Isreal and American forces ready to attack Iran within days

robtri · 13-07-2010 10:35PM

WakeUp wrote: »

He could well be. Although he is one of the few US politicians to speak out against their foreign rampaging conquests. Does he have another agenda? Its possible like anything but at least he appears to be telling it how it is for now anyway.

true but didnt obama speak out against the wars the USA was involved in to help him get the top job......

WakeUp · 13-07-2010 10:46PM

robtri wrote: »

true but didnt obama speak out against the wars the USA was involved in to help him get the top job......

He did, Im not to sure what your getting at though..do you believe he is only highlighting these sanctions because he is after Obama's job?..

robtri · 13-07-2010 10:56PM

WakeUp wrote: »

He did, Im not to sure what your getting at though..do you believe he is only highlighting these sanctions because he is after Obama's job?..

maye not directly Obamas job, but advancement in politics is ruthless and it could be one explantion for why he did it

WakeUp · 13-07-2010 11:06PM

robtri wrote: »

maye not directly Obamas job, but advancement in politics is ruthless and it could be one explantion for why he did it

Politics is ruthless alright I don't know 100% what his motives are for doing this or standing up and speaking out, but he seems to be concerned at what he sees unfolding. I can only take what he says at face value because I don't know him as a person but a lot of what he is saying makes sense. Sanctions would appear to lead to war but I hope in the long run he is wrong. Time will reveal all.

Black Swan · 14-07-2010 06:43AM

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Well this is it, why do you think Obama's wishes to be reelected is so important? No matter what Obama wants, the US has a history of warfare regardless who gets elected.

Obama is CIC. All declared wars and conflicts in US history have had the approval of the CIC. If Obama does not approve of going to war (or initiating a major conflict), it will not happen before 2012. Certainly not "within days!"

"The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States."*

Obama wants reelection. Starting a 3rd war in Iran will more than likely be cause for him to lose reelection in 2012, especially when he very clearly stated in his 2008 campaign that he would end the two GW Bush wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), and bring the troops home.

*Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Black Swan · 14-07-2010 07:28AM

mysterious wrote: »

It will start, and posts such as your's and Blue Lagoon proves it will.

Not "within days," or within weeks, or within months, and not before 2012 presidential elections. The goal posts on this sensationalist "within days" CT thread have been moved completely out of the stadium (to who knows where?).

mysterious wrote: »

The propaganda machine has never been as aggressive.

Not in the American media tonight. NBC Channel 4 News at 11 (Los Angeles) on the telly never once mentioned Iran. NBC is one of the Big Three national networks, and Los Angeles is one of the nation's largest cities. For the past week, I would venture to guess that the Mel Gibson scandal "has never been as aggressive" when compared to other issues telly news cast. Maybe Obama will declare war on Mel Gibson before Iran?

IrelandSpirit · 14-07-2010 07:39AM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Obama is CIC. All declared wars and conflicts in US history have had the approval of the CIC. If Obama does not approve of going to war (or initiating a major conflict), it will not happen before 2012.

"The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States."*

Obama wants reelection. Starting a 3rd war in Iran will more than likely be cause for him to lose reelection in 2012, especially when he very clearly stated in his 2008 campaign that he would end the two GW Bush wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), and bring the troops home.

*Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

I wish it really were as simple as that, but I personally feel that it doesn't just come down to one man's ambition to be re-elected, nor the promises of one political party. This is what happens to presidents who go AWOL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

Black Swan · 14-07-2010 08:02AM

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I wish it really were as simple as that, but I personally feel that it doesn't just come down to one man's ambition to be re-elected, nor the promises of one political party. This is what happens to presidents who go AWOL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

You are suggesting that THEY will assassinate Obama if he does not make war on Iran "within days?" That is a bit of a stretch... :rolleyes:

Di0genes · 14-07-2010 09:20AM

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I wish it really were as simple as that, but I personally feel that it doesn't just come down to one man's ambition to be re-elected, nor the promises of one political party. This is what happens to presidents who go AWOL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

Except for the fact that Kennedy increased the number of troops in Vietnam during his term you're completely right.

Oh no wait you're completely wrong.

Torakx · 14-07-2010 09:28AM

robtri wrote: »

true but didnt obama speak out against the wars the USA was involved in to help him get the top job......

The next American president? Looks like a good candidate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMg-q19RJck

Now for the other face

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YGiuF97fRE

He may be right of partly right regarding Iran but i have to wonder is he just a pawn to control a certain type of people within the population.
Alot of people agree with what he says, even i would...and he is still a congressman so its just too goodto be true imo.

