Most Americans and Europeans Support Impending Attack on Iran

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:37 am

Most Americans and Europeans Support Impending Attack on Iran

Remember Hitler’s maxim that the bigger and the more outrageous the lie, the more likely the masses are to believe it? Following the results of a recent poll we once again get an object lesson demonstrating that Hitler knew what he was talking about.

“Majorities in many Western and some Muslim countries are willing to consider military action against Iran to prevent the Islamic republic from obtaining nuclear weapons, a global poll showed on Thursday,” reports the Sydney Morning Herald today. “The Pew Research Center’s poll conducted in 22 countries found majorities or pluralities in 16 countries endorsing the possibility of military intervention.”

Naturally Americans are more susceptible to neocon propaganda than other people around the world. In America, a sucker is born every minute, as P. T. Barnum said (actually it was “Paper Collar Joe” Bessimer who made the cynical comment).

“Americans are among the most supportive of a military option to deal with Iran with 66 per cent of those who oppose a nuclear-armed Iran saying they would consider the use of force, a figure second only to Nigeria’s 71 per cent.”

No explanation why Nigerians are more brain-dead than Americans who spend large periods of time sucking up fallacious and absurd propaganda disseminated by a corporate media that works hand-in-glove with transnational corporations and the military-industrial complex, or maybe that should be military-industrial-media complex.

The death merchants have burrowed deep inside the corporate media — the Carlyle Group at the New York Times (the “liberal” newspaper instrumental in propagating neocon murder disinfo prior the invasion of Iraq), Bechtel at NBC (owned by mega-death merchant General Electric), Boeing and Halliburton at ABC, and Lockheed-Martin at Gannett.

Both Fox News and CNN enthusiastically cheered the invasion of Iraq. CNN not only sought advice from the Pentagon on new hires during the invasion, but during a previous invasion the Pentagon ran the show at the news network.

In Europe the numbers are lower — 59 per cent in France think it is OK to mass murder Iranians, while 51 percent of Germans, 50 percent of Spaniards, and 48 percent of Britons approve of bombing Iran. Germans are more than two generations removed from the horrors of Hitler and the bombing of their cities and this in part probably explains why they support such lunacy.

Even Muslims support killing Iranians. In Egypt 55 percent of those polled support engaging in war crimes while 53 percent in Jordan and 44 percent in Lebanon support it (the lower number in Lebanon is probably due to the fact they distinctly remember Israel bombing their country a couple years ago).

“Russians were divided on the use of force, with 32 per cent in each camp, while the Chinese poll respondents favored avoiding a clash by a margin of 43 to 35 per cent; in Japan the priority of avoiding conflict was endorsed by 55 per cent to 34 per cent,” reports the AFP.

Makes sense. Germany killed more than 25 million Russians (and Stalin killed a lot more) and the Chinese probably remember the Japanese murdering and pillaging their way across the country prior to the Second World War. Japan was nuked by the United States twice (90,000–166,000 civilians were killed in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki).

Large numbers of Americans and Europeans also support imposing sanctions on Iran. “The poll found strong opposition to the Iranian nuclear effort and support for stronger sanctions in Spain (79 per cent), Britain (78 per cent), Germany (77 per cent) and France (76 per cent), as well as 67 per cent in Russia and 58 per cent in China.”

Bush Senior, his son, and Clinton made sure “strong” sanctions imposed on Iraq before the U.S. invaded ultimately resulted in the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children. “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it,” said Clinton Secretary of State, Madeline Albright.

This “instrument of our policy” — as the globalist Bill Richardson called it — resulted in increased morbidity, mortality, low birth weight babies, infectious disease, malnutrition, epidemics, a break down of health services, and a decrease in available medicines and medical equipment.

Medieval sanctions resulted in decreased agricultural production and a drastic decrease in household diet and caloric intake. The U.S. intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply. “It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis,” notes Thomas J. Nagy.

Iranians are not likely to accept such a brutal “sanctions regime” imposed on their country by self-righteous globalists. Brainwashed Americans and Europeans believe sanctions and a concerted bombing campaign will deter Iran from building nuclear weapons it does not have the capacity to build (not with the 20% enriched uranium — entirely legal under the NPT — they now manufacture).

In fact, the sanctions (declaring war on Iran) will result in the closure of the Persian Gulf and shortages of oil that will deliver a fatal blow to already teetering western economies.

