Here we go again where Israel and the US are talking crazy talk about attacking Iran. These satanists that rule the world just won't stop. I fear that if Iran is attacked Russia and China will have no choice but to act.

Re: Iran

I can see why they're pulling troops out of Iraq for. It's a little hard to judge on the particular type of offensive the Americans will use, drones are the obvious choice, which may require minimising troop numbers, however, It really is hard to cogitate on this. Possibly this may be Israel's war?

You'd think really? Surely not Iran, its been threatened for years, but after the bombing suspicions if may have added fuel to the fire.

There's a good article by the NY Times: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/sunday-review/the-secret-war-with-iran.html?pagewanted=all[/url]

I read this earlier on and said no way, but something tells me this could be in the near future.

Such an astonishing paradox of the Americans providing nuclear technology to Iran, which is now used to threaten wars against them.

Re: Iran

[QUOTE=runningman;1003018]Here we go again where Israel and the US are talking crazy talk about attacking Iran. These satanists that rule the world just won't stop. I fear that if Iran is attacked Russia and China will have no choice but to act.[/QUOTE]

You know there are more players involved in shit like this than your two standby moral enemies America and Israel. You complain about the media so much yet you lap it up when it fits your :runningman: theory.

Re: Iran

[img]http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/320993_10150849413205214_577390213_21238798_1507282261_n.jpg[/img]

Re: Iran

^^ :lol:

Re: Iran

[QUOTE=runningman;1003018]Here we go again where Israel and the US are talking crazy talk about attacking Iran. These satanists that rule the world just won't stop. I fear that if Iran is attacked Russia and China will have no choice but to act.[/QUOTE]

Yep, the criminal states are salivating at the thought of more death and destruction. It's what they do best.

Obama the scumbag zionist and his criminal friends are responsible for the continued slaughter of innocent men, woman and children as we speak. And yet this disgusting piece of filth is over here in Australia, telling us all how important 'human rights' are.

The hypocrisy is seriously painful and nauseating.

FUCK YOU AND YOUR ZIONIST WARS OBAMA

Re: Iran

chill the fuck out. and quit using so many fucking adjectives.

Re: Iran

[video=youtube;-U7Lqwl3Vzk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U7Lqwl3Vzk&NR=1[/video]

Re: Iran

i think we're all secretly waiting for ahmedickejad to proclaim he has a few nukes in his possession.

only at that time will we start dropping hypersonic bombs on tehran.

cause like, you know, that guy is going to make a big deal about it. what's the point of having nukes if you can't tell everyone?

anyways, as soon as he says this, turn tehran into a glass parking lot, and fly in some circus rides so we can have a disney land middle east.

Re: Iran

Except let some of the women out first. There are some hot Iranian chicks out there.

Re: Iran

[QUOTE=88Mariner;1004423]

anyways, as soon as he says this, turn tehran into a glass parking lot, and fly in some circus rides so we can have a disney land middle east.[/QUOTE]

I love this idea. :Bingo:

Re: Iran

[QUOTE=Jenks;1004535]I love this idea. :Bingo:[/QUOTE]

Maybe we can have tiesto record an e-mix from the disney middle east?

Maybe it should be called Middle Disneast?

Re: Iran

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;1004446]Except let some of the women out first. There are some hot Iranian chicks out there.[/QUOTE]

Your taste in women is obviously similar to your taste in old men

Re: Iran

[IMG]http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/political-pictures-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-shark-lasers.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Iran

Some of you gents came in with some true knee slappers. I am loving the banter.

In all seriousness I can't see us doing anymore than the two things that we've been resigned to for years in regards to Iran:

1. Lightly pressing on China & Russia to get behind us against Iran when in reality we all know that it's highly unlikely it'll ever happen.
2. Placing our own economic sanctions on Iran

Our government wants nothing to do with any kinds of attacks on Iran. The whole damn region is undergoing so much turmoil that I just can't see it happening. Barring a direct nuclear threat from Iran this will continue to be nothing but a bunch of gums flapping around on the subject.

Re: Iran

You guys are silly. We don't have to do anything... there is no flippin way Isreal is letting Iran get nukes. End of story.

Re: Iran

That's the third time we've agreed lately actually (the WWII memorial thread not included). Too bad Ron Paul's the only (registered) Republican to have fingered it out (and likely many Dems, too) about Iran.

Re: Iran

You know what would happen if Iran got nukes...

Nothing because all of their neighbors already have nukes... stop believing the propaganda

Re: Iran

[QUOTE=runningman;1005521]You know what would happen if Iran got nukes...

Nothing because all of their neighbors already have nukes... stop believing the propaganda[/QUOTE]

Propaganda schmopaganda. I'm just calling it like it is. Isreal is toasting Iran's nuke site. I don't care what [I]should[/I] happen, i'm just telling you what's [I]gonna[/I] happen. You deal with the what ifs and what should be's, and the omg whatevers, and go ahead and scour your "credible" news sources Sherlock if thats what trips your trigger. :D

Re: Iran

all the media has to do is say the same thing over and over, over a long period of time and people will just believe it. It's pretty sad IMO that they have you convinced that it is ok that Israel is going to murder hundreds of thousands of women and children.

you can only say that you are telling it how it is because the media has told you over a long period of time "Hey we are gonna bomb Iran.... deal with it!!"

Re: Iran

[QUOTE=runningman;1005529] It's pretty sad IMO that they have you convinced that it is ok that Israel is going to murder hundreds of thousands of women and children. [/QUOTE]

They...don't have me convinced of anything. I didn't say it was okay, I just said it was going to happen. Reading comprehension, figure it out. It is in Isreal's best interests that Iran doesn't acquire nukes, so...Iran won't be able to acquire them. OH!....Called it! :lol:

It won't be hundreds of thousands of women and children dying, don't be so dramatic, lol, it'll be a quick surgical strike to take out the plant.
Have a nice day! :Gay:

Re: Iran

you wish. If they bomb Iran, Egypt, Lebanon and Iran will send a million men each and run over Israel. What is Israel going to do Nuke their backyard to take over the front yard?

Called it,

Re: Iran

Israel is NOT the only aggressor in that region, as much as you'd like to believe it (this is where we have to part ways a bit, Runningman). ;-)

Re: Iran

well we will see Vinnie. Who bombs who first will tell the tale.

I think a false flag terror attack in Israel could happen to trigger it with a dirty bomb.

Re: Iran

Israel will do nothing but continue to bitch and moan like she always does.

The real dirty work will be carried out by the US and the continued rot of the nation will be the end result.

Only Israel will benefit from the destruction of Iran.

The pro zionist filth that controls the msm will once again ready the people's minds and the treacherous pro zionist "American" "leaders" will do their best to make it happen.

All the while, Israel will kick back, continue on laughing her freaking ass off and watch as the very, very stupid goyim continue on killing one another.

Re: Iran

Your idiotic rants have jumped the shark.

Re: Iran

Sex with sharks now WTF

Re: Iran

[QUOTE]Britain would take the 'irresponsible action' of the attack on the embassy in Tehran 'very seriously', said foreign secretary William Hague.

Britain has threatened "serious consequences" for [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran"]Iran[/URL] after protesters stormed the British embassy in Tehran, ransacking offices and diplomatic residences and triggering one of the worst crises in bilateral relations since the Islamic revolution 32 years ago. A mob including members of the paramilitary basij brigades, under the control of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, surged through lines of riot police and broke into the embassy and a separate residential compound, the Qolhak Gardens, in northern Tehran, chanting "Death to England" in scenes reminiscent of the seizure of the US embassy in 1979. British diplomatic staff ran for safety and locked themselves in their offices and homes, with one group of about a dozen pinned down by the crowd while others were jostled, although there were no serious injuries. The crowd ripped the gildedUK crest off the embassy, pulled down the union flag and replaced it with the Iranian one, and threw satellite dishes off the roofs of embassy buildings. They also smashed windows and scattered thousands of papers in the street in front of the embassy, where British, US and Israeli flags were set alight.

[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/29/british-embassy-attack-iran-uk-relations[/url]

So is this the beginning?

Re: Iran

It has already started!!!!!!

[URL]http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/30/photos-show-iran-base-decimated-by-blast/[/URL]

Re: Iran

meh

Re: Iran

US "leaders" wanting the removal of the MEK from terror list, should be a ggod indicator of what's to come.

Re: Iran

The war has already started. Don't worry just go about your business as though nothing is happening....

Que Reso - "What can we do? We can't do anything"

Re: Iran

Cue to me: Its Not As Big Of A Deal As You Believe It To Be.

Re: Iran

New Year, problems. This just won't get away.

Until US/EU tastes blood.

[QUOTE]Tehran on Monday escalated its threats against the west after [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/europe-news"]Europe[/URL] struck at the Islamic republic's lifeblood by agreeing to impose an [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil"]oil[/URL] embargo on it. Tehran threatened to respond by closing the strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of global oil supplies pass, while a senior US official vowed that the west could use force to keep the route open. The decision by EU foreign ministers in Brussels raised the stakes dramatically in the standoff between [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran"]Iran[/URL] and the west over Iran's nuclear programme. The EU decided that there could be no further oil contracts struck between its member states and Iran, but existing oil delivery deals would be allowed to run until July. Sharply escalating the sanctions regime against Tehran, the EU also froze the Iranian central bank's assets in Europe and banned gold, precious metals and diamond transactions.

[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/23/sanctions-spark-war-words-tehran-washington[/url]

[h=1]American Defense and Intelligence Chiefs: Attacking Iran Will INCREASE Odds that Iran Will Build a Nuclear Bomb[/h] [QUOTE] President [B]George W. Bush[/B]'s administration concluded that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be a bad idea -- and would only make it harder to prevent Iran from going nuclear in the future, former CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) chief Gen. [B]Michael Hayden[/B] said Thursday. "When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent -- an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret," Hayden told a small group of experts and reporters at an event hosted by the [URL="http://www.cftni.org/"]Center for the National Interest[/URL]. Hayden served as director of the NSA from 1999 to 2005 and then served as CIA director from 2006 until February 2009. He also had a 39-year career at the Air Force, which he ended as a four-star general. Without an actual occupation of Iran, which nobody wants to contemplate, the Bush administration concluded that the result of a limited military campaign in Iran would be counter-productive, according to Hayden.
"What's move two, three, four or five down the board?" Hayden said, arguing that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was only a short-term fix. "I don't think anyone is talking about occupying anything." Hayden then said he didn't believe the Israelis could or even would strike Iran -- that only the United States has the capability to do it -- but either way, it's still a bad idea. "The Israelis aren't going to [attack Iran] ... they can't do it, it's beyond their capacity. They only have the ability to make this [problem of Iran's nuclear program] worse. We can do a lot better," he said. "Just look at the physics, the fact that this cannot be done in a raid, this has to be done in a campaign, the fact that neither we nor they know where this stuff is. [The Israelis] can't do it, but we can." Hayden then went into some detail about how a U.S.-led strike on Iran's nuclear facilities could be accomplished, and why it would not solve the Iranian nuclear threat. There would first be a movement of aircraft carriers into the area, Tomahawk land-attack cruise missilestrikes, a diplomatic effort to get Gulf states to give access to their airspace, and "then you would pound it [with airstrikes] over a couple of weeks," Hayden explained.
But he also said that efforts to slow down the nuclear program, through mostly clandestine measures and encouraging internal dissent, is the better course of action. "Could we go back to July 2009 and see where that could have led?" he said, referring to the Green Movement protests that raged through Iran then but ultimately failed to alter the regime's course. "It's not so much that we don't want Iran to have a nuclear capacity, it's that we don't want [I]this [/I]Iran to have it ... Slow it down long enough and maybe the character [of the Iranian government] changes." Hayden's comments track closely with the argument made by [B]Colin Kahl[/B], the [URL="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/20/obama_s_iraq_guy_leaves_government_says_iraq_political_situation_still_being_sorted"]recently departed[/URL] head of Middle East policy at the Pentagon, who [URL="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137031/colin-h-kahl/not-time-to-attack-iran?page=show"]opposed a military strike[/URL] on Iran in an article this week in [I]Foreign Affairs[/I]. "Even if a U.S. strike went as well ... there is little guarantee that it would produce lasting results," Kahl wrote. "[I]f Iran did attempt to restart its nuclear program after an attack, it would be much more difficult for the United States to stop it."

[/QUOTE]

[url]http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/19/bush_s_cia_director_we_determined_attacking_iran_was_a_bad_idea[/url]

Re: Iran

Any day now it will be full blown

Re: Iran

[IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/e6vwae.gif[/IMG]

Re: Iran

It may be dab Idea.

Re: Iran

[QUOTE=micton14;1021622]It may be dab Idea.[/QUOTE]

For realz. Please enlighen us with your insight on the current geo political situation.

Re: Iran

We only want peace,

[URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30489.htm[/URL]

Re: Iran

The usa ain't going to let iran get a nuke. not surprising.