• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran is heating up . . . [W:259]

cpwill said:
Pakistan already has some fairly democratic structures. :) Influence of the British ;)

but PNAC's basic thrust, that America's interests are best served when aligned with her beliefs, remains as true today as it was when they formed in the late 90s.
Click to expand...

All the Pakistani folks I know here in the US all say that the biggest problem is the graft. They have told me stories of very successful people being driven out of business or out of the country by the unending shake downs by local officials. They say the same parts of the country that give the US pause are the same parts of the country that scare the bejeezes out of them too, but that most of the country would be open to America and the US. That is why doctors will come to the US to become cab drivers. Their only main gripe with the US is that we are so disproportionally on the side of India in the region and, according to them, the Indians are pretty harsh toward the Pakistanis just as people independent of the national political stuff.
 
Dont you people know Obama is a working class hero, black man who would NEVER slaughter the innocent?:beam:

Libya, Syria and Iran want to be liberated. :censored

(NOT!)

Don't you people watch Jon Stewart?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,"
-the Wizard of Oz:mrgreen:

US elections conceal preparations for war with Iran

by Barry Grey

"The American ruling class has a long history of organizing wars of aggression behind the backs of the American people. President Lyndon Johnson ran for election in 1964 pledging to avoid a major war in Vietnam, even as he was planning to escalate the US intervention. He notoriously told the military brass, “Just let me get elected, and then you can have your war.”

"In the 2000 presidential election, plans for an attack on Iraq were concealed by both Bush and Gore. In the 2002 mid-term election, the Democrats made a calculated decision, despite broad popular opposition to Bush’s war plans, not to discuss the advanced preparations for an invasion.

"In 2008, Obama postured as an anti-war candidate, and proceeded once in office to continue the war in Iraq, expand the carnage in Afghanistan and extend US military aggression and subversion to Pakistan, Libya and Syria."

US elections conceal preparations for war with Iran
 
Last edited:
Kane said:
Dont you people know Obama is a working class hero, black man who would NEVER slaughter the innocent?:beam:

Libya, Syria and Iran want to be liberated. :censored

Don't you people watch Jon Stewart?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,"
-the Wizard of Oz:mrgreen:

US elections conceal preparations for war with Iran

by Barry Grey

"The American ruling class has a long history of organizing wars of aggression behind the backs of the American people. President Lyndon Johnson ran for election in 1964 pledging to avoid a major war in Vietnam, even as he was planning to escalate the US intervention. He notoriously told the military brass, “Just let me get elected, and then you can have your war.”

"In the 2000 presidential election, plans for an attack on Iraq were concealed by both Bush and Gore. In the 2002 mid-term election, the Democrats made a calculated decision, despite broad popular opposition to Bush’s war plans, not to discuss the advanced preparations for an invasion.

"In 2008, Obama postured as an anti-war candidate, and proceeded once in office to continue the war in Iraq, expand the carnage in Afghanistan and extend US military aggression and subversion to Pakistan, Libya and Syria."

US elections conceal preparations for war with Iran
Click to expand...

Just buy some defense stocks, then you'll realize that there's a good side to war.
 
Fisher said:
All the Pakistani folks I know here in the US all say that the biggest problem is the graft. They have told me stories of very successful people being driven out of business or out of the country by the unending shake downs by local officials. They say the same parts of the country that give the US pause are the same parts of the country that scare the bejeezes out of them too, but that most of the country would be open to America and the US. That is why doctors will come to the US to become cab drivers. Their only main gripe with the US is that we are so disproportionally on the side of India in the region and, according to them, the Indians are pretty harsh toward the Pakistanis just as people independent of the national political stuff.
Click to expand...

I'd buy that bit on the corruption. Indian government is pretty bad, too. But unfortunately for them I'm thinking that US long term interests lie with India.
 
cpwill said:
I'd buy that bit on the corruption. Indian government is pretty bad, too. But unfortunately for them I'm thinking that US long term interests lie with India.
Click to expand...

I agree but that has to do more with checking China in the region than taking sides between India & Pakistan
 
Fisher said:
I agree but that has to do more with checking China in the region than taking sides between India & Pakistan
Click to expand...

that.... and the fact that India has the plausibility to be a realistic partner, whereas Pakistan is always dancing on the edge of whirling chaos and disaster.
 
The decision to invade Iran was made beforehand just like Iraq. We are being sold a bill of goods that our leaders like Obama and Hillary are fair and just, and are supposedly weighing all the options, supposedly taking loss of life into account, and supposedly using all means to avoid wars including diplomacy before they begin bombings in Syria, Libya or Iraq. That is just a lie. These politicians are acting directly in unision to carry out the policy of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization connected with the U.S. State Dept., which serves the interests of Big Oil, not the American people. To that end, as well as others, Obama and Clinton do not serve the public, at all, they serve lobbyists and corporations,and are on the take, like common corrupted criminals.



Standing Up to War and Hillary Clinton
By Ray McGovern , Feb. 23, 2011

"In the summer of 2002, as the Senate was preparing to conduct hearings about alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and the possibility of war, former Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq and U.S. Marine Major, Scott Ritter, came down to Washington from his home in upstate New York to share his first-hand knowledge with as many senators as possible.

"To those that let him in the door, he showed that the “intelligence” adduced to support U.S. claims that Iraq still had WMD was fatally flawed. This was the same “intelligence” that Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller later branded “unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”

"Sen. Hillary Clinton would not let Ritter in her door. Despite his unique insights as a U.N. inspector and his status as a constituent, Sen. Clinton gave him the royal run-around. Her message was clear: “Don’t bother me with the facts.” She had already made up her mind.

"I had a direct line into her inner circle at the time, and was assured that several of my op-eds and other commentaries skeptical of George W. Bush’s planned invasion were given to Clinton, but no matter."

Standing Up to War and Hillary Clinton | Consortiumnews
 
The US is clear, the Iranian regime will not be allowed to get nukes. The only question at this point, barring the regime cooperating, is how much war.
 
cpwill said:
Pakistan already has some fairly democratic structures. :) Influence of the British ;)




but PNAC's basic thrust, that America's interests are best served when aligned with her beliefs, remains as true today as it was when they formed in the late 90s.
Click to expand...

i really cant understand this point of view. no benefit can justify the colonizations.:roll:
 
Medusa said:
i really cant understand this point of view. no benefit can justify the colonizations.:roll:
Click to expand...

I don't know about justification - but when we are looking at net benefit, then that is indeed what we see - and you are free to ask all the Indian women who did not get hurled on the burial funerals of their husbands for the past few decades about it.
 
cpwill said:
I don't know about justification - but when we are looking at net benefit, then that is indeed what we see - and you are free to ask all the Indian women who did not get hurled on the burial funerals of their husbands for the past few decades about it.
Click to expand...

this is a justification..if so why do you show respect to the islamist morons in egypt and say " they want islamism." you know usa supported those islamists for so called spring. i think this westerner democracy has no backbone,and dances in every style according to the conditions :mrgreen:
 
Medusa said:
i really cant understand this point of view. no benefit can justify the colonizations.:roll:
Click to expand...

Washington really wants to weaken Pakistan by putting puppets like Afghanistans Karzai in the govmnt and by destablizing it with drones and militants.

The Pakistan threat of "nukes and terrorists" like the mantra for Iran is a phony cover story the U.S, uses, because they want a puppet installed there as well, so Western multinationals can assume control over the oil.
 
Any Iranian attack on anything would be a suicide move for it. They are bluffing.

And if not, they'll get crushed instantly, so why should it even matter? Maybe they'll try to block the Strait of Hormuz? NATO can sink their entire navy in a few hours.

No need for us to get our knickers in a twist because some crazy dictator is rambling on about jihad.
 
Voltaire X said:
Any Iranian attack on anything would be a suicide move for it. They are bluffing.

And if not, they'll get crushed instantly, so why should it even matter? Maybe they'll try to block the Strait of Hormuz? NATO can sink their entire navy in a few hours.

No need for us to get our knickers in a twist because some crazy dictator is rambling on about jihad.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right. Remember that we are dismantling our military. The one term Marxist appears to agree with the Jihadists that America is the greatest threat to peace. Disarming us prepares us for a better class of dhimmitude.
 
Misterveritis said:
I hope you are right. Remember that we are dismantling our military. The one term Marxist appears to agree with the Jihadists that America is the greatest threat to peace. Disarming us prepares us for a better class of dhimmitude.
Click to expand...

Dismantling our military? Please...

Obama has increased defense spending every year he's been in office.
 
Last edited:
Voltaire X said:
Dismantling our military? Please...

Obama has increased defense spending ever year he's been in office.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Do you know what is coming in a few months?