Pew should conduct a poll after Americans are forced to pay $7 or more for a gallon of gas and prices on just about everything go through the ceiling (most of what we consume is delivered by truck, including the beer and pizza Americans invariably consume while watching war coverage controlled by the military-industrial-complex on television).

Faced with such hardship most of them will probably say Iran should be reduced to a green glass parking lot.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-wo ... -ykfo.html

http://www.infowars.com/most-americans- ... k-on-iran/

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:10 pm

Is it something in the water? Is it the movies and series of shows on tv depicting war as some kind of a "Godsend"? What in the World is it? I just don't get it....

Do people not understand that the middle east right now is a POWDER KEG just waiting to go off? Did we not learn the lessons from invading Iraq based upon false information?

What don't people seem to be understanding? A war with Iran does NOT benefit the United States. Not now, not ever. We are more in debt than anytime in our history. And there is a majority of Americans that is for attacking Iran.

I can see the comedians and the critics of the future making fun of our huge mistake if we are dumb enough to attack Iran and set off a possible World War 3. That is after millions have died of course, and after the smoke and dust settles, if we even have a country left worth talking about at that point.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:40 pm

This is just out right irresponsible.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:04 pm

Nomad;1317183 wrote: This is just out right irresponsible.

Not sure if you are joking about this attack or if you are serious about this attack. If you are joking, than you are the one who is being irresponsible. If you are serious, than I agree with you. It is irresponsible for Americans to not consider the consequences of a war with Iran.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:07 pm

By the way Nomad if the mark of the beast system is ever implemented and I BEG GOD TO FORBID THAT IT EVER DOES.....than you just might get your wish if you are serious about your signature.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:08 pm

Do you know, "are willing to consider military action against Iran to prevent the Islamic republic from obtaining nuclear weapons" has absolutely nothing to do with "Support Impending Attack on Iran". The way you draft your threads makes them impossible to engage with.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:09 pm

spot;1317208 wrote: Do you know, "are willing to consider military action against Iran to prevent the Islamic republic from obtaining nuclear weapons" has absolutely nothing to do with "Support Impending Attack on Iran". The way you draft your threads makes them impossible to engage with.

It's all the same to me. An attack on Iran is an attack on Iran.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:14 pm

TruthBringer;1317209 wrote: It's all the same to me. An attack on Iran is an attack on Iran.

It's an attack on Iran in an entirely different context. You used "Impending", for one thing.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

spot;1317211 wrote: It's an attack on Iran in an entirely different context. You used "Impending", for one thing.

Because it is impending. Trust me the attack will come long before Iran actually starts building nuclear weapons. So it will come before. Not after. And the majority of Americans are for it. And that's how the government is going to spin it. So keep on mixing words. It won't matter. The consequences for our country will still be the same.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:20 pm

TruthBringer;1317204 wrote: Not sure if you are joking about this attack or if you are serious about this attack. If you are joking, than you are the one who is being irresponsible. If you are serious, than I agree with you. It is irresponsible for Americans to not consider the consequences of a war with Iran.

This is the part I find irresponsible.

Most Americans and Europeans Support Impending Attack on Iran

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:21 pm

Nomad;1317215 wrote: This is the part I find irresponsible.

Most Americans and Europeans Support Impending Attack on Iran

You're not being exact.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:50 pm

Most Americans, Most Europeans. That part is hideously neglectful of the truth.

You throw words around as if theyre meaningless. You throw ideas about for your own amusement. You think and speak as if you are the truthbringer when in fact I have yet to witness anything resembling truth fall from your mouth.

Lets take a poll and have a sampling of what most people support.

How many of us support a war with Iran?

Me, hell no.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:54 pm

TruthBringer;1317212 wrote: Because it is impending. Trust me

I trust your predictions as much as I trust the astrology column in my television guide.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:56 pm

Nomad;1317234 wrote:

You think and speak as if you are the truthbringer

The Truth is Universal. Anyone can bring it, at any time.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:00 pm

spot;1317238 wrote: I trust your predictions as much as I trust the astrology column in my television guide.

Interesting how this thread has turned into "my predictions". When I haven't given a single prediction in this thread. I am going off of the fact that the United States is sending a fleet of warships over to the area as we speak:

Armada of U.S. and Israeli Warships Head for Iran

More than twelve U.S. and Israeli warships, including an aircraft carrier, passed through the Suez Canal on Friday and are headed for the Red Sea. “According to eyewitnesses, the U.S. battleships were the largest to have crossed the Canal in many years,” reported the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi on Saturday.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Egyptian opposition members criticized the government for cooperating with the U.S. and Israeli forces and allowing the passage of the ships through Egyptian territorial waters. The Red Sea is the most direct route to the Persian Gulf from the Mediterranean.

