Russian boots on the ground in Syria

[irosie91]

Right now it is IRAN that is a big problem for the world.

I think it is not Iran that is a big problem for the world, but it is Muslim extremism that is such a problem. And who supports the extremism more – Iran or Sunni regimes – is a moot question.

I believe that Iran is going to be ripped to pieces by the
sunnis-------based on numbers.

We should all hope that this will never be the case, because if it were, what is going on now in Syria would seem like a childish game.

yes------it will be a great tragedy

 

[MisterBeale]

Right now it is IRAN that is a big problem for the world.

I think it is not Iran that is a big problem for the world, but it is Muslim extremism that is such a problem. And who supports the extremism more – Iran or Sunni regimes – is a moot question.

I believe that Iran is going to be ripped to pieces by the
sunnis-------based on numbers.

We should all hope that this will never be the case, because if it were, what is going on now in Syria would seem like a childish game.

George Bush, Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush. . . all the globalists are the same.

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

 

[ESay]

Right now it is IRAN that is a big problem for the world.

I think it is not Iran that is a big problem for the world, but it is Muslim extremism that is such a problem. And who supports the extremism more – Iran or Sunni regimes – is a moot question.

I believe that Iran is going to be ripped to pieces by the
sunnis-------based on numbers.

We should all hope that this will never be the case, because if it were, what is going on now in Syria would seem like a childish game.

George Bush, Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush. . . all the globalists are the same.

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

I almost don’t understand English aurally. As far as I can understand, the guy in the video is saying that a possible military action against Iran will lead to a catastrophe?

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

It may well be the case, but I don’t think it will be. They wouldn’t need any deals or agreements in order to start bombing Iran. I think that the deal is intended to prevent Iran from possible slipping into chaos – at first economical and then political.

 

[irosie91]

Right now it is IRAN that is a big problem for the world.

I think it is not Iran that is a big problem for the world, but it is Muslim extremism that is such a problem. And who supports the extremism more – Iran or Sunni regimes – is a moot question.

I believe that Iran is going to be ripped to pieces by the
sunnis-------based on numbers.

We should all hope that this will never be the case, because if it were, what is going on now in Syria would seem like a childish game.

George Bush, Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush. . . all the globalists are the same.

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

I almost don’t understand English aurally. As far as I can understand, the guy in the video is saying that a possible military action against Iran will lead to a catastrophe?

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

It may well be the case, but I don’t think it will be. They wouldn’t need any deals or agreements in order to start bombing Iran. I think that the deal is intended to prevent Iran from possible slipping into chaos – at first economical and then political.

there will be "other reasons" to attack Iran------even if indirectly ----like attacking the Hezbollah proxies. When the Shiite shit attacks Saudi arabia----the US will
be drawn into the fray. Keep in mind-----the Shiite shit will claim to simply be UNATTACHED JIHADISTS ---SERVANTS OF ALLAH-----. They will not be in uniform and they will deny attachment to Iran. This this sort of filth was invented long ago-------islamo Nazi murderous pigs claim to the FREE LANCERS. They are not-------everything thing a Shiite lump of shit does is on orders from the AYATOILETS

 

[ESay]

there will be "other reasons" to attack Iran------even if indirectly ----like attacking the Hezbollah proxies. When the Shiite shit attacks Saudi arabia----the US will
be drawn into the fray. Keep in mind-----the Shiite shit will claim to simply be UNATTACHED JIHADISTS ---SERVANTS OF ALLAH-----. They will not be in uniform and they will deny attachment to Iran. This this sort of filth was invented long ago-------islamo Nazi murderous pigs claim to the FREE LANCERS. They are not-------everything thing a Shiite lump of shit does is on orders from the AYATOILETS

I understand what you are trying to say. There is now a popular term describing such actions – a hybrid war. I live in a country that a year and a half ago became fully aware what a hybrid war is.
What you said may well happen in the future. But what are your proposals?
In my opinion, there is no good solution to the Iran issue. Those agreements which were struck a couple of months ago are a bad solution. But other options are even worse.