Di0genes · 14-07-2010 09:33AM

So to be clear when politicians make that pose they're using the internationally recognised sign language for "I love you"? Jesus fecking wept this is dumber than I thought.

old_aussie · 14-07-2010 09:34AM

The US should send in a covert nuke and set it to go off near the Iranian nuke facillities. When it explodes, wiping most of Iran off the map, point the finger at the Iranians as being careless.

Hope they do it soon, not much on TV at the moment.

Torakx · 14-07-2010 09:41AM

old_aussie wrote: »

The US should send in a covert nuke and set it to go off near the Iranian nuke facillities. When it explodes, wiping most of Iran off the map, point the finger at the Iranians as being careless.

Hope they do it soon, not much on TV at the moment.

Well cross your fingers make a wish and hope your dreams come true....
I would not like to see any country full of innocents bombed or nuked but i am more a pacifist than a psychopath.
Going by track records America is the most likely to drop another nuke on someone so your wish at least is a realistic one although a little distastefull.

Di0genes · 14-07-2010 09:45AM

Torakx wrote: »

Well cross your fingers make a wish and hope your dreams come true....
I would not like to see any country full of innocents bombed or nuked but i am more a pacifist than a psychopath.
Going by track records America is the most likely to drop another nuke on someone so your wish at least is a realistic one although a little distastefull.

Thats a pretty dumb way to work out track records. Its like trying to work out who'll win the premiership based on one day of results.

old_aussie · 14-07-2010 10:18AM

The US hasn't forgiven the crazy rulers in Iran for taking 66 US citizens hostage in 1979 some for 444 days.

It's only fair that the US nukes them crazy rulers for what the did.

I think a preemptive nuke strike on Iran is the way to go, especially as the Iranians are willing to die for their beliefs.

They want to die for their beliefs, lets facilitate 'em.

Torakx · 14-07-2010 10:23AM

Wouldnt know where to start with a reply to that.
You certainly have AN opinion.
Il just leave at, i agree to dissagree lol

Duiske · 14-07-2010 12:00PM

old_aussie wrote: »

The US hasn't forgiven the crazy rulers in Iran for taking 66 US citizens hostage in 1979 some for 444 days.

It's only fair that the US nukes them crazy rulers for what the did.

I think a preemptive nuke strike on Iran is the way to go, especially as the Iranians are willing to die for their beliefs.

They want to die for their beliefs, lets facilitate 'em.

Hang on. Twice there you refer to "crazy rulers" because of the kidnapping of 66 people over 30 years ago.

Yet you would welcome the laying waste to Iran with nuclear bombs, simply because of their beliefs ?

Brown Bomber · 14-07-2010 04:20PM

K-9 wrote: »

American relations with Israel are quite frosty at the minute, Newsnight reported on it last week, at there lowest ebb in a long time. Obama also has engaged with Iran and taken a less hardline approach.

I know that doesn't suit the regular CT's on this, but it should be taken account of.

Don't believe the hype. Vice President Joe "I am a Zionist!" Biden addressing his masters.

Biden+chabad.jpg

"The world is lacking and is in desperate in need of Chabad: Wisdom, understanding and knowledge," the Vice President said, referring to the acronym of Chabad in Hebrew.

In reference to the Holocaust and the promise "Never again," Biden said: "We need to nail down Israel's security because it can happen again."

http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=9537&alias=vice-president-meets-chabad

Brown Bomber · 14-07-2010 04:25PM

old_aussie wrote: »

The US hasn't forgiven the crazy rulers in Iran for taking 66 US citizens hostage in 1979 some for 444 days.

It's only fair that the US nukes them crazy rulers for what the did.

I think a preemptive nuke strike on Iran is the way to go, especially as the Iranians are willing to die for their beliefs.

They want to die for their beliefs, lets facilitate 'em.

blah blah blah

Old Aussie is Rupert Murdoch?

These "crazy rulers" you speak only came to power in a coup because the US arranged for the democratically elected government to be overthrown.

This "pre-emptive nuke strike" you speak of is just military doublespeak. It would be based on lies, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and isn't a viable threat to anyone.

Brown Bomber · 14-07-2010 04:26PM

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats a pretty dumb way to work out track records. Its like trying to work out who'll win the premiership based on one day of results.

One of the more stupid comments I've had the displeasure to read on this or any other site.

Di0genes · 14-07-2010 04:33PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

would be based on lies, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and isn't a viable threat to anyone.

And you can prove that can you?

One of the more stupid comments I've had the displeasure to read on this or any other site.

Woa that high horse you're on about abusive language is bucking seriously bad here BB.

Brown Bomber · 14-07-2010 04:44PM

Di0genes wrote: »

And you can prove that can you?

Ah-hem.

Thought you were supposed to be a "skeptic"??

You want me to disprove a negative? Isn't that a logical fallacy?

So are you a real skeptic or just masquerading as one?

Di0genes wrote: »

Woa that high horse you're on about abusive language is bucking seriously bad here BB.

Well it was a stupid comment. Read over it again and try to realise it.

Di0genes · 14-07-2010 04:59PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah-hem.

Thought you were supposed to be a "skeptic"??

You want me to disprove a negative? Isn't that a logical fallacy?

So are you a real skeptic or just masquerading as one?

No you're confused. See you say

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and isn't a viable threat to anyone.

Thats a statement of fact. I dont know whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not, but seem confident they don't and I wonder what evidence you have to support such.

For example the International Atomic Energy Agency isn't sure if Iran has or has not a nuclear weapons program, and thats good enough for me, you seem confident to state they don't have one period.

Could you perhaps let me, and the IAEA know your source to state unequivocally that Iran doesnt have a weapons program.

Thanks.

Well it was a stupid comment. Read over it again and try to realise it.

Ah so nasty language is okay, when you say so. Jolly good. He's saying that the US are only country to use nuclear weapons in war, ergo they're the most likely to use them again. Its a bizarre claim, and ignores one simple fact. The US was the only country with nuclear weapons capacity at the time.

Brown Bomber · 14-07-2010 05:21PM

I believe I asked you some questions

Thought you were supposed to be a "skeptic"??

You want me to disprove a negative? Isn't that a logical fallacy?

So are you a real skeptic or just masquerading as one?

Jeboa Safari · 14-07-2010 05:24PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

One of the more stupid comments I've had the displeasure to read on this or any other site.
.

The US has had plenty of chances to use nukes again...how come they haven't?

Di0genes · 14-07-2010 05:38PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe I asked you some questions

Thought you were supposed to be a "skeptic"??

You want me to disprove a negative? Isn't that a logical fallacy?

So are you a real skeptic or just masquerading as one?

See it's nice that you've learnt some new big words, and nearly learnt how to use them properly

This isn't a logical fallacy or proving a negative.

You stated

Logic 101 wrote:

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and isn't a viable threat to anyone

See thats a definitive statement. It's now up to you to show how you can state what you said with such clarity and disambiguity.

It's why in court a lawyer will never say "My client has never broken a law in his life". It's impossible to prove or disprove the statement.

It would have been better for you to say "Iran has never proven to have nuclear weapons", because thats true, no you can say with (apparent) 100% certainty

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and isn't a viable threat to anyone

See I personally don't whether Iran has or hasn't nuclear the IAEA, who's job it is to find out if countries have or haven't nuclear weapons isn't sure either, I'm with them on this.

But nosiree bob we have Brown Bombers 100% Guarantee that Iran is Nuclear weapons free, and I'm just asking what such a bold declaration is supported by.

Does that make sense, or do I need to break out the finger puppets?

Brown Bomber · 14-07-2010 05:49PM

You asked me to prove that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, did you not? That is asking me to prove a negative, is it not? That is a logical fallacy is it not?

Brown Bomber · 14-07-2010 05:56PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

The US has had plenty of chances to use nukes again...how come they haven't?

The US gave the world nuclear weapons, dropped nuclear weapons on civilians TWICE! started the nuclear arms race. Have killed more civilians than any other group in my lifetime. They are using WMD's now in Iraq and Afghanistan. What else is there left to say?

How about this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAO4fH6g0g0

Yitzhak Rabin · 14-07-2010 06:03PM

An Iranian Scientist who claims he was abducted by the CIA last year is now being returned to Iran

Associated Press Article
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZal31yYlzKA5bukqiASakTuX19QD9GUTUE84

BBC Article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10609461

Jeboa Safari · 14-07-2010 06:10PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The US gave the world nuclear weapons, dropped nuclear weapons on civilians TWICE! started the nuclear arms race. Have killed more civilians than any other group in my lifetime. They are using WMD's now in Iraq and Afghanistan. What else is there left to say?

How about this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAO4fH6g0g0

If the US hadn't researched nuclear weapons first somebody else would, and they didn't 'give' the world nuclear weapons, thats why Russia, France, China...had their own research programs.
You still haven't answered my question, how come they haven't used them since then?

And as for that video, she threatens Iran with nuclear weapons IF Iran uses them first...

Isreal and American forces ready to attack Iran within days

Comments