Uk Support For Proposed Us Attack On Iranian Military.

[nexx_ 0]

Looks like the UK government is pledging support for a US war again. And yet again it looks like the UK + US will be going to "war" unprovoked - sounds more like an invasion to me, so much for "freedom".

When do we actually get a say in what our governments are doing, no democracy here.

Iran is considered a threat now because of what their president says and the fact that they want nucleur power - note the president has no real power in Iran, the military is controlled by the defense minister and the prime minister runs most of the country.

News Article

No doubt it won't be long before Howard pledges Australia's support too. Im getting pretty sick of these wars for "peace" (where's the logic in fighting for 'peace'?) invasions by the "coalition". How many of us actually support these wars, yet they never learn and fight it in our name anyway. As if we weren't wasting enough time/money/manpower on them already.

 

This bit is stupid:

The recent decision by Congress to classify the Iranian guard as a "terrorist organization" also clears the way for a British backed counter-terrorist strike

 

Uh... clears the way for a British counter-terrorist strike how? Britain are dragged into it now. The only major terrorist events against western countries by Iran I can think of are the Iranian embassy hostage situation - in which the people responsible released a hostage because he was ill, and asked him to apologise on their behalf, no hostages were killed, the other being the kidknapping of US students, which granted was pretty bad.

 

the Pentagon is keen to have the Royal Navy's cooperation in the event of an attack, to prevent Iran from sowing mines in the Gulf to block oil exports in retaliation," he added.

- The truth comes out, more oil! :huh: Edited October 9, 2007 by nexx_

[IconOfEvi 0]

The truth comes out, more oil! :huh:

Jews did 9/11

 

 

[Mr.48 0]

Iran is considered a threat now because of what their president says and the fact that they want nucleur power - note the president has no real power in Iran, the military is controlled by the defense minister and the prime minister runs most of the country.

 

Actually the Ayatollahs control pretty much the entire country at their whim, and the President doesnt dare say anything that they wouldn't approve of.

[Mehman 0]

Besides, there's not going to be an invasion of Iran: where's the US going to get troops to control it? It's much larger than Iraq. Draft? No chance.

[Mr.48 0]

Besides, there's not going to be an invasion of Iran: where's the US going to get troops to control it? It's much larger than Iraq. Draft? No chance.

 

 

Exactly, it will be a limited strike at the nuclear facilities at most.

[Rattuskid 0]

Inforwars is a subsidiary of Prison Planet, no? Regardless it's still one of those Jews shot missiles with mind control at WTC while Bush ate a baby style alarmist sites. If you've been reading it for a while, you'd know things it describes as 'imminant' usually don't happen at all. The US expanding the war(s) into Iran is one of those not-gonna-happen things.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Rattuskid

[nexx_ 0]

Haha I got the link from Digg, the was another to the telegraph here

but yeah. Probably both a little bit unreliable ;)

[k4l4sh 0]

Inforwars is a subsidiary of Prison Planet, no? Regardless it's still one of those Jews shot missiles with mind control at WTC while Bush ate a baby style alarmist sites. If you've been reading it for a while, you'd know things it describes as 'imminant' usually don't happen at all. The US expanding the war(s) into Iran is one of those not-gonna-happen things.

I read inforwars every day and I don't give a RATS ASS what label you will give me because I've obtained it a long time ago anyway (but only by dicks who label other persons as idiots while they themselves are in fact the idiots for labeling others in the blink of an eye with their high-horse attitude) and it does not matter how people will stigmatize me because I know from reading a great deal about this fucked up world every day what is truly going on. And if you want to know what is really going on you have to read books from ex CIA officers, professors, historical figures, (auto)biographies of statesmen, pro one world government writers etc.

 

What you are claiming is totally wrong. Read your post again and tell me you didn't just sound like a Fox Hannity/whatshisass dickhead. You have never read that site so don't come acting like a pretentious dick telling us how it is with your oh so witty but oh so boring, overused and totally uninsightful jokes on "alarmist sites". You are either too weak to think for yourself and try and get some real information in your hands or you're just one of those idiots who does whatever the mob does. And the mob judges on people who are not walking in a straight line.

And I'm not just pissed because you are disrespecting Alex Jones but I'm especially pissed off because of your childish, retarded attitude towards this issue. And it's not just you, it seems to be the majority of this forum. But as soon as someone comes with facts I guess you'll all put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALALA. I could BURY you in news articles that give you something to think about but I can't/won't discuss them here because I don't want to break the forum rules but I'm not going to be passive in these situations either.

 

Ok let me replay this last sentence to you because I CANNOT BELIEVE you just said this:

"The US expanding the war(s) into Iran is one of those not-gonna-happen things."

Do you have any idea what an act of war is? We're talking about bombing another country but Mr Rattus is going to claim nice and easy that there's not going to be an expansion of the war. Am I please allowed to say that this is a perfect example of double-think? Oh noes he quotes 1984! I guess bombing another country is not an act of war these days, and I'm not even touching the triggering of a whole lot of international bullshit: what you think the Russians are going to like this? How can one talk or argue with this kind of person who doesn't even KNOW what he is talking about, but still rides the high horse? Do I need to torture you a bit before you'll wake the fuck up? When I first heard about these alternative explanations I was sceptic too but at least I had the balls to look into it with objectivity without allowing to be influenced by the mob and now almost 6 years further I'm still trying to knock sense into little kids like you who think they know everything when in fact all they know is how to play bloody computer games.

 

Fuck this I'm going to bed, fucking bunch of losers

[Monkey 0]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[EvilViking 0]

I think it's about time someone did something about a President who is openly calling for the annihilation of an entire country, and is attempting to acquire nuclear arms to do so.

 

Besides inviting him to your country to speak to a crowd of college students, that is.

[IconOfEvi 0]

Don't worry, I got a Iran-news-blitz coming...just preparing all the articles I've saved up :D.

 

As for me, I merely went on the whole making fun of conspirators because he's like OMG OMG OIL. nexx - do you have any friggin clue if the Strait is closed due to mines how much oil prices will jack up worldwide? Looking at world crude prices atm ( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm ) , I see you guys in kangarooland are at $81.50 a barrel!

 

Gulf has oil

Strait is where oil sent

Ships go thru Strait

Mines blow up ships

Less ships mean less supply

Quantity demanded is greater than ever

 

THUS

 

Prices SKYROCKET

 

 

 

HMMMMM??????

[Korona 0]

A big stealth bomber/cruise missile strike on Iran would be amusing - especially since they have been bigging up their AA/ATM systems. After all they are probably reaching the level of technology the stealth bombers were designed to specifically counter :P

[Rattuskid 0]

Tee-Hee. Someone has Mulder Fox on speeddial. The world doesn't have to be illuminati upon conspiracy theory upon cruise missile strikes upon planned demolition to be... well, fucked up, but you can keep the tinfoil hat if you like.

 

Am I please allowed to say that this is a perfect example of double-think? Oh noes he quotes 1984!

 

Ever actually read the book? Remember the lottery in it? It was basically a sham specifically designed to just keep the Proles occupied, but they ALL had this marvelous mathematical formulas for how THEY were going to win. This kind of ass-backwards thought process on nothing is exactly how I view a lot of otherwise nice people who think the worst part about Bush is his connections to little green men.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Rattuskid

[Windows V 0]

I seriously doubt that the US will go to war with Iran, if only because there's not enough reason to. Now, bombing Iran doesn't necessarily mean war, but the US won't do that either. Any benefits there are just don't justify the cost.

 

Whoever wrote that article seems completely convinced that the US is hellbent on taking down Iran, but the only reason he gives is

 

The fact that the justification for any attack on Iran keeps changing, just as it did with Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion, clearly indicates that the only thing that matters to the Neocon globalists running the Whitehouse is that they get their conflict escalation and are able to march on unimpeded and conquer another financially independent and sovereign state in the middle east.

 

Does he really think that Mr Bush is trying to "conquer" Iran? To put it bluntly, that's the stupidest thing I've read in quite awhile. Say all you want about Bush being an idiot, but after all the trouble he got with Iraq, do you really think he's itching to go after a country that's four times bigger than Iraq? Not to mention the fact that even though Saddam was hated by the Shiite majority in Iraq, that didn't stop them from going after American troops. In Iran, they love their leaders.

 

So full scale war with Iran is out of the question. Limited bombing runs are a possibility, but they wouldn't achieve squat. Bush is not going to risk the lives of American pilots for some show of force that will accomplish just about nothing. I'm not saying this because I think Bush is this great humanitarian, I'm saying it because it's common sense.

 

the Iranian embassy hostage situation - in which the people responsible released a hostage because he was ill, and asked him to apologise on their behalf

 

Oh, how splendidly nice of them to be so considerate!

Edited October 10, 2007 by Windows V

[nexx_ 0]

The story was a little more complex then that, but they didn't hurt anyone, that's the point. They could be labeled as terrorists, but the point is that label is used all to openly these days, and used as an excuse to reign terror on others, it's all a bit confused. The world is just governments insulting and playing games with each other.

[Mr.48 0]

A big stealth bomber/cruise missile strike on Iran would be amusing - especially since they have been bigging up their AA/ATM systems. After all they are probably reaching the level of technology the stealth bombers were designed to specifically counter :P

 

I suspect that the Israeli strike on Syria last month was designed specifically to test the Russian made AA/detection systems, the same ones they sold to Iran. So judging by the fact that non-stealthy Israeli f-16's were able to penetrate these defenses, I think its safe to assume that B-2 stealth bombers will have no problems. They probably used some sort of new technology to fool the AA systems but if so you can bet the US has it too.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Mr.48

[IconOfEvi 0]

Thats precisely it. And a major part of US and now Israeli strategy is too do electronic warfare jamming and surveillance/scouting before the main strike force comes in. Supression of Enemy Air Defenses duty is pretty much necessary now.

[Eradicator 0]

I suspect that the Israeli strike on Syria last month was designed specifically to test the Russian made AA/detection systems, the same ones they sold to Iran. So judging by the fact that non-stealthy Israeli f-16's were able to penetrate these defenses, I think its safe to assume that B-2 stealth bombers will have no problems. They probably used some sort of new technology to fool the AA systems but if so you can bet the US has it too.

Although the Israelis denied it because of its clear violation of international law (although Israel is notorious for ignoring that) and Syria denied it happened because of the implications in the international community it was apparently an airstrike on a Syrian nuclear weapons program built with help from NK (who seems to be looking to sell off their assets now that they are negotiating to disarm).

 

[IconOfEvi 0]

Well actually Israel admitted just yesterday they DID in fact do something. Probably to counter all the crap coming from Assad that they hit some simple facility.

[Windows V 0]

After all they are probably reaching the level of technology the stealth bombers were designed to specifically counter

 

quadspam lol

[Mehman 0]

I think it's about time someone did something about a President who is openly calling for the annihilation of an entire country, and is attempting to acquire nuclear arms to do so.

 

Besides inviting him to your country to speak to a crowd of college students, that is.

 

 

Now now, your side is not the one to speak. Iran might be thinking of war, trying to start a war, while the US declared war for no reason at all.

 

Oh and does anybody see the similarities in the calls of war that Bush and Ahmadinejad have? It's all just the same bullshit, interpreted in different ways.

Edited October 10, 2007 by MehMan

[Rattuskid 0]

Oh and does anybody see the similarities in the calls of war that Bush and Ahmadinejad have?

 

They both have shitty hairdos, and suck at speaking English. Otherwise, nah. Bush's every move isn't governed by his loathing for a nation a few hundred miles away that he ultimatley seeks to nuke back to the stone age, for example.

[flyby 0]

I think it's about time someone did something about a President who is openly calling for the annihilation of an entire country, and is attempting to acquire nuclear arms to do so.

 

We've been there before....*shrug*

http://www.derelictstudios.net/forums/inde...t=0&start=0

 

Sadly the original topic has since scrolled off, but, IIRC, the more accurate translation was to call "for the removal of the israeli government". Somehow that got conveniently translated into "wiping israel of the map", effectively bridging the link with their ongoing nuclear program.

 

Personally I agree with you, but then you need to be consequent in your actions: if you feel the need to do something on that one president, you might as well do something about that other president that didn't call for, but actually destroyed an entire country...

[Mehman 0]

Oh and does anybody see the similarities in the calls of war that Bush and Ahmadinejad have?

 

They both have shitty hairdos, and suck at speaking English. Otherwise, nah. Bush's every move isn't governed by his loathing for a nation a few hundred miles away that he ultimatley seeks to nuke back to the stone age, for example.

 

And they're both war mongering idiots, but one's right the other's wrong because you choose to see it like that. Not justifying Irans plans to destroy Isreal though.

 

Personally I agree with you, but then you need to be consequent in your actions: if you feel the need to do something on that one president, you might as well do something about that other president that didn't call for, but actually destroyed an entire country...

 

And yet, Bush & Co. are not the evil ones here! WOAH! Did Iran attack another country FOR NO REASON AT ALL? No. But they do other just as bad things instead. But wait...the US does the same!

Edited October 10, 2007 by MehMan

[IconOfEvi 0]

If you feel like counting Iran's military activities in Iraq as war, which I would btw. I mean quite an awful lot of troops and people have died thanks to their weapons and people.

 

But hey whats wrong with a little selective memory?