ForumGarden

News Reports On Possible Iran Attack Pick Up Momentum

The alternative media in the United States and corporate media outlets in Europe and Israel are now reporting on a story that surfaced earlier in the week revealing a weapons build-up in preparation for an attack on Iran.

On March 14, the Herald Scotland reported on the delivery of hundreds of U.S. bunker buster bombs to the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran. Ten ammunition containers were sent to the island in January, according to a cargo manifest from the U.S. The Scottish newspaper report said Superior Maritime Services, a shipping company based in Florida, was paid $699,500 to transport military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia, including 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs. Bunker busters are designed to penetrate underground structures.

Final destination Iran? - Herald Scotland | News | World News

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran. U.S. bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” Dan Plesch, director of the Center for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, told the Herald Scotland. “The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added.

Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq targeted non-military objects including electrical distribution facilities, three media facilities, civilian telecommunication facilities, government buildings, roads, and bridges. This targeting of civilian infrastructure will almost certainly be repeated in an attack on Iran.

In its unconstitutional and undeclared war against the people of Iraq, the U.S. violated the 1949 and 1977 protocols of the Geneva Convention which prohibit targeting civilian populations and civilian infrastructure and causing extensive destruction of property not justified by military objectives.

“Estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq suggest that up to quarter of a million people may die as a result of an attack using conventional weapons and many more will suffer homelessness, malnutrition and other serious health and environmental consequences in its aftermath. From what we know of the likely civilian devastation caused by the coalition’s war strategies, there are strong arguments that attacking Iraq may involve committing both war crimes and crimes against humanity,” Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation declared prior to the March, 2003, attack.

Australian legal experts declare an invasion of Iraq a war crime

The current death toll from the U.S. invasion now stands at over a million people. The story was almost completely ignored by the corporate media in the United States.

#1. Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation | Project Censored

In addition to the massive civilian death toll in Iran as a result of an attack, there will be serious economic and political reverberations. “Attacking Iran would be the end of everything as we know it, and Americans will turn away from their leadership if such a dirty and dastardly move is attempted. It’ll quickly become a third world nation, as if we aren’t in all reality totally broke and in debt anyway,” writes Tim King for Salem News.

Reports Indicate U.S. is Mobilizing for War in Iran - Salem-News.Com

If an attack happens, writes U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent and Iraqi war veteran David DeBatto, the United States will experience an economic and political collapse.

The Coming Catastrophe?

Following the attack, DeBatto writes, “Americans are not going to be able to afford gas to go to work. Truckers will pull their big rigs to the side of the road and simply walk away. Food, medicine and other critical products are not going to be brought to stores. Gas and electricity (what is left of the short supply) are going to be too expensive for most people to afford. Children, the sick and elderly will die from lack of air-conditioned homes and hospitals in the summer. Children, the sick and elderly will die in the winter for lack of heat. There will be food riots across the country. A barter system would take the place of currency and credit as the economy dissolves and banks close or limit withdrawals. Civil unrest will build.” Ultimately, according to DeBatto’s scenario, martial law will be declared.

In 2007, Herald Scotland reported the U.S. had secretly upgraded stealth bomber hangars on Diego Garcia for strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans - Herald Scotland

“The improvement of the B1 Spirit jet infrastructure coincides with an ‘urgent operational need’ request for £44m to fit racks to the long-range aircraft,” Ian Bruce wrote. “That would allow them to carry experimental 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs designed to smash underground bunkers buried as much as 200ft beneath the surface through reinforced concrete.”

The U.S. Department of Defense request for special bomb racks was hidden in a request to Congress for extra emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the newspaper reported on October 29, 2007.

YouTube - Bomb, bomb Iran? US in 'same build-up to war as to Iraq invasion'

This island is British. So whatever the US does, the UK is involved automatically.

Do you get the feeling that a 3rd world war is possible? Look at how many countries in that area have nuclear arms capability ! Might as well go outside and shoot ourselves now, then!

How the heck can USA afford yet another war front ffs? The UK certainly can't.

G#Gill;1297434 wrote: This island is British. So whatever the US does, the UK is involved automatically.