Retired Egyptian General Amin Radi, chairman of the national security affairs committee, told the paper that “the decision to declare war on Iran is not easy, and Israel, due to its wild nature, may start a war just to remain the sole nuclear power in the region,” according to Yedioth Internet, an Israeli news site.

The passage of a warship armada through the Suez Canal and headed for the Persian Gulf and Iran is apparently not deemed important enough to be reported by the corporate media in the United States.

Egypt recently rejected an Israeli request to prevent Gaza aid ships from passing through the Suez Canal. According to a report by al-Jazeera, Israel appealed to Egyptians asking them to prevent the passage of Iranian ships through the Suez Canal. The Egyptians responded that due to international agreements on movement through the Suez Canal, Egypt cannot prevent ships from passing through the canal unless a ship belongs to a state that is at war with Egypt. Iran and Egypt are not at war.

The United States and Israel, the sole nuclear-armed power in the Middle East, have not ruled out a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

A number of Israeli politicians and scholars have admitted Israel has used its nuclear weapons for “compellent purposes,” in short forcing others to accept Israeli political demands.

Israel’s threats to use nuclear weapons have increased significantly since it was discovered in 2002 that Iran was building uranium enrichment facilities. Israel’s former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon “called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete,” the Sunday Times reported on November 5, 2002. The United States invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003.

Earlier this month Israel leaked to the press that they had permission from Saudi Arabia to use their air space to attack Iran. “In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran,” the Sunday Times reported on June 12. On June 14, the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to UK Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf issued a categorical denial of the report.

On June 17, Iran’s parliament warned it will respond in kind to inspection of its ships under a fourth round of sanctions imposed on the country by the UN Security Council. “Even if one Iranian ship is stopped for security-check, we will act likewise and thoroughly inspect any (western) ship passing through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz,” member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Hossein Ebrahimi said.

Also on Saturday, Iran accused the United States of “deception” and insisted its missile program is for self-defense after a top U.S. official claimed that Iran had the capacity to attack Europe. “The Islamic Republic’s missile capability has been designed and implemented to defend against any military aggression and it does not threaten any nation,” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said in a statement carried by state media.

Vahidi announced on April 10 that Iran will use all available options to defend itself if the country comes under a military attack. “Americans have said they will use all options against Iran, we announce that we will use all options to defend ourselves,” Vahidi told the Tehran Times.

Report: US battleships cross Suez Canal - Israel News, Ynetnews

Egypt rejects Israeli request to stop Iranian ships: Voice of Russia

Israel's Nuclear Weapons

Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel - Times Online

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites - Times Online

fullstory

Iran Threatens to Stop Western Ships if Subjected to Cargo Inspection

tehran times : Iran will use all options to defend itself: minister

http://www.infowars.com/armada-of-u-s-a ... -for-iran/

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:06 pm

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:06 pm

TruthBringer;1317245 wrote: Interesting how this thread has turned into "my predictions". When I haven't given a single prediction in this thread.

It was a relevant response to your "Trust me" demand. You used an imperative.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:07 pm

TruthBringer;1317241 wrote: The Truth is Universal. Anyone can bring it, at any time.

Youre omitting one critical element to your statement. Its your truth. Youve said before there is only one truth and it is yours. This belief has the makings of an ego maniacal narcissist and delusional madman. If you believe everything you post here you need some help. But you wouldnt know that would you?

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:07 pm

spot;1317253 wrote: It was a relevant response to your "Trust me" demand.

Well you can either accept the Truth, or you can deny it. As I said, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:11 pm

TruthBringer;1317256 wrote: Well you can either accept the Truth, or you can deny it. As I said, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Statements of fact are truth. “Majorities in many Western and some Muslim countries are willing to consider military action against Iran to prevent the Islamic republic from obtaining nuclear weapons, a global poll showed on Thursday is a fact. "Most Americans and Europeans Support Impending Attack on Iran" is your extremely biased opinion unsupported by the fact you take as your axiom.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:08 pm

Why don't we drag this out of the sparring ring and find out if anyone here supports attacking Iran.