 

[irosie91]

there will be "other reasons" to attack Iran------even if indirectly ----like attacking the Hezbollah proxies. When the Shiite shit attacks Saudi arabia----the US will
be drawn into the fray. Keep in mind-----the Shiite shit will claim to simply be UNATTACHED JIHADISTS ---SERVANTS OF ALLAH-----. They will not be in uniform and they will deny attachment to Iran. This this sort of filth was invented long ago-------islamo Nazi murderous pigs claim to the FREE LANCERS. They are not-------everything thing a Shiite lump of shit does is on orders from the AYATOILETS

I understand what you are trying to say. There is now a popular term describing such actions – a hybrid war. I live in a country that a year and a half ago became fully aware what a hybrid war is.
What you said may well happen in the future. But what are your proposals?
In my opinion, there is no good solution to the Iran issue. Those agreements which were struck a couple of months ago are a bad solution. But other options are even worse.

I am not all that excited over the nuclear "deal"------it will, IMO ----have little effect
on Iran's INEXORABLE planned course of events. What to do? ------the very
sad fact is that there is nothing to do but TEMPORIZE and respond as "things happen" The past USA reactions consisted of playing one side against the other -------BAD IDEA!!!. We actually supported the MONSTER FREAK ----
Saddam because he fought with Iran-----BAD IDEA. We supported the filthy TALIBAN in the 1980s ----because they fought Russia. We have made that kind
of mistake so much that now, islamo Nazi pigs who support Iran claim we support ISIS because they are enemies of Iran. We should completely avoid supporting
islamo shit groups in any part of the Levant conflicts. IT NEVER WORKS OUT
FOR US. The big problem we face is what to do with the war which Iran is fomenting in the Persian Gulf -----they are tying to invade Saudi arabia by taking
over important cities in Yemen. ----- The Iranians have actually convinced themselves that they can transform the whole middle east into a SHIITE CESSPIT

 

[ESay]

there will be "other reasons" to attack Iran------even if indirectly ----like attacking the Hezbollah proxies. When the Shiite shit attacks Saudi arabia----the US will
be drawn into the fray. Keep in mind-----the Shiite shit will claim to simply be UNATTACHED JIHADISTS ---SERVANTS OF ALLAH-----. They will not be in uniform and they will deny attachment to Iran. This this sort of filth was invented long ago-------islamo Nazi murderous pigs claim to the FREE LANCERS. They are not-------everything thing a Shiite lump of shit does is on orders from the AYATOILETS

I understand what you are trying to say. There is now a popular term describing such actions – a hybrid war. I live in a country that a year and a half ago became fully aware what a hybrid war is.
What you said may well happen in the future. But what are your proposals?
In my opinion, there is no good solution to the Iran issue. Those agreements which were struck a couple of months ago are a bad solution. But other options are even worse.

I am not all that excited over the nuclear "deal"------it will, IMO ----have little effect
on Iran's INEXORABLE planned course of events. What to do? ------the very
sad fact is that there is nothing to do but TEMPORIZE and respond as "things happen" The past USA reactions consisted of playing one side against the other -------BAD IDEA!!!. We actually supported the MONSTER FREAK ----
Saddam because he fought with Iran-----BAD IDEA. We supported the filthy TALIBAN in the 1980s ----because they fought Russia. We have made that kind
of mistake so much that now, islamo Nazi pigs who support Iran claim we support ISIS because they are enemies of Iran. We should completely avoid supporting
islamo shit groups in any part of the Levant conflicts. IT NEVER WORKS OUT
FOR US. The big problem we face is what to do with the war which Iran is fomenting in the Persian Gulf -----they are tying to invade Saudi arabia by taking
over important cities in Yemen. ----- The Iranians have actually convinced themselves that they can transform the whole middle east into a SHIITE CESSPIT

Well, I think there is no reason to argue about the deal. There are those who support it, there are those who oppose it and their minds are already made up.