Do you get the feeling that a 3rd world war is possible? Look at how many countries in that area have nuclear arms capability ! Might as well go outside and shoot ourselves now, then!

How the heck can USA afford yet another war front ffs?


It can't. And the "powers that be" already know this. I highly doubt that would stop them though. It will be up to the American people to resist such a war if the government ever attempted to force it upon us.

And it would be up to the British people as well to refuse such a war if your government ever attempted to do the same to you.

We got caught off guard with the Iraq war, and so did the UK. But this time we have no excuse, and the voices of the people are the only thing that would save these two countries from falling into economic collapse due to an unjust war.

If the British/American government would work side by side to start yet another war, then the only thing strong enough to prevent that from happening would be if the British/American people worked side by side to oppose it. After all, the people outnumber their governments do they not? Peaceful protest is what liberated the people of India. Peaceful protest in massive numbers can prevent any campaign from being launched. But it has to be done in more massive numbers than was the original opposition against the war in Iraq. It would have to be double that, if not triple that, and achieving those kind of numbers is entirely possible to obtain.

TruthBringer;1297435 wrote: It can't. And the "powers that be" already know this. I highly doubt that would stop them though. It will be up to the American people to resist such a war if the government ever attempted to force it upon us.

And it would be up to the British people as well to refuse such a war if your government ever attempted to do the same to you.

We got caught off guard with the Iraq war, and so did the UK. But this time we have no excuse, and the voices of the people are the only thing that would save these two countries from falling into economic collapse due to an unjust war.


Well, in case people didn't know, a massive demonstration was held in London, organised by 'Stop The War Coalition', just prior to Bliar involving the UK in the Iraq illegal war. There would have been time for that 'man' to have had second thoughts before going to war, but no notice was taken of the vast anti-war feeling that millions of UK residents had. It does not matter these days, what the people think or say. I believe the only action that the ordinary man-in-the-street can take which may have some effect, is a riot. The peaceful demonstration, regardless of how many millions take part, is just laughed at !

From Wikipedia

The largest demonstration organised by the Coalition was against the imminent invasion of Iraq on 15 February 2003, claimed to be the largest demonstration in Britain with estimates of attendance ranging between 750,000 and 2,000,000 people.[1] Speakers included Tony Benn, Jesse Jackson, Charles Kennedy, Ken Livingstone, and Harold Pinter.

Stop the War Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You no doubt know how large Hyde Park in London is, well there were so many people in that demo that Hyde Park was full, and the streets around the entrance were blocked with people who could not get in to hear the speakers. My husband and son were there and were gobsmacked at the huge number of people that came from all over the country to attend.

NO NOTICE WAS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT.

I'm afraid people will just have to be a lot more physical, to get any notice taken of them.

TruthBringer;1297426 wrote: SIZE="3"]News Reports On Possible Iran Attack Pick Up Momentum


I am unclear as to why anyone should want to attack Iran. Oil?

Bill Sikes;1297464 wrote: I am unclear as to why anyone should want to attack Iran. Oil?


No, Israel.

G#Gill;1297444 wrote: Well, in case people didn't know, a massive demonstration was held in London, organised by 'Stop The War Coalition', just prior to Bliar involving the UK in the Iraq illegal war. There would have been time for that 'man' to have had second thoughts before going to war, but no notice was taken of the vast anti-war feeling that millions of UK residents had. It does not matter these days, what the people think or say. I believe the only action that the ordinary man-in-the-street can take which may have some effect, is a riot. The peaceful demonstration, regardless of how many millions take part, is just laughed at !

From Wikipedia

The largest demonstration organised by the Coalition was against the imminent invasion of Iraq on 15 February 2003, claimed to be the largest demonstration in Britain with estimates of attendance ranging between 750,000 and 2,000,000 people.[1] Speakers included Tony Benn, Jesse Jackson, Charles Kennedy, Ken Livingstone, and Harold Pinter.

Stop the War Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You no doubt know how large Hyde Park in London is, well there were so many people in that demo that Hyde Park was full, and the streets around the entrance were blocked with people who could not get in to hear the speakers. My husband and son were there and were gobsmacked at the huge number of people that came from all over the country to attend.

