Obama gov't scheming to invade Iran ALSO

Politics International Politics
1

Starting out with a questionable claim… but official US sources /don’t deny/ yet. (maybe they will?)[quote=“independent.co.uk”]An Iranian scientist who says he was abducted and taken to the United States by the CIA … claimed that he had been pressured into lying about his country’s nuclear programme.
…
“Americans wanted me to say that I defected to America of my own will, to use me for revealing some false information about Iran’s nuclear work,” Mr Amiri said at Tehran airport.

“I was under intensive psychological pressure by [the] CIA… the main aim of this abduction was to stage a new political and psychological game against Iran.”[/quote]Why are U.S. leaders STILL so bent on continued aggression towards fossil fuel resource rich enemies? Why the continued propensity to leverage deceit in hopes of swaying public (American) desire (fever, support, mouthpieces) for ever more war and carnage?

Actually this guy Amiri’s claims are not too far-fetched from believability, given Seymour Hersch’s account of Cheney’s PNAC gang kicking around the idea of America creating a false attack similar to successful USS Maddox sham, which of course hard-core conservatives hate to discuss actually catapulted President Johnson’s Tonkin Resolution in '64 to open the floodgates of our illustrious Vietnam picnic of heroism.

[quote=“ThinkProgress”]There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build – we in our shipyard – build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives. [/quote]Maybe preempting neocon props-pissants /only/ argument to Op Northwoods… “oh it didn’t happen though.” As if central command attitude weighs nothing.

Acknowledging Central Command for what it is now, in mid-2010, does this not make Obama now the new false flag squatter?
Arguably, yes. But why aren’t more Americans, or even the pee Party, gnashing about deceptive foreign policy?

Food for thought (not expecting to be defended, just pondered)… more on the media blackout of Cheney’s gang pondering false flag initiatives to invade Iran in the final months of Bush2’s sewage over at Alex Jones’ site. More of the same. Talk about smashed hopes in Obama’s " c h a n g e " baloney. We’re not mentioning torture, kidnap or imperialism (unless opportunity arises).

2

IMO, this guy is a nut, and if he gets nukes, everyone loses. You always have to have a plan to counter that. Taking an aggressive stance against a potential aggressor is not bad policy.

3

“Think Progress”…hmmm…sounds familiar… :ponder:

Oohhh…you mean Think Progress…these people. Yeah…they’re real ‘go-to’ folks for the facts…right?

Well…maybe not…ThinkProgress.org Publishes Completely Fraudulent Video Labeling Tea Partiers Racists

But anyway…word on the street is that the Obama Group is now considering the invasion of the Royal Duchy of Buffoonia. Seems his latest Conquest Czar told him it was the last of the unconquered 57 states and needs to be brought into the fold.

4

As far as I can tell everybody is trying to look for ways to pull out of unwinnable wars they should never have entered in the first place, not enter new ones. Perhaps I’m wrong.

5

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]IMO, this guy is a nut, and if he gets nukes, everyone loses. Taking an aggressive stance against a potential aggressor is not bad policy.[/quote]I won’t argue he’s any more or less respectable or morally grounded than say, Cheney. IYO, what makes him a nut? Wanting to remove/replace a nearby bonafide aggressor’s government?

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]Taking an aggressive stance against a potential aggressor is not bad policy.[/quote]Iran the aggressor? Hmmm, interesting. What makes anyone believe they’ve been more aggressive than American or even Israel in the last, say, 50 years? When was the last time Iran invaded or launched a war against another nation? We are told Iran will launch. Personally, I’d like all CBWs / WMDs to stop being used, especially by us and Israel.

There’s no denying the hatred many Americans now have towards Iran… or just being afraid of Ahmadinejad and Iran’s military strength. Just imagine if we (Americans) learned that Iranian forces actually manipulated the coup that toppled our own elected president? Any chance that wouldn’t create some new colors of angry? Add that to knowing they’re continuing to plot invasion initiatives against us. Would we want to end up like our neighbors? Since might is right, we’d be up a creek. Too bad so sad?

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Oohhh…you mean Think Progress…these people. Yeah…they’re real ‘go-to’ folks for the facts…right?[/quote]EDIT: TainanCowboy… WOULD YOU suppose ThinkProgress miss-quoted Hersch, and he hasn’t a clue or ability how to get it publicly corrected? Obviously their attack on the Tea Party prevented you from checking the story that was referenced or else you’d try digging up muck on Hersch instead of the portal. Maybe you’ll find something (freerepublic perhaps?) explaining why Hersch would/did lie about Cheney’s gang considering false flag / self-murder to justify invading Iran? (from what I see freerepublic-mites display no such discussion)

ALSO TainanCowboy… May I know if the Independent’s story about the current CIA under Obama trying to pay for nuclear lies seems okay to you? And if you change the name from Obama to Bush, all still okay with you?

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]ThinkProgress.org Publishes Completely Fraudulent Video Labeling Tea Partiers Racists[/quote]Yeah I too think its wrong to label a whole political group racist. But let’s admit, there are some, even if Hannity/Fox/Palin won’t.

EDIT: TainanCowboy… you care to offer any reason to believe there AREN’T racists in the Tea Party?

6

@ j.scholl

Everyone wants to stop fighting.

The cost of war compared to the possible gains of cheap oil no longer add up. Bad economics.

Within a few years the remaining troops will be withdrawn.

7

Holocaust denier?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4529198.stm

not quite shooting your pal in the face while drinking and hunting, but pretty sad nonetheless.

that is why I used the word ‘potential’.

I don’t equate ‘nation building’ (as laughable as the concept is) with ‘wiping a country off the map.’

nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world … -iran.html

Sorry, the guy’s is a nutjob, and his country getting nukes is a threat. Thinking anything else would be illogical.

8

What are you guys talking about?

No western country has any money left to fight any war, anywhere.

All western countries will be pulling out of any wars they’ve managed to get themselves involved in. Makes no difference if the war is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Within the next 5 years, complete pull out for financial reasons.

Are you guys daft?

9

[quote=“tomthorne”]As far as I can tell everybody is trying to look for ways to pull out of unwinnable wars they should never have entered in the first place, not enter new ones. Perhaps I’m wrong.[/quote]Pullout of Afghanistan? Maybe a bulk by 2020 but never all the way. Germany, Japan and S. Korea know this all too well. Out of Iraq? And leave that awesome embassy to the locals? NO WAY. Not unless the American public somehow demands it.

We know we (the coalition of the 9/11 avenger nations still counted on as being generally “willing”) won’t ever create and maintain a peaceful Afghanistan or Iraq… but if those weren’t/aren’t REALLY the goals (nor are Arab woman’s rights, opium eradication, blah blah), the human impacts are irrelevant. Strategically we all know the invasions themselves were successful.

Ally govt versus enemy.
Overthrowing a government, replacing it with allied leadership (preferably subservient), is about all the goal really needed to be… (strategically… Mission really was Accomplished, snake’s head lobbed, no need to care about the messy floor, it was the snakes den anyway)… as long as they remain allies 20 maybe 50 years down the road.

But here’s the kicker, why are our leaders scheming to construct a deceptive reason to get public support for invading this 3rd country? Gunships and commandos to look like Iran’s navy, paying off a scientist to testify that Iran has nukes? Obviously, regrettably, there ARE some who DO WANT TO ENTER NEW WARS, and asap. Presidency changed, but have war policies? Of course every map shows how occupying Iran will certainly secure American hegemony for at least a couple generations… just so sad for so many.

10

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]Holocaust denier?
… pretty sad[/quote]True, to you and I questioning the Holocaust is just unfathomable. We were taught it, some of us have seen the camps, know survivors. Saying it simply didn’t happen takes a very challenging mental capacity. Doesn’t mean he’ll push the button though.

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]‘wiping a country off the map.’[/quote]I kinda remember that translation was challenged (of course not by any Jewish media, or Jewish friends of mine).

I don’t know any farsi… but here’s a diFfeReNt take than what most media reported he said. Ever read this before?[quote=“globalresearch.ca”]Before we get to the infamous remark, it’s important to note that the “quote” in question was itself a quote-- they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.

THE ACTUAL QUOTE:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question… what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”.

THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:

“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). [/quote]Anyway, food for thought. Populations hating, fearing, wishing him dead because of a possible mistranslation - probably deserves some confirmation.

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]his country getting nukes is a threat. Thinking anything else would be illogical.[/quote]Of course every country with nuclear capabilities are threats. Every polluting nation is a threat. Every nation building and selling D.U. munitions is a threat. Threats to humanity, right? But fabricating threats to initiate a 3rd invasion in 10 years?