I think that ‘completely avoid supporting islamo shit groups in any part of the Levant conflicts‘ is an unrealisable desire. In this case the US will have to completely withdraw from the Middle East. You think there will be peace and stability there after that? I don’t think so.

The big problem we face is what to do with the war which Iran is fomenting in the Persian Gulf

There is no many ways other than support “islamo shit groups” which are at the helm of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. Is it a bad decision? Absolutely. Is there any good decision? I don’t think so.

 

[irosie91]

there will be "other reasons" to attack Iran------even if indirectly ----like attacking the Hezbollah proxies. When the Shiite shit attacks Saudi arabia----the US will
be drawn into the fray. Keep in mind-----the Shiite shit will claim to simply be UNATTACHED JIHADISTS ---SERVANTS OF ALLAH-----. They will not be in uniform and they will deny attachment to Iran. This this sort of filth was invented long ago-------islamo Nazi murderous pigs claim to the FREE LANCERS. They are not-------everything thing a Shiite lump of shit does is on orders from the AYATOILETS

I understand what you are trying to say. There is now a popular term describing such actions – a hybrid war. I live in a country that a year and a half ago became fully aware what a hybrid war is.
What you said may well happen in the future. But what are your proposals?
In my opinion, there is no good solution to the Iran issue. Those agreements which were struck a couple of months ago are a bad solution. But other options are even worse.

I am not all that excited over the nuclear "deal"------it will, IMO ----have little effect
on Iran's INEXORABLE planned course of events. What to do? ------the very
sad fact is that there is nothing to do but TEMPORIZE and respond as "things happen" The past USA reactions consisted of playing one side against the other -------BAD IDEA!!!. We actually supported the MONSTER FREAK ----
Saddam because he fought with Iran-----BAD IDEA. We supported the filthy TALIBAN in the 1980s ----because they fought Russia. We have made that kind
of mistake so much that now, islamo Nazi pigs who support Iran claim we support ISIS because they are enemies of Iran. We should completely avoid supporting
islamo shit groups in any part of the Levant conflicts. IT NEVER WORKS OUT
FOR US. The big problem we face is what to do with the war which Iran is fomenting in the Persian Gulf -----they are tying to invade Saudi arabia by taking
over important cities in Yemen. ----- The Iranians have actually convinced themselves that they can transform the whole middle east into a SHIITE CESSPIT

Well, I think there is no reason to argue about the deal. There are those who support it, there are those who oppose it and their minds are already made up.

I think that ‘completely avoid supporting islamo shit groups in any part of the Levant conflicts‘ is an unrealisable desire. In this case the US will have to completely withdraw from the Middle East. You think there will be peace and stability there after that? I don’t think so.

The big problem we face is what to do with the war which Iran is fomenting in the Persian Gulf

There is no many ways other than support “islamo shit groups” which are at the helm of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. Is it a bad decision? Absolutely. Is there any good decision? I don’t think so.

not entirely true-------I am referring to GROUPS---and AGENDAED CHARACTERS------there is no way we can avoid getting involved if Saudi arabia is attacked. What
we must do is avoid getting involved with this or that "JIHAD" ----ideology.
Iran is a Jihad ideology------Ferret Ahmadinejad so characterized Iran in a speech
before the UN-----uhm ....about two years ago-------He stood up to his full ferret
height and announced "ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR ALL MANKIND"-----at the UN, no less. I waited--------the orderlies from Bellevue did not show up----
nobody murmured. Saddam was an agendaed character way back in the
1960s-----he founded the original organization that became CAIR -----he kinda
infiltrated the USA with his own "ideology"-------and the not quite country
JIHAD groups like ISIS -------the USA should never trust such groups or try to
USE them -------it backfires

 

