Ron Paul: Iran Attack On Within A Year

[pisshead]

and i'm willing to bet they get their 'opportunity' just when they need it...


Ron Paul: Iran Attack On Within A Year
Presidential candidate says Neo-Cons waiting for right opportunity Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 28, 2007

[align=left]Presidential candidate Ron Paul believes that an attack on Iran is highly likely within a year and that the Bush administration is simply waiting for the right opportunity, or event on which to blame Iran, before launching the assault.
"If I were a betting man I would bet that they will attack Iran before the end of this administration, which means in the next year or so," the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show today.
"The plans have been laid just like the plans were laid to go into Iraq a long time before they did but they had to wait for the right opportunity." [/align]

[align=left] "The radical Neo-Cons are still there - they may have been diminished a little bit but they're still very very influential and very very powerful and they have the President's ear so I think they're just laying the plans, waiting for the opportunity," said Paul.
[/align]
[align=left]" I don't think the opportunity presents itself right now, I don't think we're gonna wake up tomorrow morning and have it happen unless they can blame the Iranians for something else - of course they're setting the stage for that by declaring that their Guard unit over there is a terrorist organization, so anything now is possible and they'll blame it on the Iranians and and make that excuse."
The Presidential candidate said he had "Talked to some military people and historians who knew the region," and they they told him "it would be the most disastrous thing we could do for our own sake," jeopardizing the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq and trapping them from getting out of the Persian Gulf.

Rhetoric regarding a potential military attack on Iran has heated again over the past few days, and President Bush himself stoked the flames further today when he warned of the risk of a "nuclear holocaust" if the country was allowed to acquire nuclear capability.
In a speech Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that a diplomatic push by the world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear program was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today stated that a U.S. attack on Iran was "impossible" due to U.S. troops being tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also dismissed Sarkozy's warning, calling the French premiere "inexperienced" and labeling his comments as purely "for the consumption of his inner circles."[/align]

pisshead Reviewed by pisshead on 08-28-2007. Ron Paul: Iran Attack On Within A Year and i'm willing to bet they get their 'opportunity' just when they need it... Ron Paul: Iran Attack On Within A Year Presidential candidate says Neo-Cons waiting for right opportunity Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, August 28, 2007 Rating: 5

[jamstigator]

I wouldn't be shocked if somebody starts dropping some big bombs on Iran. They are, after all, flouting international law and agreements. I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to be punished when you do that, so that other countries don't start flouting international law and agreements too, causing the whole world to collapse into lawless chaos and engender a worldwide race for nuclear weapons.

They kinda seem to be asking for it, thumbing their nose at the rest of the world, giving international law the finger. You do that enough and yeah, you're likely gonna get a smackdown. Best to give 'em that smackdown *before* they have armed themselves with nuclear weapons, especially with that crazy mofo they have for their spokesman. I guess we could wait until they have nuclear weapons, but that would seem unwise to me.

[sam44]

fo real. ron paul is the bomb. im working my ass off on his campaign all the way to election day.

[jakez]

I wouldn't be shocked if somebody starts dropping some big bombs on Iran. They are, after all, flouting international law and agreements. I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to be punished when you do that, so that other countries don't start flouting international law and agreements too, causing the whole world to collapse into lawless chaos and engender a worldwide race for nuclear weapons.

They kinda seem to be asking for it, thumbing their nose at the rest of the world, giving international law the finger. You do that enough and yeah, you're likely gonna get a smackdown. Best to give 'em that smackdown *before* they have armed themselves with nuclear weapons, especially with that crazy mofo they have for their spokesman. I guess we could wait until they have nuclear weapons, but that would seem unwise to me.

lmfao, your head is so far up your ass dude, don't forget the fact that we went to war with Iraq illegally, WE ARE THE ONES THUMBING THEIR NOSE AT THE REST OF THE WORLD. We shouldn't have even started all this shit you imbecile.

WE LIVE EVERY DAY IN THIS LAWLESS CHAOS YOU SPEAK OF, do you not see all of these politicians ignoring the law and lying and talking around the truth?

[eg420ne]

[quote=jamstigator]I wouldn't be shocked if somebody starts dropping some big bombs on Iran. They are, after all, flouting international law and agreements. I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to be punished when you do that, so that other countries don't start flouting international law and agreements too, causing the whole world to collapse into lawless chaos and engender a worldwide race for nuclear weapons.
]
WoW so the US pretty much can do what they want, eh...please put your head up to the FOXNEWS screen and yell USAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSUASUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSASUASUS A

[jamstigator]

I'm pretty sure the word 'international' means something like 'countries other than the U.S'. Need a dictionary? They're free online, ya know.

And yes, Iraq was obviously a mistake based on a lie - that they had weapons of mass destruction, yada yada. Why are you comparing that to IRAN? Iran *is* working on nuclear weapons and refuses to comply with international law. There is no debate about that; they admit it openly and freely. Well, they deny that it's *weapons* they're developing but you'd have to be a child to believe that, especially in light of how much information they are refusing to provide about their activities. If it's all peaceful, why refuse *any* information? In any case, you're comparing apples and oranges.

BTW, I'm a liberal; I don't watch much FAUX news, if any. Well, occasionally, for a laugh or two. But I'm not possessed of such low intelligence that I'd confuse Iraq and Iran. Yes, there's only one letter different in the names, which seems to be about as far as your brains are capable of going, but mine works a little better than that.

[eg420ne]

havent you'd heard USA is the God of the World...im sick and tired of theses criminals running rampant destorying our country and the world, they need to be stopped,. thanks to our founding fathers they put the right to bear arms just for times like this, its gonna happen sooner or later...

[eg420ne]

I'm pretty sure the word 'international' means something like 'countries other than the U.S'. Need a dictionary? They're free online, ya know.

And yes, Iraq was obviously a mistake based on a lie - that they had weapons of mass destruction, yada yada. Why are you comparing that to IRAN? Iran *is* working on nuclear weapons and refuses to comply with international law. There is no debate about that; they admit it openly and freely. So, you're comparing apples and oranges.

BTW, I'm a liberal; I don't watch much FAUX news, if any. Well, occasionally, for a laugh or two. But I'm not possessed of such low intelligence that I'd confuse Iraq and Iran. Yes, there's only one letter different in the names, which seems to be about as far as your brains are capable of going, but mine works a little better than that.

No debate abou that LOL....saids who the US and Israel, after ALLLLLL the lies our government said about IRAQ can we beLIEve anything else they say....can we, fuckin NO! NO! No! NO!.....get it

[eg420ne]

.

And yes, Iraq was obviously a mistake based on a lie - that they had weapons of mass destruction, yada yada. Why are you comparing that to IRAN? Iran *is* working on nuclear weapons and refuses to comply with international law. There is no debate about that; they admit it openly and freely. Well, they deny that it's *weapons* they're developing but you'd have to be a child to believe that, especially in light of how much information they are refusing to provide about their activities. If it's all peaceful, why refuse *any* information? In any case, you're comparing apples and oranges.

.

what a mess:wtf: sigh

[jamstigator]

So, just so I understand you guys, you're saying that should Iran (or whoever) gain nuclear weapons, regardless of how insane their leaders may seem, and how full of hatred for others, that this isn't a problem and that everything is hunky dory in that scenario? Your brainwaves are flatlining if you're so gung-ho on every crazy wacko in the world having nuclear weapons. Unless...are you Iranian? At least that'd explain your stance on wanting a self-proclaimed enemy to get some beefier weapons to use on us. Not to mention your lack of ability to speak rudimentary English.

BTW, what did we start with Iran? You mean when we allowed some of our people to be kidnapped by them and held for over a year? Blaming the victims there, aren't you? Or do you mean when they used a Hezbollah proxy to kill a couple hundred of our soldiers? We started that, by being blown up? Uh, okay, if you say so, then it must be right.

Hey, guys! S-C-H-O-O-L. You both must have missed a hell of a lot of it. Can't you at least work a little harder at *faking* an education? Really, it will help significantly in cutting down the number of folks who call you morons if you can at least fake it.