The Next War on Washington’s Agenda

[Christopher O'Brien]

By Paul Craig Roberts/Institute for Political Economy
Article HERE:
[I urge everyone to get-up-to-speed on what's going on in regards to the looming conflict "we" appear to be preparing to engage with Iran. If the following takes place, our leaders are insane. Can you spell a-r-m-a-g-e-d-d-o-n? --chris]

"Only the blind do not see that the US government is preparing to attack Iran. According to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, 'Active war preparations directed against Iran (with the involvement of Israel and NATO) were initiated in May 2003.' Article HERE:

"Washington has deployed missiles directed at Iran in its oil emirate puppet states, Oman and the UAE, and little doubt in the other US puppet states in the Middle East. Washington has beefed up Saudi Arabia’s jet fighter force. Most recently, Washington has deployed 9,000 US troops to Israel to participate in “war games” designed to test the US/Israeli air defense system. As Iran represents no threat unless attacked, Washington’s war preparations signal Washington’s intention to attack Iran.

"Another signal that Washington has a new war on its agenda is the raised level of Washington’s rhetoric and demonization of Iran. Judging by polls Washington’s propaganda that Iran is threatening the US by developing a nuclear weapon has met with success. Half of the American public support a military attack on Iran in order to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capability. Those of us who are trying to awaken our fellow citizens start from a deficit that the minds of half of the US population are under Big Brother’s control..."Rest of article HERE: MUST READ!

 

[trainedobserver]

You know there is the school of thought that says there has been an concerted effort by some to accelerate what they view as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy in the Middle East. That is truly an insane proposition. You have to wonder what happens when the shit hits the fan and it doesn't turn out like their particular, and some would say unscholarly interpretation of the Book of Revelation says that it will? The religious beliefs of heads of state do influence their actions.

 

[Ezechiel]

Ask G. W. Bush about rapture and armageddon: 'The faster we get there the better'.

I seriously doubt Obama would pull the trigger but no doubts about republican candidates. That article was written by a scared conservative trying to bash Obama with fears of armageddon lol.
http://www.aim.org/newswire/republican-candidates-rattle-sabers-against-iran/

U.S. politics a religious divide? no doubts here. Vote democrat for a secular society, vote republican for a christian nation fully supporting christian social values

 

[Xylo]

Ask G. W. Bush about rapture and armageddon: 'The faster we get there the better'.

I seriously doubt Obama would pull the trigger but no doubts about republican candidates. That article was written by a scared conservative trying to bash Obama with fears of armageddon lol.
http://www.aim.org/newswire/republican-candidates-rattle-sabers-against-iran/

U.S. politics a religious divide? no doubts here. Vote democrat for a secular society, vote republican for a christian nation fully supporting christian social values

I don't have any doubt that Obama would attack Iran- with or without the consent of Congress. The demonization of Iran is pretty bad, however I have many Persian friends from Iran and they all say the same exact thing: An Iran with nukes is a very bad thing. They will use them if they have them, whether in an officially sanctioned way (with government approval) or unsanctioned (rogue unit commander with an axe to grind against Israel.)

However, if their nuclear physicists keep blowing up, or dying and if the Stuxnet type virii keep doing their jobs, then not to worry the nuclear programs are doomed. The next thinga I expect to see are a few isolated earthquakes near the nuclear sites. Then if Iran keeps saber rattling, there will be an attack upon a US vessel, which will sink, and thus precipitate armed involvement in the name of revenge. (Remember it's not "Terror" if it's sponsored by the US Corporat-acracy.)

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I don't have any doubt that Obama would attack Iran- with or without the consent of Congress. The demonization of Iran is pretty bad, however I have many Persian friends from Iran and they all say the same exact thing: An Iran with nukes is a very bad thing. They will use them if they have them, whether in an officially sanctioned way (with government approval) or unsanctioned (rogue unit commander with an axe to grind against Israel.)

Rock and a hard place---that's the rub

... The next thing I expect to see are a few isolated earthquakes near the nuclear sites. Then if Iran keeps saber rattling, there will be an attack upon a US vessel, which will sink, and thus precipitate armed involvement in the name of revenge. (Remember it's not "Terror" if it's sponsored by the US Corporat-acracy.)

Yeah, let's HAARP on 'em and scare them into geo-illogical submission! And then send a typhoon up the Hormuz for good measure. And if that doesn't work break out the daisy-cutters and bunker-busters. :0

 

[campbell71]

What is it with Washington's Hawks? Have they learned nothing from the past 10 years? As my dad would say "Jesus jumped up Christ in a chariot driven side car!!!" Russian couldn't conquer Afghanistan, and neither has the US and now they are have gotten it into their f**kwitted minds that threatening another country - one that is a fair way from even being Nuclear capable - is a good idea? It would be nice if at some time soon the US became "sensible/ sound reasoning capable......." (or those who runs its policies anyway.)

 

[tyder001]

I often wonder what the world would have been like if Kennedy wasn't murdered. I'm not positive that Vietnam would not have happened but, what if it didn't? Johnson went out of his way to get us deeper into that mess. In all fairness we were already involved but JFK may not have stayed there. No real way to know now. I think about things like that and wonder at how close the world has been to a better planet and also how close to disaster. Lincoln lives and the whole aftermath of the civil war is different. Martin Luther King isn't shot and charlatans like Al Shartpton are not the face of race relations. On the other hand it could have been much worse. Hitler doesn't attack Russia and the war goes differently. Or if D-Day had been found out or gone differently. Go back farther and Pilot refuses to crucify Christ or later Alexander dies at birth or Muhammed gets "his" head chopped off before he becomes the "phrophet" or King George decides to ease up on taxing the colonist. Or George Washington decides not to fight the troops of the "mother country." Sorry, for the ramble but this just got me thinking. About parallel worlds and possibilites. But, maybe I should just start a new thread for that one since this is the possible coming world war we are talking about. I do see Israels point as far as being surrounded by enemies. But, on the other hand what right do we have to "establish" governments and keep fighting in the Middle East? We should be taking care of our own mess here at home and discussing ways to build our own nation. It's a mess, no doubt and I wouldn't be suprised at all to see us bombing Iran.

 

[Xylo]

But, on the other hand what right do we have to "establish" governments and keep fighting in the Middle East? We should be taking care of our own mess here at home and discussing ways to build our own nation. It's a mess, no doubt and I wouldn't be suprised at all to see us bombing Iran.

Exactly. No reason to mow your lawn if the house is on fire, is there? (other than to appease the HOA.)

 

[cottonzway]

Paul Craig Roberts is someone I really respect. I don't agree with him on anything, but I respect him because if he just would have "played ball" he could been a billionare like Larry Summers or one of the other Wall Street CEOs. His educational and professional background is very impressive so he could have went that route had he choose to do so. He didn't and I respect that a lot about him. I have had several e-mail exchanges with him and he seems like a very nice man.

Attacking Iran is pure lunacy. There is a reason why Fox Fallon told the previous admin to go to hell when they wanted to hit Iran in 2006. A war in the Strait of Hormuz would cause $8.00+ per gallon gas in America within 2 weeks. The speculation alone on crude would drive those prices through the roof even if Iran gets killed each time they would engage in that area. Starting a war in an area where 30-40% of the world's oil flow through is literally insane.

 

[boomerang]

There was a comment from decades ago on the subject of Mutually Assured Destruction made by someone who had witnessed open air nuclear detonations. His suggestion was that leaders of all nations should be required to strip down to their shorts, stand, and feel the heat from a nuclear fireball miles away before negotiating. Maybe not a half bad idea.

 

[mike]

Iran’s building nuclear weapons is not the pro-nuker businesses concern, though. The making and selling of nuclear fuel rods for reactors world wide with Russia backing them is their worst nightmare.
Iran Makes Its First Uranium Fuel Rod

Iran openly held a press conference and announced the manufacture of their first nuclear fuel rod on Jan 2, 2012. On Mar 8, 2008 President Admadinejad announced Iran’s intention to build 50,000 centrifuges for refining Uranium 235 to fuel rod purity (3% to 5% U235) for power reactors.
By way of contrast, the US produces all the uranium nuclear fuel it needs with only 3,000 centrifuges.
It appears Iran has every intention of entering the world wide nuclear reactor fuel market and competing with American, English, French, Japanese and/or any other nuclear fuel businesses.
With 50,000 centrifuges refining uranium Iran [as the Ruskies client state] can easily supply the uranium fuel needs for all the power and research reactors on the planet at a very competitive price, even a subsidized price if bought with a big reactor from the friendly Russian salesmen and women.
That is a direct threat to the continued Super Power status of the US and will not be tolerated. The US has clearly stated it is grounds for a preemptive nuclear strike.

Iran’s used-to-be-a-Super Power protector, Russia, is likely to look very favorably upon a request from any non-aligned country, existing Russian client state, or even an American client state for power or research reactors to be fueled by Iran. ​

This will easily amount to orders for hundreds of Russian nuclear reactors from Muslim countries.​

Iran Signs Own Death Warrant | Veterans Today

​

​

If this data is correct its disturbing, If the US needs only 3000 centrifuges for its Nuclear power plants, what the hell does Iran need 50,000 of them for ?​

 

[mike]

China has done an about face

"Iran would not have wanted China to make this statement, but Iran must understand that if it comes down to a choice China will not alienate itself from the rest of the world for the sake of single country," said Yu Guoqing, a researcher on the Middle East at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

China begins to turn against Iran - Telegraph

 

[pixelsmith]

Ask G. W. Bush about rapture and armageddon: 'The faster we get there the better'.

I seriously doubt Obama would pull the trigger but no doubts about republican candidates. That article was written by a scared conservative trying to bash Obama with fears of armageddon lol.
Republican candidates rattle sabers against Iran

U.S. politics a religious divide? no doubts here. Vote democrat for a secular society, vote republican for a christian nation fully supporting christian social values

the left/right paradigm was devised to implement the age old divide and conquer strategy. they keep us fighting between ourselves while they pull the rug out from under us. dems and reps are NO different from each other. vote democrat or republican if you want to help dismantle the USA.

 

[Bergen]

its absolutely absurd that Iran would launch an attack, at least a nuclear one , on Israel or the US. They would litterally be flattened to a pancake if they ever did. Im on the fence about the whole 9/11 thing but if Iran somehow attacked Israel or the US i would absolutely KNOW its an iside job becouse no-one in Iran with any hope of living would be that stupid ie its leaders

 

[mike]

its absolutely absurd that Iran would launch an attack, at least a nuclear one , on Israel or the US. They would litterally be flattened to a pancake if they ever did. Im on the fence about the whole 9/11 thing but if Iran somehow attacked Israel or the US i would absolutely KNOW its an iside job becouse no-one in Iran with any hope of living would be that stupid ie its leaders

My concern would be that they could either deliver a nuke via a non conventional method, ie sail a yacht up a harbour, or give a warhead to a terrorist group who could do same.

These people have been indoctrinated by their religious leaders to truly believe the US is Satan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OIUieD2KN4


I truly dont think you can reason with this mindset

 

[Bergen]

My concern would be that they could either deliver a nuke via a non conventional method, ie sail a yacht up a harbour, or give a warhead to a terrorist group who could do same.

These people have been indoctrinated by their religious leaders to truly believe the US is Satan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OIUieD2KN4



I truly dont think you can reason with this mindset

sure , but the religious leaders would suffer just as much in a reprisal. Also iran would have to know that such an attack would get blamed on them

 

[mike]

But how would you tell ?, a yacht sails into new york and detonates a 100 megaton bomb.......
how do you know Iran is responsible, the evidence is gone.

Or they give one to Hamas, who use it, the evidence that Iran is to blame is circumstantial.

As it stands Russia has no real reason to bomb the US, neither does China, but Iran (its leaders at least) hates the US with a religious fervour, their very attitude towards the west is irrational, add a nuke to that equation........

The recent threats to shut the straits of Hommuz are indicative of just how highly strung they are, add a nuke to that equation.......

Right now if they blockade the straits a conventional weapons shit storm will ensue, and one Iran will lose, but if they have nukes.......

Without oil the western world will collapse in a matter of weeks, i kid you not , when truck and taxi drivers and farmers blockaded petrol refinerys in england in protest at fuel prices, within a week the head of the largest supermarket chain phoned downing street and told the british PM the shelves would be bare in a matter of days, garbage collections stopped, it was chaos.
Imagine Iran using a nuke on its neigbours resulting in radioactive oil fields.

Its often said guns dont kill people, people kill people. Its the same with nukes, its not the bomb that kills you so much as the guy with his finger on the big red button.
The posturing weve seen out of Iran both recently and otherwise is not a mindset i want with its finger on the button.

Having said that there does appear to be a pattern where once a country has a nuke, they seem to be less hostile once they do. Once you posess one, you become very aware of the awesome power they yeild. It does seem like once you have the massive destructive power in your hands, its a sobering reality to embrace