Me fourth, sorta. I do not support preemptive attacks on any sovereign nation. Not ever. As emphatic as that is, and as much as I try to avoid emphatic statements, I can't currently think of any scenario that would shake me from this position.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:07 am

Israel Matzav: Saudis deny giving Israel air corridor

We'll let Israel handle it and just be disappointed after the fact that they didn't give the UN more opportunity to bring about a change in Iran policy.

Kind of like the Saudis will be outraged that their air space was used:rolleyes:

theia · Post by **theia** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:34 am

spot;1317238 wrote: I trust your predictions as much as I trust the astrology column in my television guide.

Thanks, spot!

I thought they were true and was looking forward to meeting the man of my life next week :-5

I don't support an attack on Iran

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 8:11 am

Nomad;1317234 wrote: Most Americans, Most Europeans. That part is hideously neglectful of the truth.

You throw words around as if theyre meaningless. You throw ideas about for your own amusement. You think and speak as if you are the truthbringer when in fact I have yet to witness anything resembling truth fall from your mouth.

Lets take a poll and have a sampling of what most people support.

How many of us support a war with Iran?

Me, hell no.

Nor I or anyone that I know, and I know lots of people.

I would not support an attack on Iran if they had 2,000 nukes already.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:13 am

I dont and do not know anybody who does, even the odd aquaintance who's politics are slightly right of Atilla the Hun

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:31 am

Sorry TB,

I don't want to go to war with Iran or any country. In fact, none of my American friends do either.

I Just wish we were done with ALL wars:mad:

It would be nice to live in peace, wouldn't it

?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:36 am

TruthBringer;1317139 wrote: SIZE="3"Most Americans and Europeans Support Impending Attack on Iran

Remember Hitler’s maxim that the bigger and the more outrageous the lie, the more likely the masses are to believe it? Following the results of a recent poll we once again get an object lesson demonstrating that Hitler knew what he was talking about.

Quite. I don't want war in Iran, in fact I'm against it.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:39 am

Oh, after all Iraq and Afghanistan are going so well, why not have one with Iran as well¦.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:04 am

Wars don't work anymore. A lot of people die and nothing seems to change.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:06 am

mikeinie;1317634 wrote: Oh, after all Iraq and Afghanistan are going so well, why not have one with Iran as well¦.

You'll need to tell TruthBringer that's a No or he'll take it as a Yes.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:20 am

spot;1317655 wrote: You'll need to tell TruthBringer that's a No or he'll take it as a Yes.

:wah: That would be a No

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:30 pm

Reports: IAF Landed at Saudi Base, US Troops near Iran Border

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Arutz Sheva

June 24, 2010

The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran.

Both reports follow by less than a week the Pentagon’s confirmation that an unusually large American fleet sailed through the Suez Canal Saturday. Several reports stated that an Israeli ship joined the armada.

The Pentagon played down the news, saying the American maneuvers were routine. However, a report by Iran on Wednesday that it has enriched dozens of pounds of 17 per cent enriched uranium serves as a reminder that time is running out to stop Iran from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s Fars News Agency said the Israeli military aircraft landed 10 days ago at the Saudi base near the city of Tabuk, located in northwest Saudi Arabia, one of the closest areas in the oil kingdom to Iran.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138231

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:48 pm

I'm sorry, I just can't see Obama secretly approving a preemptive strike. Hell, I can barely see him approving a defensive battle.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:07 am

TruthBringer;1318795 wrote: Reports: IAF Landed at Saudi Base, US Troops near Iran Border

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Arutz Sheva

June 24, 2010

The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran.

Both reports follow by less than a week the Pentagon’s confirmation that an unusually large American fleet sailed through the Suez Canal Saturday. Several reports stated that an Israeli ship joined the armada.

The Pentagon played down the news, saying the American maneuvers were routine. However, a report by Iran on Wednesday that it has enriched dozens of pounds of 17 per cent enriched uranium serves as a reminder that time is running out to stop Iran from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s Fars News Agency said the Israeli military aircraft landed 10 days ago at the Saudi base near the city of Tabuk, located in northwest Saudi Arabia, one of the closest areas in the oil kingdom to Iran.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138231

And what does this have to do with your statement that most Americans and Europeans support an attack on Iran, where is the connection?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:00 am

Accountable;1318796 wrote: I'm sorry, I just can't see Obama secretly approving a preemptive strike. Hell, I can barely see him approving a defensive battle.

Maybe McChrystal set it up as a prank.:sneaky: