.
> 
> “Iran has proven that it is willing to change its priorities and its strategy,” Mr. Obama added. “We have sent a clear message to the Iranians – though we closed the deal, we still have not closed account. I hope that solutions will be reached diplomatically, but if necessary, there is also a military option.”
> 
> Iran has admitted that the regime funds and arms terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi insurgency in Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg997.aspx
> 
> talks about Hezbollah
> 
> The Saudi ambassador to Egypt Ahmed Abdulaziz Qattan announced that the kingdom will support the Palestinian Authority's budget with $60 million.
> 
> Qattan said in a statement released by the Saudi Embassy media office in Cairo yesterday: "The Saudi Fund for Development has transferred a total of $60 million to the Palestinian Finance Ministry." This is equivalent to the kingdom's monthly contributions to support the Palestinian National Authority's budget for the three months from April to June.
> 
> "Saudi Arabia will always support the Palestinian cause at all levels," Qattan said adding that "the kingdom has been keen, since January 2013, to increase its share in the Palestinian Authority's budget from $14 million to $20 million a month."
> 
> https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/20065-saudi-transfers-60m-to-the-pa
> 
> *Saudi Arabia and Hamas: A Pragmatic Partnership *
> 
> *Analysis*
> 
> July 27, 2015 | 09:30 GMT
> 
> Saudi Arabia and Hamas have a long history of interaction. Hamas is far from financially independent; it has always depended on multiple sources of external support. In the early 2000s, Saudi Arabia was Hamas' chief patron, with some reports claiming that Saudi Arabia provided as much as 50 percent of Hamas' operating budget. Starting in 2004, however, Riyadh reduced this funding, in part because the West began to more closely scrutinize Saudi Arabia's financing of terrorist groups in the wake of Sept. 11 and various suicide attacks claimed by Hamas during the Second Intifada.
> 
> When Hamas was briefly elected to head the Palestinian National Authority in 2006, Saudi Arabia publicly defied the United States by ignoring Washington's request to cut off funding to the group. Then, in February 2007, Riyadh helped negotiate what would be a short-lived coalition government between Fatah and Hamas. Even afterward, Saudi Arabia maintained financial support to Hamas and still emphasized the importance of cooperation between Hamas and its rival, Fatah.
> 
> Saudi Arabia and Hamas A Pragmatic Partnership
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia has always wanted Israel gone.............and they have funded groups to do so for a long time in this aspect.........

Just another reason to obtain energy independence in this country.  The other being the jobs created in doing so.


----------



## Freewill

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same percentage as there are deluded liberals in the US, not surprising since they don't think much of Obama's foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> His foreign policy is in the tradition of the Military Industrial Complex Empire..the dreaded the abominable MICE
Click to expand...


The funny(sic) thing is that whenever you folks bring up foreign policy and what you say is funding terrorism and dropping bombs you fail to bring up Obama who is running the place.  No you quote a moron like McCain.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Jantje_Smit said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Mr Dutch what is the cost of living like down Amsterdam way ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the dream of the austerity clowns in The Hague is to become just like you guys and they're making great progress.
> 
> Just a few more months and then TTIP will make that dream a lot closer to reality
> 
> I can hardly wait
Click to expand...

That means I have to look to the cosmos .. I thought maybe perhaps Amsterdam could keep me from the MICE...the Military Industrial rodent of rapaciousness
Dear Universe
Please please give me shelter or I am going to fade away haircuts....


----------



## Freewill

TyroneSlothrop said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you deny their ultimate goals of controlling the region.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *what would you says is our ultimate goal...roughly ....*
Click to expand...


Protect the strait of Hormuz.
Keep a rouge group from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
Protecting Israel
Protecting oil supply to the world.


----------



## Penelope

eagle1462010 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*
> 
> 
> 
> They are saying they would use force if necessary to take out the sites.............and I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> would you also agree they would have the right of self defense including asymmetric warfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will try.............Try and lose..................Let them pound 165 degree index sand.....................I'm not talking about a ground invasion or a occupation here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you know all of this how ?
> 
> If I am them I go balls to the wall to get a Nuke from Korea or something...why....to preserve the Peace...once they get a Nuke  the MICE calms down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you deny their ultimate goals of controlling the region...............all in the name of Allah and the 12th Imam..............
> I don't care what they think..........they support terrorism.........they provided IED's to kill our people..........and they want a nuke.............
> 
> They can go screw a camel for all I care..............and they can't be trusted to honor any deal..........a deal that is a just a BS piece of paper that they will not honor.
Click to expand...


If Iran wanted a nuke they'd have one, they want the sanctions lifted, their money paid to them and in the future they will want isotopes for medical reasons.


----------



## MisterBeale

TyroneSlothrop said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*
> 
> 
> 
> Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
> Who started the attack on Libya..............
> Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
> Who doubled down in Afghanistan................
> 
> Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*
Click to expand...


And if Hillary is President, nothing is different.  Stop being a partisan idiot.  These CFR shills are all the same.

*Hillary Clinton: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran”*
Hillary Clinton If I m President We Will Attack Iran Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas’ charter “calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel.”


“I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”


She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:


“*I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran.* In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, *we would be able to totally obliterate them.”*


She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Freewill said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same percentage as there are deluded liberals in the US, not surprising since they don't think much of Obama's foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> His foreign policy is in the tradition of the Military Industrial Complex Empire..the dreaded the abominable MICE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The funny(sic) thing is that whenever you folks bring up foreign policy and what you say is funding terrorism and dropping bombs you fail to bring up Obama who is running the place.  No you quote a moron like McCain.
Click to expand...

*War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon!* name of the thread....MICE feces give away the MICE


----------



## Penelope

MisterBeale said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*
> 
> 
> 
> Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
> Who started the attack on Libya..............
> Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
> Who doubled down in Afghanistan................
> 
> Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Hillary is President, nothing is different.  Stop being a partisan idiot.  These CFR shills are all the same.
> 
> *Hillary Clinton: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran”*
> Hillary Clinton If I m President We Will Attack Iran Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
> Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas’ charter “calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel.”
> 
> 
> “I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”
> 
> 
> She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:
> 
> 
> “*I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran.* In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, *we would be able to totally obliterate them.”*
> 
> 
> She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense.
Click to expand...


Some will say anything to get Israel money behind her, she knows what side her bread is buttered on.


----------



## Penelope

Freewill said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you deny their ultimate goals of controlling the region.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *what would you says is our ultimate goal...roughly ....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Protect the strait of Hormuz.
> Keep a rouge group from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
> Protecting Israel
> Protecting oil supply to the world.
Click to expand...


Hormuz, only a problem for SA
Iran doesn't want  a nuke.
Who cares about Israel, they need to take care of themselves.
Iran has lots of Oil and we get most of ours from Canada, SA (South America), and a little bit from SA.

Don't you just love the lower gas prices, I  know I do.


----------



## irosie91

Penelope said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are saying they would use force if necessary to take out the sites.............and I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> would you also agree they would have the right of self defense including asymmetric warfare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will try.............Try and lose..................Let them pound 165 degree index sand.....................I'm not talking about a ground invasion or a occupation here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you know all of this how ?
> 
> If I am them I go balls to the wall to get a Nuke from Korea or something...why....to preserve the Peace...once they get a Nuke  the MICE calms down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you deny their ultimate goals of controlling the region...............all in the name of Allah and the 12th Imam..............
> I don't care what they think..........they support terrorism.........they provided IED's to kill our people..........and they want a nuke.............
> 
> They can go screw a camel for all I care..............and they can't be trusted to honor any deal..........a deal that is a just a BS piece of paper that they will not honor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Iran wanted a nuke they'd have one, they want the sanctions lifted, their money paid to them and in the future they will want isotopes for medical reasons.
Click to expand...


ROFMAO    "health care worker"  Penelope---along with her yes man
slothrop    obviously did not pass high school chemistry----they think  (or are
TRYING DESPERATELY to fart out islamo Nazi propaganda)  that one needs
nuclear reactors and enriched uranium to make    "isotopes for medical reasons"-----they let that moron near patients????


----------



## Freewill

Penelope said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you deny their ultimate goals of controlling the region.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *what would you says is our ultimate goal...roughly ....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Protect the strait of Hormuz.
> Keep a rouge group from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
> Protecting Israel
> Protecting oil supply to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hormuz, only a problem for SA
> Iran doesn't want  a nuke.
> Who cares about Israel, they need to take care of themselves.
> Iran has lots of Oil and we get most of ours from Canada, SA (South America), and a little bit from SA.
> 
> Don't you just love the lower gas prices, I  know I do.
Click to expand...


The *Strait of Hormuz* /hɔrˈmuːz/ Persian: تنگه هرمز‎ _Tangeh-ye Hormoz_ 

 listen (help·info), Arabic: مَضيق هُرمُز‎ _Maḍīq Hurmuz_) is a strait between the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. It is the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is one of the world's most strategically important choke points. On the north coast is Iran, and on the south coast is the United Arab Emirates and Musandam, an exclave of Oman. At its narrowest, the strait is 29 nautical miles (54 km) wide.[1]

About 20% of the world's petroleum, and about 35% of the petroleum traded by sea, passes through the strait making it a highly important strategic location for international trade.[1] Strait of Hormuz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## irosie91

Penelope said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey how are we going to pay for this new splendid war on Iran ..? *
> 
> *maybe give up Medicare maybe Social security .............*
> 
> 
> 
> Who's paying for the 24 sorties a day now against ISIS.................Who's leadership...........
> Who started the attack on Libya..............
> Who is funding rebels to overthrow Assad.......
> Who doubled down in Afghanistan................
> 
> Who is the POTUS NOW...........................he's a walking liberal zombie............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *what are the GOP candidate promising to do if elected .....more war...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Hillary is President, nothing is different.  Stop being a partisan idiot.  These CFR shills are all the same.
> 
> *Hillary Clinton: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran”*
> Hillary Clinton If I m President We Will Attack Iran Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
> Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas’ charter “calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel.”
> 
> 
> “I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”
> 
> 
> She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:
> 
> 
> “*I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran.* In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, *we would be able to totally obliterate them.”*
> 
> 
> She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some will say anything to get Israel money behind her, she knows what side her bread is buttered on.
Click to expand...


some----like Penelope----will say anything to get her whorish ass buttered


----------



## irosie91

Freewill said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you deny their ultimate goals of controlling the region.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *what would you says is our ultimate goal...roughly ....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Protect the strait of Hormuz.
> Keep a rouge group from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
> Protecting Israel
> Protecting oil supply to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hormuz, only a problem for SA
> Iran doesn't want  a nuke.
> Who cares about Israel, they need to take care of themselves.
> Iran has lots of Oil and we get most of ours from Canada, SA (South America), and a little bit from SA.
> 
> Don't you just love the lower gas prices, I  know I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The *Strait of Hormuz* /hɔrˈmuːz/ Persian: تنگه هرمز‎ _Tangeh-ye Hormoz_
> 
> listen (help·info), Arabic: مَضيق هُرمُز‎ _Maḍīq Hurmuz_) is a strait between the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. It is the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is one of the world's most strategically important choke points. On the north coast is Iran, and on the south coast is the United Arab Emirates and Musandam, an exclave of Oman. At its narrowest, the strait is 29 nautical miles (54 km) wide.[1]
> 
> About 20% of the world's petroleum, and about 35% of the petroleum traded by sea, passes through the strait making it a highly important strategic location for international trade.[1] Strait of Hormuz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


thanks free will------I was about to respond to the   health care worker expert in
international trade and world economics-----our very own genius   *****Penelope*****        Anyone who has any questions at all as to what sort of
WORLD PROBLEMS   in trade will happen were the straits of hormuz
blocked------ask genius,  Penelope------of course   WE know the answer----it will
have an effect ONLY on Israel  (good)  and  Saudi Arabia (not bad)   <<<<< islamo Nazi partyline


----------



## JimH52

gipper said:


> Have we learned nothing from decades of military intervention?
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE...which is why a dipshit warmongering fool like Sen. Graham supports war against Iran.



How different are the policies of any of the GOP hopefuls, except Rand Paul?  Not much I am afraid.....


----------



## HUGGY

protectionist said:


> I am certainly no fan of Lindsey Graham (he's a immigrationist), but his ideas about Iran are correct. And he was challenged by a writer in an article in _the Atlantic_, who attempted to refute Graham, in the article linked at the bottom of this page. I will now refute that author's article. *It's necessary to first click the link and read the article (not too long)*, in order to understand what this OP is talking about.
> 
> 1. No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT "a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS"  Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.
> 
> 2. Iran’s _“capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends"_, is only on the basis of the current security situation. But is war against Iran were to ensue, it wouldn't until US national security, et al, would be strengthened to war levels, which is now not the case. So the author is using a false parameter for judgement.
> 
> 3. Oh so _"you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program"_ ? Well, what do you know about that ? EARTH TO AUTHOR: like Iran needs a reason to continue their nuclear program. Like they're not going to, NO MATTER WHAT ? Sheeeesh!
> 
> 4. Here's a good one too. >> _"a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming." _Time for a history lesson. And a question for the author. Do you think the World War II Japanese didn't know months in advance what was coming ? You think Nazi generals thought Roosevelt and Eisenhower were going to sit it out ?
> 
> 5. Here's another beaut >> _"the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has,"_ 2 words answer that. So what ? You mount a full scale invasion of Iran, you fight the Iranians, you defeat them, you take over the country 100%, And you scour every square foot of the country, leaving no stones unturned, with Jack Bauer in charge of interrogations. You destroy everything that resembles nuclear. And you keep there troops there forever. If troop can still be in Germany and Japan 70 years after world War II, they can stay in Iran where they really are needed. And anything less than this, is going to imperil the American people with the risk of nuclear attack (if not annihilation). It simply must be done.
> 
> 6. Iran would not have a vendetta against the US. Does Germany have one now ? Does Iran ?
> Even Vietnam doesn't , and they could justify one. The young Iranian people hate the jihadist lunatics who rule them. Those old rulers will die off, or if need be we could expedite that.
> 
> Lindsey Graham on War with Iran and the Lessons of Iraq - The Atlantic



How many Iranians and Americans must die to satisfy Mr Graham?


----------



## Billo_Really

A war with Iran could bring an end to all life on planet earth.


----------



## irosie91

JimH52 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we learned nothing from decades of military intervention?
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE...which is why a dipshit warmongering fool like Sen. Graham supports war against Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How different are the policies of any of the GOP hopefuls, except Rand Paul?  Not much I am afraid.....
Click to expand...


how different will be the OUTCOME ?    no matter what the administration------
No matter who had been President of the USA in  1941----the USA would have entered WORLD WAR II-------things might have worked out better had the US entered earlier.     There was INTENSIVE  anti-war propaganda at that time

No matter who will be the next president of the USA----the USA   (prediction of
the oracle at USMB   ****rosie****)    will enter a world war within the next 5 years----probably better earlier than later-----but probably later  ---in response to intensive
"anti-war"  propaganda.      Anyone interested in taking bets?


----------



## Freewill

Those calling for war or bombing are doing Obama a favor.  They have no power to do either but the threat might effect negotiations.  On the other hand those crying for an agreement at any cost are doing Obama a disservice.


----------



## irosie91

Freewill said:


> Those calling for war or bombing are doing Obama a favor.  They have no power to do either but the threat might effect negotiations.  On the other hand those crying for an agreement at any cost are doing Obama a disservice.



uhm......at the risk of getting backlash-----I agree.       Right now the USA is seen as  a  "weak sister"----------which   (I expect more backlash) ----encourages Iranian
aggression  and even more Shiite shit from its Hezbollah goons


----------



## irosie91

Billo_Really said:


> A war with Iran could bring an end to all life on planet earth.



nope-----the sun is scheduled to  SUPER NOVA-------next tuesday


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Billo_Really said:


> A war with Iran could bring an end to all life on planet earth.


A war with Iran would needlessly and pointlessly end the lives of American service men and service women.

The right's propensity toward war warrants keeping a republican out of the WH, to avoid another failed, illegal war as we saw with the previous administration.


----------



## Penelope

Freewill said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you deny their ultimate goals of controlling the region.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *what would you says is our ultimate goal...roughly ....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Protect the strait of Hormuz.
> Keep a rouge group from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
> Protecting Israel
> Protecting oil supply to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hormuz, only a problem for SA
> Iran doesn't want  a nuke.
> Who cares about Israel, they need to take care of themselves.
> Iran has lots of Oil and we get most of ours from Canada, SA (South America), and a little bit from SA.
> 
> Don't you just love the lower gas prices, I  know I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The *Strait of Hormuz* /hɔrˈmuːz/ Persian: تنگه هرمز‎ _Tangeh-ye Hormoz_
> 
> listen (help·info), Arabic: مَضيق هُرمُز‎ _Maḍīq Hurmuz_) is a strait between the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. It is the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is one of the world's most strategically important choke points. On the north coast is Iran, and on the south coast is the United Arab Emirates and Musandam, an exclave of Oman. At its narrowest, the strait is 29 nautical miles (54 km) wide.[1]
> 
> About 20% of the world's petroleum, and about 35% of the petroleum traded by sea, passes through the strait making it a highly important strategic location for international trade.[1] Strait of Hormuz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Well the UAE is building another port to bypass the strait, so the only one its a problem for is SA, which is why they want control of Yemen.


----------



## irosie91

for the record----the islamo Nazi scum who continue to fart     "war...war...war"  
are  SCAREMONGERERS          The USA does not have to INVADE  Iran or BOMB it to exert effective pressure on that   SOCIOPATHIC IMPERIALISTIC PILE OF SHIITE SHIT.    ------nor does it have to  drop nukes on it to protect waterways-------
the dogs and pigs are using BUZZWORDS to push their ------LICK THE ASS OF IRNIAN FASCIST AMBITION -----in order to support it-----just as did the pro-hitler pigs of the   1930s.        The islamo Nazi pig----adolf could have been stopped in his tracks  EASILY if not for his millions of supporters in the USA-----way back then-------same is true of  SADDAM---who should have been neutralized circa  1970


----------



## Freewill

irosie91 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those calling for war or bombing are doing Obama a favor.  They have no power to do either but the threat might effect negotiations.  On the other hand those crying for an agreement at any cost are doing Obama a disservice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhm......at the risk of getting backlash-----I agree.       Right now the USA is seen as  a  "weak sister"----------which   (I expect more backlash) ----encourages Iranian
> aggression  and even more Shiite shit from its Hezbollah goons
Click to expand...


Can't avoid the backlash.  The US has no heart for an actual war.  War will be by the leftists terms, hiding in a bunker in Nevada loping missiles on civilian populations.  You know like they did in Serbia by blowing up every bridge that crossed the Danube.  Then we paid to rebuild them, nice real nice.


----------



## gipper

JimH52 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we learned nothing from decades of military intervention?
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE...which is why a dipshit warmongering fool like Sen. Graham supports war against Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How different are the policies of any of the GOP hopefuls, except Rand Paul?  Not much I am afraid.....
Click to expand...

Exactly, but if you weren't a left wing partisan, you would have included all the Ds too.


----------



## Billo_Really

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A war with Iran would needlessly and pointlessly end the lives of American service men and service women.
> 
> The right's propensity toward war warrants keeping a republican out of the WH, to avoid another failed, illegal war as we saw with the previous administration.


A war with Iran will put us in a direct military confrontation with Russia.

Russia will not allow any regime change in Iran.  Russia will not allow Iran to come under NATO's sphere of influence.  And since Russia has a defense pact with China, we fight one, we get them both.

And if it gets to that point, it won't be suicide bombers we'll have to worry about, it will be real bombers, with real bombs, bombs as big as ours. Bombs that can barbecue this country in less than a half hour.


----------



## Moonglow

Matthew said:


> Saudi arabia can fight it...America should focus on ourselve for once...
> 
> -more investment into our infrastructure and science programs...Reforms for our educational system.


and CO2 removal with shovels..


----------



## gipper

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> A war with Iran could bring an end to all life on planet earth.
> 
> 
> 
> A war with Iran would needlessly and pointlessly end the lives of American service men and service women.
> 
> The right's propensity toward war warrants keeping a republican out of the WH, to avoid another failed, illegal war as we saw with the previous administration.
Click to expand...

War is not a partisan issue.  Both parties love war because it increases and centralizes the power of the State.  Always has and always will.


----------



## Bfgrn

War with Iran? Two questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??


----------



## irosie91

Bfgrn said:


> War with Iran? Two questions...
> 
> 1) WHO will fight it?
> 2) HOW will you pay for it??



"war"      is a word-------it can be construed to mean many DIFFERENT situations-----for example------we were in a  "cold war"   with the USSR for many years-----we
were in a cold war with Cuba too.       War with Iran does not necessarily mean bomber jets and people running around with hand grenades and machine guns.    It could mean---simple -----a very unfriendly situation.     Were Iran and its Hezbollah thugs to block the strait of Hormuz-----the USA could challenge that
block------of challenge  Iranian shipping -----stuff like that.      I do not believe that those people who say  "war with Iran"   are thinking  BLITZKRIEG.------it is the idiots of the USA who support the filth of Iranian aggression who are playing
"YOU ARE A WAR MONGERER"-----just as the Nazis in the 1930s accused everyone not willing to lick the ass of  Adolf------as being WAR MONGERERS. 
It was they who facilitated world war II------not the people who warned of the
coming disaster.      Iran is fomenting a disaster-------time to face that reality ---if we do not-------we WILL END UP IN A BLOODY WAR


----------



## Bfgrn

irosie91 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> War with Iran? Two questions...
> 
> 1) WHO will fight it?
> 2) HOW will you pay for it??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "war"      is a word-------it can be construed to mean many DIFFERENT situations-----for example------we were in a  "cold war"   with the USSR for many years-----we
> were in a cold war with Cuba too.       War with Iran does not necessarily mean bomber jets and people running around with hand grenades and machine guns.    It could mean---simple -----a very unfriendly situation.     Were Iran and its Hezbollah thugs to block the strait of Hormuz-----the USA could challenge that
> block------of challenge  Iranian shipping -----stuff like that.      I do not believe that those people who say  "war with Iran"   are thinking  BLITZKRIEG.------it is the idiots of the USA who support the filth of Iranian aggression who are playing
> "YOU ARE A WAR MONGERER"-----just as the Nazis in the 1930s accused everyone not willing to lick the ass of  Adolf------as being WAR MONGERERS.
> It was they who facilitated world war II------not the people who warned of the
> coming disaster.      Iran is fomenting a disaster-------time to face that reality ---if we do not-------we WILL END UP IN A BLOODY WAR
Click to expand...




irosie91 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> War with Iran? Two questions...
> 
> 1) WHO will fight it?
> 2) HOW will you pay for it??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "war"      is a word-------it can be construed to mean many DIFFERENT situations-----for example------we were in a  "cold war"   with the USSR for many years-----we
> were in a cold war with Cuba too.       War with Iran does not necessarily mean bomber jets and people running around with hand grenades and machine guns.    It could mean---simple -----a very unfriendly situation.     Were Iran and its Hezbollah thugs to block the strait of Hormuz-----the USA could challenge that
> block------of challenge  Iranian shipping -----stuff like that.      I do not believe that those people who say  "war with Iran"   are thinking  BLITZKRIEG.------it is the idiots of the USA who support the filth of Iranian aggression who are playing
> "YOU ARE A WAR MONGERER"-----just as the Nazis in the 1930s accused everyone not willing to lick the ass of  Adolf------as being WAR MONGERERS.
> It was they who facilitated world war II------not the people who warned of the
> coming disaster.      Iran is fomenting a disaster-------time to face that reality ---if we do not-------we WILL END UP IN A BLOODY WAR
Click to expand...


How cute..."war is a word"...

What "war" is Lindsey Graham talking about in the OP?

Earlier this week, Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, used a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to stage a theatrical display of his disdain for the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

The most telling part of his time in the spotlight came when he pressed Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to declare who would win if the United States and Iran fought a war:

Here’s a transcript of the relevant part:

*Graham*: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?

*Carter*: No. The United States.

*Graham*: We. Win.

Little more than a decade ago, when Senator Graham urged the invasion of Iraq, he may well have asked a general, “Could we win a war against Saddam Hussein? Who wins?” The answer would’ve been the same: “The United States.” And the U.S. did rout Hussein’s army. It drove the dictator into a hole, and he was executed by the government that the United States installed. And yet, the fact that the Iraqi government of 2002 lost the Iraq War didn’t turn out to mean that the U.S. won it. It incurred trillions in costs; thousands of dead Americans; thousands more with missing limbs and post-traumatic stress disorder and years of deployments away from spouses and children; and in the end, a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS, a force the Iraqis cannot seem to defeat. That’s what happened last time a Lindsey Graham-backed war was waged.


----------



## irosie91

Bfgrn said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> War with Iran? Two questions...
> 
> 1) WHO will fight it?
> 2) HOW will you pay for it??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "war"      is a word-------it can be construed to mean many DIFFERENT situations-----for example------we were in a  "cold war"   with the USSR for many years-----we
> were in a cold war with Cuba too.       War with Iran does not necessarily mean bomber jets and people running around with hand grenades and machine guns.    It could mean---simple -----a very unfriendly situation.     Were Iran and its Hezbollah thugs to block the strait of Hormuz-----the USA could challenge that
> block------of challenge  Iranian shipping -----stuff like that.      I do not believe that those people who say  "war with Iran"   are thinking  BLITZKRIEG.------it is the idiots of the USA who support the filth of Iranian aggression who are playing
> "YOU ARE A WAR MONGERER"-----just as the Nazis in the 1930s accused everyone not willing to lick the ass of  Adolf------as being WAR MONGERERS.
> It was they who facilitated world war II------not the people who warned of the
> coming disaster.      Iran is fomenting a disaster-------time to face that reality ---if we do not-------we WILL END UP IN A BLOODY WAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> War with Iran? Two questions...
> 
> 1) WHO will fight it?
> 2) HOW will you pay for it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "war"      is a word-------it can be construed to mean many DIFFERENT situations-----for example------we were in a  "cold war"   with the USSR for many years-----we
> were in a cold war with Cuba too.       War with Iran does not necessarily mean bomber jets and people running around with hand grenades and machine guns.    It could mean---simple -----a very unfriendly situation.     Were Iran and its Hezbollah thugs to block the strait of Hormuz-----the USA could challenge that
> block------of challenge  Iranian shipping -----stuff like that.      I do not believe that those people who say  "war with Iran"   are thinking  BLITZKRIEG.------it is the idiots of the USA who support the filth of Iranian aggression who are playing
> "YOU ARE A WAR MONGERER"-----just as the Nazis in the 1930s accused everyone not willing to lick the ass of  Adolf------as being WAR MONGERERS.
> It was they who facilitated world war II------not the people who warned of the
> coming disaster.      Iran is fomenting a disaster-------time to face that reality ---if we do not-------we WILL END UP IN A BLOODY WAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How cute..."war is a word"...
> 
> What "war" is Lindsey Graham talking about in the OP?
> 
> Earlier this week, Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, used a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to stage a theatrical display of his disdain for the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.
> 
> The most telling part of his time in the spotlight came when he pressed Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to declare who would win if the United States and Iran fought a war:
> 
> Here’s a transcript of the relevant part:
> 
> *Graham*: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?
> 
> *Carter*: No. The United States.
> 
> *Graham*: We. Win.
> 
> Little more than a decade ago, when Senator Graham urged the invasion of Iraq, he may well have asked a general, “Could we win a war against Saddam Hussein? Who wins?” The answer would’ve been the same: “The United States.” And the U.S. did rout Hussein’s army. It drove the dictator into a hole, and he was executed by the government that the United States installed. And yet, the fact that the Iraqi government of 2002 lost the Iraq War didn’t turn out to mean that the U.S. won it. It incurred trillions in costs; thousands of dead Americans; thousands more with missing limbs and post-traumatic stress disorder and years of deployments away from spouses and children; and in the end, a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS, a force the Iraqis cannot seem to defeat. That’s what happened last time a Lindsey Graham-backed war was waged.
Click to expand...


how cute---the war we fought with Iraq was costly.      In fact I do not believe that the war we fought with Iraq was well conceived.   Lots and lots of big mistakes.     SO?    you actually imagine you made a point?


----------



## protectionist

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon!"
> 
> One of many, many good reasons to keep a republican out of the WH come 2017.


For those who support Iran annihilating the USA.


----------



## protectionist

Bfgrn said:


> How cute..."war is a word"...
> 
> What "war" is Lindsey Graham talking about in the OP?
> 
> Earlier this week, Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, used a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to stage a theatrical display of his disdain for the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.
> 
> The most telling part of his time in the spotlight came when he pressed Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to declare who would win if the United States and Iran fought a war:
> 
> Here’s a transcript of the relevant part:
> 
> *Graham*: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?
> 
> *Carter*: No. The United States.
> 
> *Graham*: We. Win.
> 
> Little more than a decade ago, when Senator Graham urged the invasion of Iraq, he may well have asked a general, “Could we win a war against Saddam Hussein? Who wins?” The answer would’ve been the same: “The United States.” And the U.S. did rout Hussein’s army. It drove the dictator into a hole, and he was executed by the government that the United States installed. And yet, the fact that the Iraqi government of 2002 lost the Iraq War didn’t turn out to mean that the U.S. won it. It incurred trillions in costs; thousands of dead Americans; thousands more with missing limbs and post-traumatic stress disorder and years of deployments away from spouses and children; and in the end, a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS, a force the Iraqis cannot seem to defeat. That’s what happened last time a Lindsey Graham-backed war was waged.


This is part of the stupid Atlantic article which was refuted in item # 1 of the OP.  Here it is again>>

No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT _"a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS"  _Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.


----------



## protectionist

Jantje_Smit said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am certainly no fan of Lindsey Graham (he's a immigrationist), but his ideas about Iran are correct....
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you just know they have WMD, they have links to 9/11, you'll be welcomed as liberators, the war will pay for itself...  Sounds a bit familiar though
Click to expand...

No need for straw manning.  Iran is building nukes.  The whole world has seen it on TV.  Defense is mandatory, and will pay for itself in our SURVIVAL.


----------



## Billo_Really

protectionist said:


> This is part of the stupid Atlantic article which was refuted in item # 1 of the OP.  Here it is again>>
> 
> No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT _"a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS"  _Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.


That's bullshit!

ISIS is a fully funded, fully supported, CIA creation.


----------



## protectionist

Mr Clean said:


> Let the ragheads deal with their own problems for once.
> 
> With any luck at all, they'll wipe themselves out and rid the planet of their kind forever.


Admirable wish, but I wouldn't place the survival of the USA on luck.


----------



## protectionist

Billo_Really said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is part of the stupid Atlantic article which was refuted in item # 1 of the OP.  Here it is again>>
> 
> No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT _"a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS"  _Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit!
> 
> ISIS is a fully funded, fully supported, CIA creation.
Click to expand...

HA HA HA.  That's


----------



## Billo_Really

protectionist said:


> HA HA HA.  That's


And you're an irresponsible piece of shit.


----------



## protectionist

gipper said:


> Have we learned nothing from decades of military intervention?
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE...


What the hell does this mean ?  Another goofball leftist talking point ?


----------



## protectionist

Billo_Really said:


> And you're an irresponsible piece of shit.


And you're a 100% programmed


----------



## Billo_Really

protectionist said:


> And you're a 100% programmed


Well, we're in agreement there.


----------



## protectionist

frigidweirdo said:


> As I've said numerous times.
> 
> In 2001 there were four enemies of the US that were OPEC members.
> 
> In 2002 there was a coup against Chavez, leader of Venezuela.
> In 2003 the invasion of Iraq.
> In 2011 the bombing and helping to oust Gaddafi.
> Iran has suffered sanctions, as has Venezuela recently.
> 
> So, is there any surprise that the right feel Iran needs to be invaded? Is there any surprise that they hate this deal with Iran that takes away their excuse for invading?
> 
> It's ridiculous, thinly veiled attempt at invasion, we know why, it's not because of nukes, it's not because of their religion, it's because they're OPEC and hate the US.
> 
> The funny thing is though that the Saudis are the main player in OPEC going against the wishes of the US. But as they're "allies" the US won't do anything.


Just because one advocates the invasion of Iran, to defend the US from nuclear attack, doesn't mean that they are supportive of the Saudis and OPEC.


----------



## protectionist

Billo_Really said:


> Well, we're in agreement there.


Glad you admit that.


----------



## protectionist

Matthew said:


> Saudi arabia can fight it...America should focus on ourselve for once...-more investment into our infrastructure and science programs...Reforms for our educational system.


To dump it into the lap of another country ... is to GAMBLE with the survival of the USA. I don't gamble with stakes that high.


----------



## protectionist

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Dear Conservatives
> 
> you all do know if we go to war against Iran a lot of Iranian fetuses and pregnant women will be killed...do you want abortions done with Military weapons  ?*
> 
> *Yes _____*
> 
> *No_____*


In the famous words of Sylvester Stallone >> _"A man's gotta do, what a man's gotta do"





_


----------



## protectionist

MisterBeale said:


> Why is it okay for the US to fund terrorism, but not Iran?


Stupid post.


----------



## protectionist

TyroneSlothrop said:


> If we have a war against Iran a lot of Iranians will die ...for US political reasons


Well then Iran can prevent that > just by surrendering when we arrive.


----------



## protectionist

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *who is going to stop the Empire from funding terrorism ???*


The OP answered that.


----------



## protectionist

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  Let the next president worry about the ramifications, just like did Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Clinton left weakling 43 a nightmare of Peace and prosperity and projected Government budget surplus..........*
> 
> You did say neither Iran no the US should fund terrorism correct..? that means a tacit agreement that the US does fund terrorism ...it does and then some
> 
> since the end of World War II, the United States has:
> 
> * Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
> 
> * Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
> 
> * Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
> 
> * Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
> 
> * Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries, according to Chapter 18 of his book Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.
Click to expand...

All of these are wars of sorts done to defend the American people.  There haven't been enough of them.  Morsi should have been taken out, instead of leaving it to the Egyptians.  Thank God they got the job done.


----------



## protectionist

MisterBeale said:


> Exactly.  People can't support going to war against Iran till we curtail all clandestine operations in the ME.  As long as we are mucking about in Syria, funding _Al_-_Qaeda_, funding this rebel group or that rebel group to achieve our goals, etc.  We have no right to be launching an invasion of Iran or criticizing them for "supporting" terrorists.  We do that same damn thing.
> 
> Our elites have policy goals in the ME, their elites have policy goals in the ME.  Our press is going to spin it one way, their press is going to spin it the other way.  If you believe everything our corporate and state press push on us with out thinking about it in an unbiased critical fashion, you have become a jingoistic partisan tool of the establishment.  Nothing more than cannon fodder.


We have a right to do anything that is necessary to secure our survival.


----------



## protectionist

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> What terrorist group is Obama funding today?  Or ever?  You need to name them or what you are saying is pure BS.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> *Syrian official: US 'supporting terrorism' with rebel training ...*
> *View attachment 46187*
> *Al-Nusra raids rival US-trained militants in Syria, kills 11: Group*
> 
> 
> *The terrorists fighting us now? We just finished training them ...*
Click to expand...

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


----------



## protectionist

eagle1462010 said:


> Who the fuck cares................he'd double down on sanctions which have helped force them to the table now...................It didn't matter then that we got a deal and it doesn't matter now.................we could impose them until hell freezes over and it wouldn't make a damned difference................................
> 
> There was never a reason to force the issue now on their terms................which is what happened...................and we will give them more money to play with.  It is money that will not go to the people there................It will go into the hands of the leadership there.............and will continue to be used for increased military procurement..........................including cruise missiles from Russia with Love, and ICBM tech which only use is to deploy Nuclear warheads................
> 
> Only a fool would think they need them............and only a fool would recognize that it is for the purpose other than their lies on it's for nuclear power................
> 
> A fool runs this country supported by foolish posters like tyrone.


100% true. And this is why there is no alternative but to go into Iran, fight the Iranians, defeat them, take over the whole country, scour it inside out for nuke anything, destroy everything nuke, and keep massive numbers of troops there, to insure they don't try again.  Anything less than this is GAMBLING with USA survival.


----------



## Jantje_Smit

protectionist said:


> No need for straw manning.  Iran is building nukes.  The whole world has seen it on TV.  Defense is mandatory, and will pay for itself in our SURVIVAL.



If Iran is building nukes you better tell the IAEA, CIA, Mossad etc. because they seem to be in denial.

And the whole world really doesn't watch Faux news, no matter what you cultists think.

Oh, and nobody buys your defense bull$hit. If you weren't incredible hypocrites you would change the name to war department again.


----------



## Bfgrn

protectionist said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How cute..."war is a word"...
> 
> What "war" is Lindsey Graham talking about in the OP?
> 
> Earlier this week, Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, used a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to stage a theatrical display of his disdain for the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.
> 
> The most telling part of his time in the spotlight came when he pressed Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to declare who would win if the United States and Iran fought a war:
> 
> Here’s a transcript of the relevant part:
> 
> *Graham*: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?
> 
> *Carter*: No. The United States.
> 
> *Graham*: We. Win.
> 
> Little more than a decade ago, when Senator Graham urged the invasion of Iraq, he may well have asked a general, “Could we win a war against Saddam Hussein? Who wins?” The answer would’ve been the same: “The United States.” And the U.S. did rout Hussein’s army. It drove the dictator into a hole, and he was executed by the government that the United States installed. And yet, the fact that the Iraqi government of 2002 lost the Iraq War didn’t turn out to mean that the U.S. won it. It incurred trillions in costs; thousands of dead Americans; thousands more with missing limbs and post-traumatic stress disorder and years of deployments away from spouses and children; and in the end, a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS, a force the Iraqis cannot seem to defeat. That’s what happened last time a Lindsey Graham-backed war was waged.
> 
> 
> 
> This is part of the stupid Atlantic article which was refuted in item # 1 of the OP.  Here it is again>>
> 
> No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT _"a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS"  _Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT...

First of all, you didn't answer my questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??

Second...Iraq was not "under US control". The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny.

Iraq demanded US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2008 forcing Bush to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that required that all U.S. forces be  gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.


----------



## protectionist

Jantje_Smit said:


> If Iran is building nukes you better tell the IAEA, CIA, Mossad etc. because they seem to be in denial.
> 
> And the whole world really doesn't watch Faux news, no matter what you cultists think.
> 
> Oh, and nobody buys your defense bull$hit. If you weren't incredible hypocrites you would change the name to war department again.


Sounds like you've been watching Faux MSNBC.  I those loons are saying that he IAEA, CIA, and Mossad deny that Iran is building nukes, they're even farther out in the lunatic frnge than I thought

EARTH TO JS:  The Iranians building nuclear weapons is on TV every day.  And almost everybody is aware of the Iranian threat. Even Obama and Kerry agree to that.  They just have an idiotic way of trying to defend against it.


----------



## protectionist

Bfgrn said:


> BULLSHIT...
> 
> First of all, you didn't answer my questions...
> 
> 1) WHO will fight it?
> 2) HOW will you pay for it??
> 
> Second...Iraq was not "under US control". The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny.
> 
> Iraq demanded US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2008 forcing Bush to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that required that all U.S. forces be  gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.



I don't recall you asking these questions, but here's the answers.>>

1)  American troops + a coalition of allies.

2)  We won't. Iran will.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about SOFA.  It doesn't mean squat.  When the defense of the American people from nuclear attack is at stake, nothing is off the table (including keeping troops in Iraq)  And ISIS could gain enough wealth to acquire nukes, and they are seeking them.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

protectionist said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT...
> 
> First of all, you didn't answer my questions...
> 
> 1) WHO will fight it?
> 2) HOW will you pay for it??
> 
> Second...Iraq was not "under US control". The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny.
> 
> Iraq demanded US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2008 forcing Bush to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that required that all U.S. forces be  gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall you asking these questions, but here's the answers.>>
> 
> 1)  American troops + a coalition of allies.
> 
> 2)  We won't. Iran will.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I know all about SOFA.  It doesn't mean squat.  When the defense of the American people from nuclear attack is at stake, nothing is off the table (including keeping troops in Iraq)  And ISIS could gain enough wealth to acquire nukes, and they are seeking them.
Click to expand...

US troops will be dying every single day we occupy Iran...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

protectionist said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dear Conservatives
> 
> you all do know if we go to war against Iran a lot of Iranian fetuses and pregnant women will be killed...do you want abortions done with Military weapons  ?*
> 
> *Yes _____*
> 
> *No_____*
> 
> 
> 
> In the famous words of Sylvester Stallone >> _"A man's gotta do, what a man's gotta do"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...

Rambo '16 ..U B Moron


----------



## protectionist

TyroneSlothrop said:


> US troops will be dying every single day we occupy Iran...



Yeah, so ?  You're gonna not fight a war because your troops are gonna die ?  They die in every war.  What if Roosevelt had said we're not gonna fight, because US troops will die ?


----------



## CremeBrulee

Quick question:  Doesn't war with Iran pretty much guarantee an attempted attack on U.S. interests with whatever they are cooking up in the mountains?

Was just tryin to enjoy these rice krispy treats and came in here.  Shit is serious. War NOW!


----------



## protectionist

CremeBrulee said:


> Quick question:  Doesn't war with Iran pretty much guarantee an attempted attack on U.S. interests with whatever they are cooking up in the mountains?
> 
> Was just tryin to enjoy these rice krispy treats and came in here.  Shit is serious. War NOW!


War usually means attacks in various places.  Just like in World War II.  Europe, Asia, North Africa.  So ?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

protectionist said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> US troops will be dying every single day we occupy Iran...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so ?  You're gonna not fight a war because your troops are gonna die ?  They die in every war.  What if Roosevelt had said we're not gonna fight, because US troops will die ?
Click to expand...

Send yourself send your family I do not care about them...I care about the rest of the troops


----------



## CremeBrulee

Just seems a bit odd.  In order to prevent the worst case scenario (Iranian nuclear attack), we have to engage in an action that will almost certainly lead to that scenario.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Lets go fight wars yippeee lets put up a picture of Rambo yahooo...what an effing freak*

*






 <----- A Cartoonish Movie character *


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

protectionist said:


> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question:  Doesn't war with Iran pretty much guarantee an attempted attack on U.S. interests with whatever they are cooking up in the mountains?
> 
> Was just tryin to enjoy these rice krispy treats and came in here.  Shit is serious. War NOW!
> 
> 
> 
> War usually means attacks in various places.  Just like in World War II.  Europe, Asia, North Africa.  So ?
Click to expand...

*are we in WW 2 old timer?* ...how about a picture of Chuck Norris AND Rambo ...that way we will all be impressed by how "HARD NOSED"  you are...you are a total moron


----------



## CremeBrulee

Don't forget Senator Graham is running for president.  How much of that display in Congress or the Atlantic editorial for that matter is for voter consumption?


----------



## gipper

protectionist said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we learned nothing from decades of military intervention?
> 
> War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE...
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does this mean ?  Another goofball leftist talking point ?
Click to expand...

Leftist???  Really???  I sure get a kick out of posters confusing me with a leftist.

Look up the meaning, since apparently you can't figure it.  It might enlighten you.  Its meaning should be required learning for all Americans.

Google - *War is the health of the state*...and get back to me.


----------



## Jantje_Smit

protectionist said:


> Sounds like you've been watching Faux MSNBC.  I those loons are saying that he IAEA, CIA, and Mossad deny that Iran is building nukes, they're even farther out in the lunatic frnge than I thought
> 
> EARTH TO JS:  The Iranians building nuclear weapons is on TV every day.  And almost everybody is aware of the Iranian threat. Even Obama and Kerry agree to that.  They just have an idiotic way of trying to defend against it.



Sorry tea cultist, there really isn't going to be a liberation of the Iranian oil fields and nobody cares what your messiah says anymore


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said numerous times.
> 
> In 2001 there were four enemies of the US that were OPEC members.
> 
> In 2002 there was a coup against Chavez, leader of Venezuela.
> In 2003 the invasion of Iraq.
> In 2011 the bombing and helping to oust Gaddafi.
> Iran has suffered sanctions, as has Venezuela recently.
> 
> So, is there any surprise that the right feel Iran needs to be invaded? Is there any surprise that they hate this deal with Iran that takes away their excuse for invading?
> 
> It's ridiculous, thinly veiled attempt at invasion, we know why, it's not because of nukes, it's not because of their religion, it's because they're OPEC and hate the US.
> 
> The funny thing is though that the Saudis are the main player in OPEC going against the wishes of the US. But as they're "allies" the US won't do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because one advocates the invasion of Iran, to defend the US from nuclear attack, doesn't mean that they are supportive of the Saudis and OPEC.
Click to expand...




protectionist said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said numerous times.
> 
> In 2001 there were four enemies of the US that were OPEC members.
> 
> In 2002 there was a coup against Chavez, leader of Venezuela.
> In 2003 the invasion of Iraq.
> In 2011 the bombing and helping to oust Gaddafi.
> Iran has suffered sanctions, as has Venezuela recently.
> 
> So, is there any surprise that the right feel Iran needs to be invaded? Is there any surprise that they hate this deal with Iran that takes away their excuse for invading?
> 
> It's ridiculous, thinly veiled attempt at invasion, we know why, it's not because of nukes, it's not because of their religion, it's because they're OPEC and hate the US.
> 
> The funny thing is though that the Saudis are the main player in OPEC going against the wishes of the US. But as they're "allies" the US won't do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because one advocates the invasion of Iran, to defend the US from nuclear attack, doesn't mean that they are supportive of the Saudis and OPEC.
Click to expand...


Oh, now it's defending the US from nuclear attack. I'm sorry, but Iran isn't going to nuke the US. 

You should be more worried about Pakistan.

You know that the supposed threat from Iran is the same as the supposed threat from Iraq in 2003. Non-existent.

Sure, Iran isn't the best of countries, it treats its people not so great, however better than the Saudis, for example. But that's an issue for the Iranian people, not the US. 

Why do you think the Iranians want to nuke the USA and not other countries? Think about it, it might tell you a lot about US foreign policy over the last 70 years or so.

But you're right, just because someone supports the invasion of Iran doesn't mean they support the Saudis. However the US govt DOES, which is what is important here.


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  Let the next president worry about the ramifications, just like did Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Clinton left weakling 43 a nightmare of Peace and prosperity and projected Government budget surplus..........*
> 
> You did say neither Iran no the US should fund terrorism correct..? that means a tacit agreement that the US does fund terrorism ...it does and then some
> 
> since the end of World War II, the United States has:
> 
> * Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
> 
> * Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
> 
> * Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
> 
> * Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
> 
> * Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries, according to Chapter 18 of his book Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of these are wars of sorts done to defend the American people.  There haven't been enough of them.  Morsi should have been taken out, instead of leaving it to the Egyptians.  Thank God they got the job done.
Click to expand...


Do you not understand the consequences of US action around the world?

Due to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the US has made the world a much less stable place and far more dangerous for Americans to be in.


----------



## eagle1462010

protectionist said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares................he'd double down on sanctions which have helped force them to the table now...................It didn't matter then that we got a deal and it doesn't matter now.................we could impose them until hell freezes over and it wouldn't make a damned difference................................
> 
> There was never a reason to force the issue now on their terms................which is what happened...................and we will give them more money to play with.  It is money that will not go to the people there................It will go into the hands of the leadership there.............and will continue to be used for increased military procurement..........................including cruise missiles from Russia with Love, and ICBM tech which only use is to deploy Nuclear warheads................
> 
> Only a fool would think they need them............and only a fool would recognize that it is for the purpose other than their lies on it's for nuclear power................
> 
> A fool runs this country supported by foolish posters like tyrone.
> 
> 
> 
> 100% true. And this is why there is no alternative but to go into Iran, fight the Iranians, defeat them, take over the whole country, scour it inside out for nuke anything, destroy everything nuke, and keep massive numbers of troops there, to insure they don't try again.  Anything less than this is GAMBLING with USA survival.
Click to expand...

My point was not a ground invasion and occupation.  My point was to target the sites and take them out from either air or sea assets and set them back a decade or so.  And only after increased sanctions didn't put up a better deal to try one last time to prevent them from getting the bomb.

I don't think, given their ideology, that they will go along with any deal.  They have proven that over 35 years.  In the end, we will more than likely have to take these sites out.  I would also remind you that the last thing our forces want is another long drawn out conflict.  They are still fighting over there now, as our current gov't CUT'S THEIR NUMBERS AGAIN.  40,000 army cuts are starting now.

A couple of aircraft carrier groups can put Iran into submission is necessary.  

So we disagree in occupation of Iran, but not in the essence of having to eventually deal with them militarily.  And this deal ensures their capabilities come up instead of down, as Russia and China are chomping at the bit to sell them advanced weapons systems including ICBM TECH that has ONLY ONE PURPOSE...........delivering a danged Nuclear bomb.


----------



## Bfgrn

eagle1462010 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares................he'd double down on sanctions which have helped force them to the table now...................It didn't matter then that we got a deal and it doesn't matter now.................we could impose them until hell freezes over and it wouldn't make a damned difference................................
> 
> There was never a reason to force the issue now on their terms................which is what happened...................and we will give them more money to play with.  It is money that will not go to the people there................It will go into the hands of the leadership there.............and will continue to be used for increased military procurement..........................including cruise missiles from Russia with Love, and ICBM tech which only use is to deploy Nuclear warheads................
> 
> Only a fool would think they need them............and only a fool would recognize that it is for the purpose other than their lies on it's for nuclear power................
> 
> A fool runs this country supported by foolish posters like tyrone.
> 
> 
> 
> 100% true. And this is why there is no alternative but to go into Iran, fight the Iranians, defeat them, take over the whole country, scour it inside out for nuke anything, destroy everything nuke, and keep massive numbers of troops there, to insure they don't try again.  Anything less than this is GAMBLING with USA survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was not a ground invasion and occupation.  My point was to target the sites and take them out from either air or sea assets and set them back a decade or so.  And only after increased sanctions didn't put up a better deal to try one last time to prevent them from getting the bomb.
> 
> I don't think, given their ideology, that they will go along with any deal.  They have proven that over 35 years.  In the end, we will more than likely have to take these sites out.  I would also remind you that the last thing our forces want is another long drawn out conflict.  They are still fighting over there now, as our current gov't CUT'S THEIR NUMBERS AGAIN.  40,000 army cuts are starting now.
> 
> A couple of aircraft carrier groups can put Iran into submission is necessary.
> 
> So we disagree in occupation of Iran, but not in the essence of having to eventually deal with them militarily.  And this deal ensures their capabilities come up instead of down, as Russia and China are chomping at the bit to sell them advanced weapons systems including ICBM TECH that has ONLY ONE PURPOSE...........delivering a danged Nuclear bomb.
Click to expand...


How many American hostages did Iran kill in 1979? 

Why did Iran round up hundreds of Arabs to help the United States counter al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attack after they crossed the border from Afghanistan?

James F. Dobbins, the Bush administration's chief negotiator on Afghanistan in late 2001, said Iran was "comprehensively helpful" in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack in 2001 in working to overthrow the Taliban militias' rule and collaborating with the United States to install the Karzai government in Kabul.

Iranian diplomats made clear at the time they were looking for broader cooperation with the United States, but the Bush administration was not interested...

Instead the retard Bush the "decider" decided instead to denounce Iran as part of an "axis of evil" and declined to consider resumption of diplomatic relations.

Iran Gave U.S. Help On Al Qaeda After 9 11 - CBS News


----------



## eagle1462010

Bfgrn said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares................he'd double down on sanctions which have helped force them to the table now...................It didn't matter then that we got a deal and it doesn't matter now.................we could impose them until hell freezes over and it wouldn't make a damned difference................................
> 
> There was never a reason to force the issue now on their terms................which is what happened...................and we will give them more money to play with.  It is money that will not go to the people there................It will go into the hands of the leadership there.............and will continue to be used for increased military procurement..........................including cruise missiles from Russia with Love, and ICBM tech which only use is to deploy Nuclear warheads................
> 
> Only a fool would think they need them............and only a fool would recognize that it is for the purpose other than their lies on it's for nuclear power................
> 
> A fool runs this country supported by foolish posters like tyrone.
> 
> 
> 
> 100% true. And this is why there is no alternative but to go into Iran, fight the Iranians, defeat them, take over the whole country, scour it inside out for nuke anything, destroy everything nuke, and keep massive numbers of troops there, to insure they don't try again.  Anything less than this is GAMBLING with USA survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was not a ground invasion and occupation.  My point was to target the sites and take them out from either air or sea assets and set them back a decade or so.  And only after increased sanctions didn't put up a better deal to try one last time to prevent them from getting the bomb.
> 
> I don't think, given their ideology, that they will go along with any deal.  They have proven that over 35 years.  In the end, we will more than likely have to take these sites out.  I would also remind you that the last thing our forces want is another long drawn out conflict.  They are still fighting over there now, as our current gov't CUT'S THEIR NUMBERS AGAIN.  40,000 army cuts are starting now.
> 
> A couple of aircraft carrier groups can put Iran into submission is necessary.
> 
> So we disagree in occupation of Iran, but not in the essence of having to eventually deal with them militarily.  And this deal ensures their capabilities come up instead of down, as Russia and China are chomping at the bit to sell them advanced weapons systems including ICBM TECH that has ONLY ONE PURPOSE...........delivering a danged Nuclear bomb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many American hostages did Iran kill in 1979?
> 
> Why did Iran round up hundreds of Arabs to help the United States counter al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attack after they crossed the border from Afghanistan?
> 
> James F. Dobbins, the Bush administration's chief negotiator on Afghanistan in late 2001, said Iran was "comprehensively helpful" in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack in 2001 in working to overthrow the Taliban militias' rule and collaborating with the United States to install the Karzai government in Kabul.
> 
> Iranian diplomats made clear at the time they were looking for broader cooperation with the United States, but the Bush administration was not interested...
> 
> Instead the retard Bush the "decider" decided instead to denounce Iran as part of an "axis of evil" and declined to consider resumption of diplomatic relations.
> 
> Iran Gave U.S. Help On Al Qaeda After 9 11 - CBS News
Click to expand...

Your Liberal Skirt is showing.  They held our hostages for 444 days.  They used psych.  torture on them all the time.  They used to take a gun to their heads with no bullets saying this is the end...............and pulled empty chambers on their heads.

To attack an Embassy and hold our people hostage is an ACT OF WAR.  And they didn't kill them because they KNEW WE WOULD GO TO WAR OVER IT....................The THREAT OF WAR KEPT THEM ALIVE............PERIOD.

And you ignore that the Iranians pander to all sides of the equation............and ignore that the IED tech killed many of our people.


----------



## Bfgrn

protectionist said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT...
> 
> First of all, you didn't answer my questions...
> 
> 1) WHO will fight it?
> 2) HOW will you pay for it??
> 
> Second...Iraq was not "under US control". The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny.
> 
> Iraq demanded US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2008 forcing Bush to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that required that all U.S. forces be  gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall you asking these questions, but here's the answers.>>
> 
> 1)  American troops + a coalition of allies.
> 
> 2)  We won't. Iran will.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I know all about SOFA.  It doesn't mean squat.  When the defense of the American people from nuclear attack is at stake, nothing is off the table (including keeping troops in Iraq)  And ISIS could gain enough wealth to acquire nukes, and they are seeking them.
Click to expand...



OHHHH, the war will pay for itself...where have I heard that retarded idea *before*?

*The projections*: Ahead of and shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a number of officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz suggested the war could be done on the cheap and that it would largely pay for itself. In October 2003, Rumsfeld told a press conference about President Bush's request for $21 billion for Iraq and Afghan reconstruction that "the $20 billion the president requested is not intended to cover all of Iraq's needs. The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community." In March 2003, Mr. Wolfowitz told Congress that "we're really dealing with a country that could finance its own reconstruction." In April 2003, the Pentagon said the war would cost about $2 billion a month, and in July of that year Rumsfeld increased that estimate to $4 billion.

*What happened?* The Iraq war cost about $800 billion, or about $7.6 billion a month. When long term benefits are paid out connected with the death and injury of US troops there, the number is expected to rise to about $1 trillion, or about $9.5 billion a month. About $60 billion was spent directly on Iraq reconstruction efforts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You clearly don't "know all about SOFA"...you said "Iraq was under US control". It wasn't...the Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny.

And you didn't know that the SOFA Bush signed had harmful provisions requiring U.S. troops to leave Iraqi cities by the summer of 2009, rendering them powerless in containing future violence. In addition to withdrawal from cities by mid-2009 and total withdrawal by the end of 2011 were requirements that U.S. combat troops coordinate missions with the Iraqi government; hand over prisoners to Iraqi authorities; relinquish control of the Green Zone; and give Iraqi authorities the lead in monitoring Iraqi airspace. The agreement also allows for nonmilitary contractors to be subject to Iraqi law, a change contracting advocates fear will open civilians up to unfair prosecution.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448#p5


----------



## Bfgrn

eagle1462010 said:


> Your Liberal Skirt is showing.  They held our hostages for 444 days.  They used psych.  torture on them all the time.  They used to take a gun to their heads with no bullets saying this is the end...............and pulled empty chambers on their heads.
> 
> To attack an Embassy and hold our people hostage is an ACT OF WAR.  And they didn't kill them because they KNEW WE WOULD GO TO WAR OVER IT....................The THREAT OF WAR KEPT THEM ALIVE............PERIOD.
> 
> And you ignore that the Iranians pander to all sides of the equation............and ignore that the IED tech killed many of our people.



LOL...on "this" thread my "Liberal Skirt is showing"...does that mean you will save "totalitarian killer" for another thread?

SOOOO...Iran used "torture" on Americans, but America using the same methods DIDN'T use "torture" at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo... your retarded brain is showing...

Why did Iran take American hostages? Is there anything America did that caused it?


----------



## MisterBeale

protectionist said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  People can't support going to war against Iran till we curtail all clandestine operations in the ME.  As long as we are mucking about in Syria, funding _Al_-_Qaeda_, funding this rebel group or that rebel group to achieve our goals, etc.  We have no right to be launching an invasion of Iran or criticizing them for "supporting" terrorists.  We do that same damn thing.
> 
> Our elites have policy goals in the ME, their elites have policy goals in the ME.  Our press is going to spin it one way, their press is going to spin it the other way.  If you believe everything our corporate and state press push on us with out thinking about it in an unbiased critical fashion, you have become a jingoistic partisan tool of the establishment.  Nothing more than cannon fodder.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a right to do anything that is necessary to secure our survival.
Click to expand...


----------



## eagle1462010

Bfgrn said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Liberal Skirt is showing.  They held our hostages for 444 days.  They used psych.  torture on them all the time.  They used to take a gun to their heads with no bullets saying this is the end...............and pulled empty chambers on their heads.
> 
> To attack an Embassy and hold our people hostage is an ACT OF WAR.  And they didn't kill them because they KNEW WE WOULD GO TO WAR OVER IT....................The THREAT OF WAR KEPT THEM ALIVE............PERIOD.
> 
> And you ignore that the Iranians pander to all sides of the equation............and ignore that the IED tech killed many of our people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...on "this" thread my "Liberal Skirt is showing"...does that mean you will save "totalitarian killer" for another thread?
> 
> SOOOO...Iran used "torture" on Americans, but America using the same methods DIDN'T use "torture" at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo... your retarded brain is showing...
> 
> Why did Iran take American hostages? Is there anything America did that caused it?
Click to expand...

We supported a leader who didn't rule my Religion an the Islamic doctrine and rules.  Imagine a time that women their went to the beach with BIKINI'S..........................OH MY FUCKING GOD...............Now they get the Burkas..........Religion rules................the 12th Imam prophecies.......................and Islam will dominate the world...........................

Yeah............we made a mistake back in 1979...........We should have done what we did in 1953 and make end it right there................instead of allowing it to grow.


----------



## irosie91

***))))))))))))) C A R T E


eagle1462010 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Liberal Skirt is showing.  They held our hostages for 444 days.  They used psych.  torture on them all the time.  They used to take a gun to their heads with no bullets saying this is the end...............and pulled empty chambers on their heads.
> 
> To attack an Embassy and hold our people hostage is an ACT OF WAR.  And they didn't kill them because they KNEW WE WOULD GO TO WAR OVER IT....................The THREAT OF WAR KEPT THEM ALIVE............PERIOD.
> 
> And you ignore that the Iranians pander to all sides of the equation............and ignore that the IED tech killed many of our people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...on "this" thread my "Liberal Skirt is showing"...does that mean you will save "totalitarian killer" for another thread?
> 
> SOOOO...Iran used "torture" on Americans, but America using the same methods DIDN'T use "torture" at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo... your retarded brain is showing...
> 
> Why did Iran take American hostages? Is there anything America did that caused it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We supported a leader who didn't rule my Religion an the Islamic doctrine and rules.  Imagine a time that women their went to the beach with BIKINI'S..........................OH MY FUCKING GOD...............Now they get the Burkas..........Religion rules................the 12th Imam prophecies.......................and Islam will dominate the world...........................
> 
> Yeah............we made a mistake back in 1979...........We should have done what we did in 1953 and make end it right there................instead of allowing it to grow.
Click to expand...

 
                 *))))))    C A R T E R    (((((((*

                                screwed the world


----------



## Penelope

eagle1462010 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Liberal Skirt is showing.  They held our hostages for 444 days.  They used psych.  torture on them all the time.  They used to take a gun to their heads with no bullets saying this is the end...............and pulled empty chambers on their heads.
> 
> To attack an Embassy and hold our people hostage is an ACT OF WAR.  And they didn't kill them because they KNEW WE WOULD GO TO WAR OVER IT....................The THREAT OF WAR KEPT THEM ALIVE............PERIOD.
> 
> And you ignore that the Iranians pander to all sides of the equation............and ignore that the IED tech killed many of our people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...on "this" thread my "Liberal Skirt is showing"...does that mean you will save "totalitarian killer" for another thread?
> 
> SOOOO...Iran used "torture" on Americans, but America using the same methods DIDN'T use "torture" at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo... your retarded brain is showing...
> 
> Why did Iran take American hostages? Is there anything America did that caused it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We supported a leader who didn't rule my Religion an the Islamic doctrine and rules.  Imagine a time that women their went to the beach with BIKINI'S..........................OH MY FUCKING GOD...............Now they get the Burkas..........Religion rules................the 12th Imam prophecies.......................and Islam will dominate the world...........................
> 
> Yeah............we made a mistake back in 1979...........We should have done what we did in 1953 and make end it right there................instead of allowing it to grow.
Click to expand...




irosie91 said:


> ***))))))))))))) C A R T E
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Liberal Skirt is showing.  They held our hostages for 444 days.  They used psych.  torture on them all the time.  They used to take a gun to their heads with no bullets saying this is the end...............and pulled empty chambers on their heads.
> 
> To attack an Embassy and hold our people hostage is an ACT OF WAR.  And they didn't kill them because they KNEW WE WOULD GO TO WAR OVER IT....................The THREAT OF WAR KEPT THEM ALIVE............PERIOD.
> 
> And you ignore that the Iranians pander to all sides of the equation............and ignore that the IED tech killed many of our people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...on "this" thread my "Liberal Skirt is showing"...does that mean you will save "totalitarian killer" for another thread?
> 
> SOOOO...Iran used "torture" on Americans, but America using the same methods DIDN'T use "torture" at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo... your retarded brain is showing...
> 
> Why did Iran take American hostages? Is there anything America did that caused it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We supported a leader who didn't rule my Religion an the Islamic doctrine and rules.  Imagine a time that women their went to the beach with BIKINI'S..........................OH MY FUCKING GOD...............Now they get the Burkas..........Religion rules................the 12th Imam prophecies.......................and Islam will dominate the world...........................
> 
> Yeah............we made a mistake back in 1979...........We should have done what we did in 1953 and make end it right there................instead of allowing it to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *))))))    C A R T E R    (((((((*
> 
> screwed the world
Click to expand...


Carter screwed the world, how profound. Tell us how he did that?


----------



## irosie91

easy-----he facilitated the Ayatoilets and they created  HEZBOLLAH------for more information
find a friendly  Yemeni -----look around for Yemeni  small store keepers  in the USA---little
newspaper, mini grocery type things.     Yemen is under siege by Iranian sponsored persons----of the Shiite variety,
already attacking Saudi Arabia.    I do not believe
that you do not know this stuff,   Penelope----in fact I believe that you are an ardent supporter of the   SHIITE agenda.    It is clear that English is not your mother tongue--- 

getting back to the issue------Iran wants Saudi Arabia--------and the black turd in the sand----
but there are lots more  "anti Shiites" in the world than pro-Shiites.    This situation is going to lead to major conflict which will quickly jump into Iran----it's birthplace-----Iran post carter----the birth place of Shiite aggression.    Of course the best bet for the USA is to stay out of it as long as possible-------but lots of innocents will  (in fact, already have)  die.    Somewhere along the line lots of countries including the USA will get dragged in..      Saudi Arabia is already playing with anti assad (aka pro-iran)  elements in Syria.
But you already know that


----------



## Art__Allm

eagle1462010 said:


> My point was to target the sites and take them out from either air or sea assets and set them back a decade or so.



That would be an unprovoked aggression against a peaceful and decent nation, that signed the Non-Proliferation-Treaty. What about attacking states, that did not sign the Non-Proliferation-Treaty, that illegally acquired nuclear weapons, that do not stick to the international law, and that were created by means of terror?


----------



## Syriusly

Well another example of old white guys willing and ready to use the lives of young Americans to make themselves feel more secure.

Of course they won't want to have to fund the war.


----------



## Bfgrn

eagle1462010 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Liberal Skirt is showing.  They held our hostages for 444 days.  They used psych.  torture on them all the time.  They used to take a gun to their heads with no bullets saying this is the end...............and pulled empty chambers on their heads.
> 
> To attack an Embassy and hold our people hostage is an ACT OF WAR.  And they didn't kill them because they KNEW WE WOULD GO TO WAR OVER IT....................The THREAT OF WAR KEPT THEM ALIVE............PERIOD.
> 
> And you ignore that the Iranians pander to all sides of the equation............and ignore that the IED tech killed many of our people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...on "this" thread my "Liberal Skirt is showing"...does that mean you will save "totalitarian killer" for another thread?
> 
> SOOOO...Iran used "torture" on Americans, but America using the same methods DIDN'T use "torture" at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo... your retarded brain is showing...
> 
> Why did Iran take American hostages? Is there anything America did that caused it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We supported a leader who didn't rule my Religion an the Islamic doctrine and rules.  Imagine a time that women their went to the beach with BIKINI'S..........................OH MY FUCKING GOD...............Now they get the Burkas..........Religion rules................the 12th Imam prophecies.......................and Islam will dominate the world...........................
> 
> Yeah............we made a mistake back in 1979...........We should have done what we did in 1953 and make end it right there................instead of allowing it to grow.
Click to expand...


*History 101: How the CIA Overthrew Iran’s First Democratically Elected Government*
March 24, 2015 

*Presently, there’s a lot of talk in Washington DC about how the nation of Iran is a threat to US national security, and that its being run by “extremist Islamic Mullahs”, and how the country is “not democratic”.
*
Not surprisingly, very few Americans are actually aware that once upon a time, their own government had killed-off Iran’s first ever democratically elected government, headed by Mohammad Mosaddegh (or Mosaddeq). He was the elected as Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953, until his government was overthrown in a _coup d’état_ orchestrated by the CIA. After the coup, US and British interests quickly installed their own unelected monarch, The Shah, who ruled the country until he was eventually replaced, again by the US and British intelligence agencies, with the theocrat, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in what became known as the ‘Islamic Revolution’ in 1979. Iran has maintained a theocratic council at the head of its government ever since.

Why the coup in the first place? There are many geostrategic reasons why the American and the British did not want any secular, independent democratic nation states in the region, and neither did Saudi Arabia. Those same reason extend until today, but one of the central motivations for enacting an overthrow of Iran at that time was that Iran’s Mosaddegh had designs on nationalizing Iran’s oil industry. Over sixty years ago, and with the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) risking losing its grip on Iran’s burgeoning energy sector, the coup happened, and then in the following year in 1954, the company was re-incorporated and thus became the global powerhouse we know today, the British Petroleum Company (BP). It’s one of many examples of how the CIA and MI6 ‘intelligence’ agencies acted not on behalf of “freedom and democracy”, but on behalf of transnational corporations in order to preserve Anglo-American ‘interests’.


----------



## MisterBeale

Bfgrn said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Liberal Skirt is showing.  They held our hostages for 444 days.  They used psych.  torture on them all the time.  They used to take a gun to their heads with no bullets saying this is the end...............and pulled empty chambers on their heads.
> 
> To attack an Embassy and hold our people hostage is an ACT OF WAR.  And they didn't kill them because they KNEW WE WOULD GO TO WAR OVER IT....................The THREAT OF WAR KEPT THEM ALIVE............PERIOD.
> 
> And you ignore that the Iranians pander to all sides of the equation............and ignore that the IED tech killed many of our people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...on "this" thread my "Liberal Skirt is showing"...does that mean you will save "totalitarian killer" for another thread?
> 
> SOOOO...Iran used "torture" on Americans, but America using the same methods DIDN'T use "torture" at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo... your retarded brain is showing...
> 
> Why did Iran take American hostages? Is there anything America did that caused it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We supported a leader who didn't rule my Religion an the Islamic doctrine and rules.  Imagine a time that women their went to the beach with BIKINI'S..........................OH MY FUCKING GOD...............Now they get the Burkas..........Religion rules................the 12th Imam prophecies.......................and Islam will dominate the world...........................
> 
> Yeah............we made a mistake back in 1979...........We should have done what we did in 1953 and make end it right there................instead of allowing it to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *History 101: How the CIA Overthrew Iran’s First Democratically Elected Government*
> March 24, 2015
> 
> *Presently, there’s a lot of talk in Washington DC about how the nation of Iran is a threat to US national security, and that its being run by “extremist Islamic Mullahs”, and how the country is “not democratic”.
> *
> Not surprisingly, very few Americans are actually aware that once upon a time, their own government had killed-off Iran’s first ever democratically elected government, headed by Mohammad Mosaddegh (or Mosaddeq). He was the elected as Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953, until his government was overthrown in a _coup d’état_ orchestrated by the CIA. After the coup, US and British interests quickly installed their own unelected monarch, The Shah, who ruled the country until he was eventually replaced, again by the US and British intelligence agencies, with the theocrat, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in what became known as the ‘Islamic Revolution’ in 1979. Iran has maintained a theocratic council at the head of its government ever since.
> 
> Why the coup in the first place? There are many geostrategic reasons why the American and the British did not want any secular, independent democratic nation states in the region, and neither did Saudi Arabia. Those same reason extend until today, but one of the central motivations for enacting an overthrow of Iran at that time was that Iran’s Mosaddegh had designs on nationalizing Iran’s oil industry. Over sixty years ago, and with the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) risking losing its grip on Iran’s burgeoning energy sector, the coup happened, and then in the following year in 1954, the company was re-incorporated and thus became the global powerhouse we know today, the British Petroleum Company (BP). It’s one of many examples of how the CIA and MI6 ‘intelligence’ agencies acted not on behalf of “freedom and democracy”, but on behalf of transnational corporations in order to preserve Anglo-American ‘interests’.
Click to expand...


----------



## irosie91

the USA did not over throw anyone in Iran-------the USA DID favor one side over the other---they favored the anti USSR side.    What else is new?      Islamo Nazi scum are just as eager to claim that the US airforce fought in Iran against -----what-his-name in Iran in favor of THE SHAH as they are to claim that the  US airforce fought for  DA JOOOOOS  in  1948   -------it get more and more comedic by the hour


----------



## MisterBeale

irosie91 said:


> the USA did not over throw anyone in Iran-------the USA DID favor one side over the other---they favored the anti USSR side.    What else is new?      Islamo Nazi scum are just as eager to claim that the US airforce fought in Iran against -----what-his-name in Iran in favor of THE SHAH as they are to claim that the  US airforce fought for  DA JOOOOOS  in  1948   -------it get more and more comedic by the hour









Wow.  And you wonder why you have no currency on this forum and no one takes you seriously.  

*CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran’s Coup*
The agency finally owns up to its role in the 1953 operation.
CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran s Coup Foreign Policy

TPAJAX was the CIA’s codename for the overthrow plot, which relied on local collaborators at every stage. It consisted of several steps: using propaganda to undermine Mossadegh politically, inducing the Shah to cooperate, bribing members of parliament, organizing the security forces, and ginning up public demonstrations. The initial attempt actually failed, but after a mad scramble the coup forces pulled themselves together and came through on their second try, on August 19. 


 Why the CIA finally chose to own up to its role is as unclear as some of the reasons it has held onto this information for so long. CIA and British operatives have written books and articles on the operation — notably Kermit Roosevelt, the agency’s chief overseer of the coup. Scholars have produced many more books, including several just in the past few years. Moreover, two American presidents (Clinton and Obama) have publicly acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup.


----------



## eagle1462010

Bfgrn said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Liberal Skirt is showing.  They held our hostages for 444 days.  They used psych.  torture on them all the time.  They used to take a gun to their heads with no bullets saying this is the end...............and pulled empty chambers on their heads.
> 
> To attack an Embassy and hold our people hostage is an ACT OF WAR.  And they didn't kill them because they KNEW WE WOULD GO TO WAR OVER IT....................The THREAT OF WAR KEPT THEM ALIVE............PERIOD.
> 
> And you ignore that the Iranians pander to all sides of the equation............and ignore that the IED tech killed many of our people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...on "this" thread my "Liberal Skirt is showing"...does that mean you will save "totalitarian killer" for another thread?
> 
> SOOOO...Iran used "torture" on Americans, but America using the same methods DIDN'T use "torture" at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo... your retarded brain is showing...
> 
> Why did Iran take American hostages? Is there anything America did that caused it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We supported a leader who didn't rule my Religion an the Islamic doctrine and rules.  Imagine a time that women their went to the beach with BIKINI'S..........................OH MY FUCKING GOD...............Now they get the Burkas..........Religion rules................the 12th Imam prophecies.......................and Islam will dominate the world...........................
> 
> Yeah............we made a mistake back in 1979...........We should have done what we did in 1953 and make end it right there................instead of allowing it to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *History 101: How the CIA Overthrew Iran’s First Democratically Elected Government*
> March 24, 2015
> 
> *Presently, there’s a lot of talk in Washington DC about how the nation of Iran is a threat to US national security, and that its being run by “extremist Islamic Mullahs”, and how the country is “not democratic”.
> *
> Not surprisingly, very few Americans are actually aware that once upon a time, their own government had killed-off Iran’s first ever democratically elected government, headed by Mohammad Mosaddegh (or Mosaddeq). He was the elected as Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953, until his government was overthrown in a _coup d’état_ orchestrated by the CIA. After the coup, US and British interests quickly installed their own unelected monarch, The Shah, who ruled the country until he was eventually replaced, again by the US and British intelligence agencies, with the theocrat, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in what became known as the ‘Islamic Revolution’ in 1979. Iran has maintained a theocratic council at the head of its government ever since.
> 
> Why the coup in the first place? There are many geostrategic reasons why the American and the British did not want any secular, independent democratic nation states in the region, and neither did Saudi Arabia. Those same reason extend until today, but one of the central motivations for enacting an overthrow of Iran at that time was that Iran’s Mosaddegh had designs on nationalizing Iran’s oil industry. Over sixty years ago, and with the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) risking losing its grip on Iran’s burgeoning energy sector, the coup happened, and then in the following year in 1954, the company was re-incorporated and thus became the global powerhouse we know today, the British Petroleum Company (BP). It’s one of many examples of how the CIA and MI6 ‘intelligence’ agencies acted not on behalf of “freedom and democracy”, but on behalf of transnational corporations in order to preserve Anglo-American ‘interests’.
Click to expand...

And yet the Shah was in power for 20 years prior, and appointed his replacement as he left the country.  Result.........over 2 more decades of his rule.................

Otherwise, the Islamic rule in Iran would have begun in 1953.....................isn't that a hoot.


----------