[ESay]

not entirely true-------I am referring to GROUPS---and AGENDAED CHARACTERS------there is no way we can avoid getting involved if Saudi arabia is attacked. What
we must do is avoid getting involved with this or that "JIHAD" ----ideology.
Iran is a Jihad ideology------Ferret Ahmadinejad so characterized Iran in a speech
before the UN-----uhm ....about two years ago-------He stood up to his full ferret
height and announced "ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR ALL MANKIND"-----at the UN, no less. I waited--------the orderlies from Bellevue did not show up----
nobody murmured. Saddam was an agendaed character way back in the
1960s-----he founded the original organization that became CAIR -----he kinda
infiltrated the USA with his own "ideology"-------and the not quite country
JIHAD groups like ISIS -------the USA should never trust such groups or try to
USE them -------it backfires

I don’t completely understand what you are trying to say. Saddam was a jihadist or what? And who is more jihadist – Saddam or king Salman?

And what does ‘agendaed character’ mean?

 

[irosie91]

not entirely true-------I am referring to GROUPS---and AGENDAED CHARACTERS------there is no way we can avoid getting involved if Saudi arabia is attacked. What
we must do is avoid getting involved with this or that "JIHAD" ----ideology.
Iran is a Jihad ideology------Ferret Ahmadinejad so characterized Iran in a speech
before the UN-----uhm ....about two years ago-------He stood up to his full ferret
height and announced "ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR ALL MANKIND"-----at the UN, no less. I waited--------the orderlies from Bellevue did not show up----
nobody murmured. Saddam was an agendaed character way back in the
1960s-----he founded the original organization that became CAIR -----he kinda
infiltrated the USA with his own "ideology"-------and the not quite country
JIHAD groups like ISIS -------the USA should never trust such groups or try to
USE them -------it backfires

I don’t completely understand what you are trying to say. Saddam was a jihadist or what? And who is more jihadist – Saddam or king Salman?

And what does ‘agendaed character’ mean?

Saddam was a Baathist -----like Nasser and Assad --------the agenda of
Baathism is kinda like the agenda of the late Adolf Hitler

 

[ESay]

the agenda of
Baathism is kinda like the agenda of the late Adolf Hitler

What do you mean? Creation of pan-Arab state?

 

[irosie91]

the agenda of
Baathism is kinda like the agenda of the late Adolf Hitler

What do you mean? Creation of pan-Arab state?

that's part of the ideology------pan-arab fascist state ----vs pan Aryan fascist
state

 

[MisterBeale]

Right now it is IRAN that is a big problem for the world.

I think it is not Iran that is a big problem for the world, but it is Muslim extremism that is such a problem. And who supports the extremism more – Iran or Sunni regimes – is a moot question.

I believe that Iran is going to be ripped to pieces by the
sunnis-------based on numbers.

We should all hope that this will never be the case, because if it were, what is going on now in Syria would seem like a childish game.

George Bush, Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush. . . all the globalists are the same.

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

I almost don’t understand English aurally. As far as I can understand, the guy in the video is saying that a possible military action against Iran will lead to a catastrophe?

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

It may well be the case, but I don’t think it will be. They wouldn’t need any deals or agreements in order to start bombing Iran. I think that the deal is intended to prevent Iran from possible slipping into chaos – at first economical and then political.

Yes, Mr. Ritter is making the contention based on his experience in analyzing the Iranian status of forces, and the corresponding US and allied status and force strategy, that there is no easy military route to regime change like there have been in past wars. We are looking at another war that would make Vietnam look like a cake walk in terms of casualties. The military draft would have to be reinstated, and the top brass would certainly not like that one bit.

As far as catastrophe, count on it. Russia has already stated that it would get involved. It has multiple economic interests tied up there.


Lastly, the US most certainly DOES need a reason to become militarily involved. A person either needs to be under the age of 35 or asleep to have not noticed all of the attempted false flag incursions and excuses over the years that both the US and Israel have tried to pin on Iran that the whole international community have seen right through as excuses to gin up war fever. The world just yawned. No one was fooled. Nobody, least of all American society, will get behind a rush to war w/o a clear provocation and a clear and present danger.

This treaty, with clear lines that can be violated, give the political elites and the press, something to point to for the public, much like the first Bush, Clinton, and second Bush regimes had UN resolutions to back them up in their war making and sanction regimes against Iraq. W/o this treaty, any action the political and military globalists take against Iran will clearly be against the will of the majority of the peoples in the West. Thinking people really don't see Iran as a threat, nor do we care what the Iranians do. They haven't started a war in centuries. So who cares?

The international banking cabal, not the average working stiff in the west. He needs MSM to brain wash him into believing that Iran is a bad guy. I don't think the Iranian elite was stupid though. Chances are, our political elites will break this treaty first. It will probably be a matter for international lawyers to figure out with interpretation. I've already heard the ink wasn't even dry and both sides were claiming the other side broke it. . . nothing serious, but, just rumors.

 

[irosie91]

Right now it is IRAN that is a big problem for the world.

I think it is not Iran that is a big problem for the world, but it is Muslim extremism that is such a problem. And who supports the extremism more – Iran or Sunni regimes – is a moot question.

I believe that Iran is going to be ripped to pieces by the
sunnis-------based on numbers.

We should all hope that this will never be the case, because if it were, what is going on now in Syria would seem like a childish game.

George Bush, Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush. . . all the globalists are the same.

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

I almost don’t understand English aurally. As far as I can understand, the guy in the video is saying that a possible military action against Iran will lead to a catastrophe?

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

It may well be the case, but I don’t think it will be. They wouldn’t need any deals or agreements in order to start bombing Iran. I think that the deal is intended to prevent Iran from possible slipping into chaos – at first economical and then political.

Yes, Mr. Ritter is making the contention based on his experience in analyzing the Iranian status of forces, and the corresponding US and allied status and force strategy, that there is no easy military route to regime change like there have been in past wars. We are looking at another war that would make Vietnam look like a cake walk in terms of casualties. The military draft would have to be reinstated, and the top brass would certainly not like that one bit.

As far as catastrophe, count on it. Russia has already stated that it would get involved. It has multiple economic interests tied up there.


Lastly, the US most certainly DOES need a reason to become militarily involved. A person either needs to be under the age of 35 or asleep to have not noticed all of the attempted false flag incursions and excuses over the years that both the US and Israel have tried to pin on Iran that the whole international community have seen right through as excuses to gin up war fever. The world just yawned. No one was fooled. Nobody, least of all American society, will get behind a rush to war w/o a clear provocation and a clear and present danger.

This treaty, with clear lines that can be violated, give the political elites and the press, something to point to for the public, much like the first Bush, Clinton, and second Bush regimes had UN resolutions to back them up in their war making and sanction regimes against Iraq. W/o this treaty, any action the political and military globalists take against Iran will clearly be against the will of the majority of the peoples in the West. Thinking people really don't see Iran as a threat, nor do we care what the Iranians do. They haven't started a war in centuries. So who cares?

The international banking cabal, not the average working stiff in the west. He needs MSM to brain wash him into believing that Iran is a bad guy. I don't think the Iranian elite was stupid though. Chances are, our political elites will break this treaty first. It will probably be a matter for international lawyers to figure out with interpretation. I've already heard the ink wasn't even dry and both sides were claiming the other side broke it. . . nothing serious, but, just rumors.

I must have been asleep------I missed the myriad of false flag operations that were
"pinned on Iran"----by the USA and Israel. In fact, I cannot think of one

 

[ESay]

that's part of the ideology------pan-arab fascist state ----vs pan Aryan fascist
state

And what in this pan-Arab state was supposed to be fascist? I hope you don’t think that it is possible to create a democratic state in Arab lands.

And unless I am mistaken, the baathism supports secularism and thereby it is a natural enemy of jihadists.

 

[ESay]

Lastly, the US most certainly DOES need a reason to become militarily involved. A person either needs to be under the age of 35 or asleep to have not noticed all of the attempted false flag incursions and excuses over the years that both the US and Israel have tried to pin on Iran that the whole international community have seen right through as excuses to gin up war fever. The world just yawned. No one was fooled. Nobody, least of all American society, will get behind a rush to war w/o a clear provocation and a clear and present danger.

This treaty, with clear lines that can be violated, give the political elites and the press, something to point to for the public, much like the first Bush, Clinton, and second Bush regimes had UN resolutions to back them up in their war making and sanction regimes against Iraq. W/o this treaty, any action the political and military globalists take against Iran will clearly be against the will of the majority of the peoples in the West. Thinking people really don't see Iran as a threat, nor do we care what the Iranians do. They haven't started a war in centuries. So who cares?

The international banking cabal, not the average working stiff in the west. He needs MSM to brain wash him into believing that Iran is a bad guy. I don't think the Iranian elite was stupid though. Chances are, our political elites will break this treaty first. It will probably be a matter for international lawyers to figure out with interpretation. I've already heard the ink wasn't even dry and both sides were claiming the other side broke it. . . nothing serious, but, just rumors.

Well, it all depends on personal feelings and believes. You think that the deal is just a step toward a war, my feelings are quite opposite. The time will show whose point of view is correct.

As far as catastrophe, count on it. Russia has already stated that it would get involved. It has multiple economic interests tied up there.

It all depends what ‘get involved’ means in this case. I think that if someone expects Russia to start full-scale fighting alongside Assad’s forces, then these expectations will prove fruitless.

 

[MisterBeale]

Right now it is IRAN that is a big problem for the world.

I think it is not Iran that is a big problem for the world, but it is Muslim extremism that is such a problem. And who supports the extremism more – Iran or Sunni regimes – is a moot question.

I believe that Iran is going to be ripped to pieces by the
sunnis-------based on numbers.

We should all hope that this will never be the case, because if it were, what is going on now in Syria would seem like a childish game.

George Bush, Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush. . . all the globalists are the same.

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

I almost don’t understand English aurally. As far as I can understand, the guy in the video is saying that a possible military action against Iran will lead to a catastrophe?

I think that is why they made this treaty. So they could have an excuse to go to war. Seriously.

It may well be the case, but I don’t think it will be. They wouldn’t need any deals or agreements in order to start bombing Iran. I think that the deal is intended to prevent Iran from possible slipping into chaos – at first economical and then political.

Yes, Mr. Ritter is making the contention based on his experience in analyzing the Iranian status of forces, and the corresponding US and allied status and force strategy, that there is no easy military route to regime change like there have been in past wars. We are looking at another war that would make Vietnam look like a cake walk in terms of casualties. The military draft would have to be reinstated, and the top brass would certainly not like that one bit.

As far as catastrophe, count on it. Russia has already stated that it would get involved. It has multiple economic interests tied up there.


Lastly, the US most certainly DOES need a reason to become militarily involved. A person either needs to be under the age of 35 or asleep to have not noticed all of the attempted false flag incursions and excuses over the years that both the US and Israel have tried to pin on Iran that the whole international community have seen right through as excuses to gin up war fever. The world just yawned. No one was fooled. Nobody, least of all American society, will get behind a rush to war w/o a clear provocation and a clear and present danger.

This treaty, with clear lines that can be violated, give the political elites and the press, something to point to for the public, much like the first Bush, Clinton, and second Bush regimes had UN resolutions to back them up in their war making and sanction regimes against Iraq. W/o this treaty, any action the political and military globalists take against Iran will clearly be against the will of the majority of the peoples in the West. Thinking people really don't see Iran as a threat, nor do we care what the Iranians do. They haven't started a war in centuries. So who cares?

The international banking cabal, not the average working stiff in the west. He needs MSM to brain wash him into believing that Iran is a bad guy. I don't think the Iranian elite was stupid though. Chances are, our political elites will break this treaty first. It will probably be a matter for international lawyers to figure out with interpretation. I've already heard the ink wasn't even dry and both sides were claiming the other side broke it. . . nothing serious, but, just rumors.

I must have been asleep------I missed the myriad of false flag operations that were
"pinned on Iran"----by the USA and Israel. In fact, I cannot think of one

Bullshit. Being an agent of Mossad, you know damn well how your smear campaign is orchestrated.

ANOTHER PRETEXT TO WAGE WAR? The Fingerprints of False Flags Against Iran. The Thailand, India, Georgia Terrorist Bomb Blasts
ANOTHER PRETEXT TO WAGE WAR? The Fingerprints of False Flags Against Iran. The Thailand, India, Georgia Terrorist Bomb Blasts

 

[irosie91]

ROFLMAO "global research" -------famous islamo Nazi pig "news source"-----this stuff did not even show up in the Israeli news

 

[irosie91]

that's part of the ideology------pan-arab fascist state ----vs pan Aryan fascist
state

And what in this pan-Arab state was supposed to be fascist? I hope you don’t think that it is possible to create a democratic state in Arab lands.

And unless I am mistaken, the baathism supports secularism and thereby it is a natural enemy of jihadists.

yes---you are very mistaken-----the Baathist ideology is simply a cover story for CALIPHATE---------I will help you understand------muslims claim that ISLAMIC SHARIAH SOCIETIES are THE MOST TOLERANT and NOBLE SOCIETIES THAT THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN ----
both Christians and even jews are permitted to "live" so long as they agree
to be entirely subservient to Islamic rule and to pay tribute and to scrape the sewers Later in the development of the filth of CALIPHATISM ----muslims found it convenient to include EVEN HINDUS are acceptable slaves to islam.
Feel free to ask questions-----my own husband was born a DHIMMI in a classic shariah cesspit-------long ago-------baathism is ISLAM---dhimmi system at all------dhimmi means SLAVE TO THE RAPIST PIG OF MECCA. For more information talk to Christians who survived the filth of SADDAM ---------I doubt that you will want to talk to jews who survived Iraq

 

[MisterBeale]

Lastly, the US most certainly DOES need a reason to become militarily involved. A person either needs to be under the age of 35 or asleep to have not noticed all of the attempted false flag incursions and excuses over the years that both the US and Israel have tried to pin on Iran that the whole international community have seen right through as excuses to gin up war fever. The world just yawned. No one was fooled. Nobody, least of all American society, will get behind a rush to war w/o a clear provocation and a clear and present danger.

This treaty, with clear lines that can be violated, give the political elites and the press, something to point to for the public, much like the first Bush, Clinton, and second Bush regimes had UN resolutions to back them up in their war making and sanction regimes against Iraq. W/o this treaty, any action the political and military globalists take against Iran will clearly be against the will of the majority of the peoples in the West. Thinking people really don't see Iran as a threat, nor do we care what the Iranians do. They haven't started a war in centuries. So who cares?

The international banking cabal, not the average working stiff in the west. He needs MSM to brain wash him into believing that Iran is a bad guy. I don't think the Iranian elite was stupid though. Chances are, our political elites will break this treaty first. It will probably be a matter for international lawyers to figure out with interpretation. I've already heard the ink wasn't even dry and both sides were claiming the other side broke it. . . nothing serious, but, just rumors.

Well, it all depends on personal feelings and believes. You think that the deal is just a step toward a war, my feelings are quite opposite. The time will show whose point of view is correct.

As far as catastrophe, count on it. Russia has already stated that it would get involved. It has multiple economic interests tied up there.

It all depends what ‘get involved’ means in this case. I think that if someone expects Russia to start full-scale fighting alongside Assad’s forces, then these expectations will prove fruitless.

Some believe Russia is Magog, other think it is Turkey. It depends on your POV. lol

I think it will depend on what happens with BRIC policy and the IMF. Geo-political events on the ground don't happen in isolation. I recommend you watch the video, All Wars are Banker Wars. Great Video.



Great Video. If you want to get to our modern age quickly, page 19.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerswars.pdf

This is really about banking and resources. Depending on what is going on in the financial markets and resource markets will depend on whether Russia and China just send advisers and support, or actually heat the whole theater up by getting involved.