Obama's defense cuts are known only in part to the American the people. And that's because Obama has yet to explain the exact details of them. What we do know is they are so drastic that even Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) believes the Democrats could lose even more seats in the House over them in November. And Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta has said these cuts "will be devastating to our national security and to our economy."​
Romney to Obama: Quit 'Dismantling Our Military'
 
Misterveritis said:
Uh-huh. Do you know what is coming in a few months?

Obama's defense cuts are known only in part to the American the people. And that's because Obama has yet to explain the exact details of them. What we do know is they are so drastic that even Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) believes the Democrats could lose even more seats in the House over them in November. And Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta has said these cuts "will be devastating to our national security and to our economy."​
Romney to Obama: Quit 'Dismantling Our Military'
Click to expand...

$100 billion a year is doable. Especially when you look at total spending over time. We are spending more than we did during the Cold War.

Few government agencies can waste money like the DoD.
 
cpwill said:
I'd buy that bit on the corruption. Indian government is pretty bad, too. But unfortunately for them I'm thinking that US long term interests lie with India.
Click to expand...

Good luck finding an Indian politician who can think more then a few years ahead. Their political system is even more now centered then ours is. India is content to buy our goods, but aligning itself with the US is something entirely different. We may share some common goals, but India will do what India wants.
 
obvious Child said:
$100 billion a year is doable. Especially when you look at total spending over time. We are spending more than we did during the Cold War.

Few government agencies can waste money like the DoD.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that we should base our defense on political expediency? Or should one make every effort to meet the current threat?

I am a former Army guy. But I see that we will have fewer ships afloat than we need. I see that we will have fewer Air Force flying squadrons than we need. I cannot tell if we will have enough special operators but tend to doubt that we will. I know we have already moved from a two war footing to a one war footing.

When you damage your military for political expediencey it takes a very long time to recover.
 
obvious Child said:
Some people consider cuts to the largest military in spending in world history to be "dismantling."
Click to expand...

The cuts will fall heavily on the trained people, and on equipment, both refurbished and new. In the meantime we see China preparing for regional hegemony, we continue to have the enduring problems of energy and Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. A prudent individual might consider those threats before dismantling the military.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you believe that we should base our defense on political expediency? Or should one make every effort to meet the current threat?
Click to expand...

Neither. We should align it with the future needs while maintaining what we need for the current conflicts. That said, we are still spending more on defense then we did when we faced another super power with the weapons capacity to end all life as we know it. Iran is a joke compared to the damage the USSR could inflict. The real threat is still non state actors with access to fissile material.

I am a former Army guy. But I see that we will have fewer ships afloat than we need. I see that we will have fewer Air Force flying squadrons than we need. I cannot tell if we will have enough special operators but tend to doubt that we will. I know we have already moved from a two war footing to a one war footing.
Click to expand...

Since when did numbers confer an advantage in the days of smart weapons?

Again, we are spending more on defense then has ever been spent on defense in recorded history and you can't even get behind a mere $100 billion a year?
 
Misterveritis said:
The cuts will fall heavily on the trained people, and on equipment, both refurbished and new. In the meantime we see China preparing for regional hegemony, we continue to have the enduring problems of energy and Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. A prudent individual might consider those threats before dismantling the military.
Click to expand...

And those two represents more of threat then the Soviet Union with its capacity to end all life on the planet and therefore we should be spending more then we did against the Soviets against two regional powers?

Get some perspective.
 
Voltaire X said:
Dismantling our military? Please...

Obama has increased defense spending every year he's been in office.
Click to expand...

:lamo

No kidding.

The gullible minds of the brainwashed!

Obama is going gonzo militarily, without a doubt.

Misterveritis, give us an amusing source for your "Obama is destroying the military" conspiracy!
 
Last edited:
Fisher said:
If Obama wins and has to take down Iran, I hope the democrats will then realize and admit that it would have been 10 times more difficult if Saddam Hussein was still in Iraq. I have always thought that was part of the rationale behind closed doors though I have zero evidence of it. It was just the more logical conclusion I could reach.
Click to expand...
I don't know if the string pullers will force him to go to war or not. I suspect they will. They want absolute hegemony over the Mideast. That is why we instigated the civil wars in Libya and Syria. After Syria falls Lebanon will be next. The US and the major oil companies will then have complete control over Mideast oil. That is the goal.

Saddam Hussain? He invaded Iran at our behest and with our backing. Of course he then quit taking orders from Washington and had the nerve to sell oil for Euros. Foolish man. That got hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.

Want to learn a little modern history? Google Mohammed Mossedegh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom