Trump Goes to War Against Iran

[navy-vet]

I still wouldn't call this "war".

agreed

 

[acptulsa]

Iran was the rightful owner of Iraq?? Than they should pay us for getting rid of Iraq.

You said that Iraq is Iran's back yard. We took out Iraq and installed a puppet government though. Iraq is American property. Iran can't have it for free. We paid good money for that country.

No, I did not. That's why you didn't quote me saying that, because you can't back up that lie.

So, Iraq is ours because we paid good money for it? To whom? The former rightful owners?

We paid good money to Boeing, Raytheon, and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex. Were they the rightful owners of Iraq? Are you saying they hold title deeds to the whole world, and we can have any part of it if we pay them enough?

agreed

I don't. I'd agree if that sentence ended with "yet."

 

[Todd]

In my experience if we only let people in the military decide if we go to.war its not going to get us into any less wars. Its not like they pay their own salary either. Thats like letting walmart decide if you are going to spend all your money there.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm suggesting if you wish to fight then you get to be part of the battle. Biggest bullshit is people who never have to sacrifice when they make decisions for others to sacrifice.

 

[nikcers]

No, I did not. That's why you didn't quote me saying that, because you can't back up that lie.

So, Iraq is ours because we paid good money for it? To whom? The former rightful owners?

We paid good money to Boeing, Raytheon, and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex. Were they the rightful owners of Iraq? Are you saying they hold title deeds to the whole world, and we can have any part of it if we pay them enough?

Yep. Trillions of dollars, Americans that fought in the Iraq war died or have permanent psychological and physiological problems. We paid both blood and treasure for Iraq. Iran can't have it for free. Americans voted overwhelmingly for the guy who ran on that platform. They could have voted for regime change creator of ISIS queen or Rand Paul. They voted for the guy who literally said to the victor goes the spoils, take the oil.

 

[nikcers]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm suggesting if you wish to fight then you get to be part of the battle. Biggest bull$#@! is people who never have to sacrifice when they make decisions for others to sacrifice.

What i am saying is if only the people making money off war decide if we go to war and not the people paying their salary we will go into more wars.

 

[navy-vet]

No, I did not. That's why you didn't quote me saying that, because you can't back up that lie.

So, Iraq is ours because we paid good money for it? To whom? The former rightful owners?

We paid good money to Boeing, Raytheon, and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex. Were they the rightful owners of Iraq? Are you saying they hold title deeds to the whole world, and we can have any part of it if we pay them enough?



I don't. I'd agree if that sentence ended with "yet."

That's what I meant. I put this in the same boat as the one where they had our sailors on their knees. no pun intended

 

[RonZeplin]

Community Disorganizer

Ayatollah Ruby is ramping up for the Arab Spring jihad.

Terran's self appointed Mayor - Iranian Student Leader

 

[mattniers]

Yep. Trillions of dollars, Americans that fought in the Iraq war died or have permanent psychological and physiological problems.

That's really not Iran's fault. It's the fault of those soldiers. No sympathy for them.

 

[nikcers]

That's really not Iran's fault. It's the fault of those soldiers. No sympathy for them.

Its Iran's fault for getting involved in the Iraq war. They didn't mind their own business. They can't take over Iraq for free. We already paid for Iraq. It will cost bigly if they want it.

 

[mattniers]

Its Iran's fault for getting involved in the Iraq war.

If they didn't get involved then Iran would have to fight ISIS on Iranian territory. They got involved in Iraq to protect themselves from ISIS. But as an ISIS sympathizer, you want ISIS to flourish and Iran prevented that, so that's why you are anti-Iran.

 

[oyarde]

No evidence for this statement, unless you consider Iraqi ISIS members to be 'innocent'.

Which caliphate is it you are rooting for ? Is one going to be better than others ?

 

[mattniers]

Which caliphate is it you are rooting for ? Is one going to be better than others ?

Your post makes zero sense as Iranians are Shia and Shias don't believe in a caliphate. But if you must know, Iran is the one that protected the Christians in Syria from ISIS. Whereas America sponsored the genocide of Iraq and Syria's Christians through its ISIS proxy. So yes, not killing Christians is a good thing.

 

[oyarde]

Your post makes zero sense as Iranians are Shia and Shias don't believe in a caliphate. But if you must know, Iran is the one that protected the Christians in Syria from ISIS. Whereas America sponsored the genocide of Iraq and Syria's Christians through its ISIS proxy. So yes, not killing Christians is a good thing.

Ah , so you are Shia .I am old and it is hard for me to keep up with religions .

 

[oyarde]

If it makes anyone feel any better this will be me fourth consecutive year of paying no tax so I am not funding anything .

 

[mattniers]

Hezbollah and other Iranian fighters liberating/saluting the Christian churches of Syria from America-sponsored ISIS terrorists:

 

[mattniers]

Ah , so you are Shia .I am old and it is hard for me to keep up with religions .

Not a Shia or even a Muslim. Most Norwegians are not Muslim. It's possible to know about other religions and not be a follower of that religion. It's called opening and reading a book.

 

[Anti Globalist]

If it makes anyone feel any better this will be me fourth consecutive year of paying no tax so I am not funding anything .

We all wish we weren't funding any of this.

 

[Ender]

Not a Shia or even a Muslim. Most Norwegians are not Muslim. It's possible to know about other religions and not be a follower of that religion. It's called opening and reading a book.

Yep.

I've been called a Muslim for knowing about most all religions & rallying to uphold the 1st Amendment.

 

[oyarde]

Not a Shia or even a Muslim. Most Norwegians are not Muslim. It's possible to know about other religions and not be a follower of that religion. It's called opening and reading a book.

Ya I never liked Norway , the fish is not good and gas prices too high . I have actually lived in a lot of other countries but the few friends I made were not often religious asnd I have little interest in it .

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Naaa, he's just playing his part in the script, as ordered, lest Epstein's videos of him porking little kids is released.

Never forget:

Granted there have been MSM reports about Epstein blackmailing politicians and UK's Sun and other media has published phots of MAGA leader with daughter of Israeli spy and Epstein associate Maxwell, there is no credible report in MSM outside of various conspiracy theories saying that Epstein was blackmailing him also.



Hardcore conservative Pat Buchanan had also talked about neoconservatives Mideast reshaping plan as being cited by Gen Clark in that video with some different nuances and angles.




Pat Buchanan: Will Bibi’s war become America’s war?

Pat Buchanan | Tuesday, September 3, 2019

President Trump, who canceled a missile strike on Iran after the shoot-down of a U.S. Predator drone, to avoid killing Iranians, may not want a U.S. war with Iran. But the same cannot be said of Bibi Netanyahu.

On Aug. 21, Israel launched a night attack on a village south of Damascus to abort what Israel claims was a plot by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force to fly “killer drones” into Israel, an act of war.

The next day, two Israeli drones crashed outside the media offices of Hezbollah in Beirut. Israel then attacked a base camp of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command in north Lebanon.
The following Monday, Israel admitted to a strike on Iranian-backed militias of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq. And Israel does not deny responsibility for July’s attacks on munitions dumps and bases of pro-Iran militias in Iraq.
Understandably, Israel’s actions have brought threats of retaliation. Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah has warned of vengeance for the death of his people in the Syria strike.
On Aug. 20, in the 71st week of the “Great March of Return” protests on Gaza’s border, 50 Palestinians were wounded by Israeli live fire. In 16 months, 200 have died from gunshots, with thousands wounded.
America’s reaction to Israel’s recent attacks? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Netanyahu to assure him of U.S. support of Israel’s actions. Some Iraqi leaders are now calling for the expulsion of Americans.
Why is Netanyahu now admitting to Israel’s role in the strikes in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq? Why has he begun threatening Iran itself and even the Houthi rebels in Yemen?



Whose War?

The Neoconservatives

Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.
A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.
Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).
All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.
Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.

Beating the War Drums

When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic “rogue states” that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.

Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.
President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”

“Securing the Realm”

The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.
In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.
In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.
In his own 1997 paper, “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith pressed Israel to re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,” though “the price in blood would be high.”
Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel and the United States “to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should … broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”
He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote, “Crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.
About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:
The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.