NO NOTICE WAS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT.

I'm afraid people will just have to be a lot more physical, to get any notice taken of them.


He got re-elected as well remember. There's something badly wrong when a party with less than 1/3 of the votes ends up with 100% of the power. Anyone who says first past the post is the best system is an idiot. Only a politician could convince themselves they have a mandate to govern.

I've always said we need proportional representation. :rolleyes:

What horse hockey!!

So we have a "news agency" reporting that there are rumours of an arms build-up. So then we get some guy to comment on "if these reports are true, then..."

If the gummint wanted to invade another country, they would have to spend a lot more time beating the drums and rattling their sabres to get us stupid yanks riled up and ready to go to war.

We fell for the "WMD" thing once with King George sounding the alarm, and we were already in a bad mood of the WTC, so it was a lot easier then.

Watch the media. The whining about nukes is hardly at the level that we can mindlessly agree to send more of our kids off the war again.

This crap is more intended to excite the Iranis and get them fretting than anything else.

What pointless drivel.

spot;1297468 wrote: No, Israel.But Obama is having none of it. Thats why Rahm is carrying on (Obama should ditch his ass after health care passes). Its about time we Americans elected a president who has an independent mind concerning Israel.

TruthBringer;1297426 wrote: , including 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs. Bunker busters are designed to penetrate underground structures.




fraid i lost interest right there cos your source dosnt know what they are talking about.................the 2000lb Paveway is not 'massive'...........not by a long shot.........its a standard sized bomb.........and used very widely...........oh...and if it is a 'BLU-117' then its for the US Navy not the Air Force.......and if thay cant get that right then i cant take anything else seriously

You actually believe the president has anything to do with the stance on Israel?? A president with an independent mind?? :yh_rotfl That's funny!

Crawl out from under that rock & have a look around. :-3 Geez!

They don't call the shots. Only a fool would think so.

Presidents run one thing & one thing only - their mouths.

(save a couple of good ones)

Steev;1297601 wrote: You actually believe the president has anything to do with the stance on Israel?? A president with an independent mind?? :yh_rotfl That's funny!

Crawl out from under that rock & have a look around. :-3 Geez!

They don't call the shots. Only a fool would think so.

Presidents run one thing & one thing only - their mouths.

(save a couple of good ones)Name the "good ones", steev.

I do believe the president does have his or her own position on Israel. You really need to get off the conspiracy drugs, or at least lessen the dosage.

It appears as though I've hurt your feelings. Sorry bout that.

Doesn't take a whole lot of research to unveil the corruption.

The supply of truth has always exceeded the demand.

It does, however, require the ability to think critically.

This isn't the first time in history the masses have been duped.

You believe that we're all immune to that now? Nope, not a chance.

Don't subscribe to the 'sheeple' mentality.

Re-the decent presidents:

Not interested in your bait n switch tactics.

It won't work, babe.

Perhaps you need to do some research of your own if you're genuinely interested.

(meanwhile lay off the propaganda drugs huh? lol)

Steev;1297610 wrote: It appears as though I've hurt your feelings. Sorry bout that.

Doesn't take a whole lot of research to unveil the corruption.

The supply of truth has always exceeded the demand.

It does, however, require the ability to think critically.

This isn't the first time in history the masses have been duped.

You believe that we're all immune to that now? Nope, not a chance.

Don't subscribe to the 'sheeple' mentality.

Re-the decent presidents:

Not interested in your bait n switch tactics.

It won't work, babe.

Perhaps you need to do some research of your own if you're genuinely interested.

(meanwhile lay off the propaganda drugs huh? lol)You obviously can't name the good ones, can you?

Requiring me to do the research is senseless because I didn't make the claim, you did. Now prove it! I realize you're probably getting tired of me refuting your claims, which seem to be based on paranoia more than anything real. Don't ask me to awash myself into your world. I've looked at enough of the conspiracy theories to know better. The difference between you and me is that I've come out the other end with all my faculties fully intact.

Believe me, you can't hurt my feelings, son.

Aso,

Gosh, you're such a sensitive lil duffer, aintcha?!

I don't believe in conspiracy 'theories' either.

A theory is just that - a theory.

The facts, however, are undeniable.

It's clear you're lost in your lil ol world of denial. You poor boy.

Clearly you haven't looked at f'all. Certainly not without blinders on.



How bout 'you' prove to me that the federal reserve isn't behind the scenes pulling the strings of government. Now 'that' I'd love to hear.

Can't do it, can ya? Of course not. You haven't proven squat in this area.

Nothin but hot air. Sidetracking, skirting the issue & yada, yada, yada with you.

So, only 'your' faculties can be intact, huh? Well, ok there, Einstein.

Thanks for clearing that up.

It's just a one way street with you, isn't it?

Your way or no way. Good luck with that.

Now stop whining like a school girl & let's kiss n make up, huh? :-4

Incidentally, any of the presidents who were anti-fed were on the right track. Unfortunately, it didn't work for any of them, did it? Hmm...wonder why?

As long as the fed controls the money, they control government & subsequently the people.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

G#Gill;1297444 wrote: I believe the only action that the ordinary man-in-the-street can take which may have some effect, is a riot. The peaceful demonstration, regardless of how many millions take part, is just laughed at !




Riots and violence breaking out all over the World solves nothing. It is like a baby who has just been given a fresh bowl of food, and who refuses to eat it and spills it's contents all over the ground. For the time, the baby feels joy from it's actions, and finds comfort in it's ability to create destruction, but sooner or later that baby is going to cry out for more food.

All of the great Spiritual teachers of the World knew that violence was like a parasite that infects the minds of men and women. If not done away with, it will continue to feed off of people's emotions in the same way that a tick feeds off the blood of it's host.

Steev;1297635 wrote: Aso,

Gosh, you're such a sensitive lil duffer, aintcha?!

I don't believe in conspiracy 'theories' either.

A theory is just that - a theory.

The facts, however, are undeniable.

It's clear you're lost in your lil ol world of denial. You poor boy.

Clearly you haven't looked at f'all. Certainly not without blinders on.



How bout 'you' prove to me that the federal reserve isn't behind the scenes pulling the strings of government. Now 'that' I'd love to hear.

Can't do it, can ya? Of course not. You haven't proven squat in this area.

Nothin but hot air. Sidetracking, skirting the issue & yada, yada, yada with you.

So, only 'your' faculties can be intact, huh? Well, ok there, Einstein.

Thanks for clearing that up.

It's just a one way street with you, isn't it?

Your way or no way. Good luck with that.

Now stop whining like a school girl & let's kiss n make up, huh? :-4

Incidentally, any of the presidents who were anti-fed were on the right track. Unfortunately, it didn't work for any of them, did it? Hmm...wonder why?

As long as the fed controls the money, they control government & subsequently the people.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.


We are on the same page and you say things the way I wish I could. Keep posting.:wah:

If Israel were to attack Iran we should cut ties with them and engage in a boycott.

Hell, the world should cut ties with us and boycott the U.S.

Hell, the world should cut ties with us and boycott the U.S.

They're afraid to.

hoppy;1297661 wrote: We are on the same page and you say things the way I wish I could. Keep posting.


Hi Hoppy! Nice to meet like minded folks such as yourself.

I'm just not going to be swayed by any remotely pro government rhetoric. :yh_ttth

What a bunch of crap.

What most people think they see going on out there in the world is NOT what actually is. Not even close.

Many thickheaded or frightened individuals out there that just can't or won't hear of it. Understandable, given the years of brainwashing they've been subjected to.

Even many of those who seem otherwise intelligent refuse to admit that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes like the majority of people and that's exactly what the ruling elite are counting on.

:yh_peace

Steev;1297818 wrote: Hi Hoppy! Nice to meet like minded folks such as yourself.

I'm just not going to be swayed by any remotely pro government rhetoric. :yh_ttth

What a bunch of crap.

What most people think they see going on out there in the world is NOT what actually is. Not even close.

Many thickheaded or frightened individuals out there that just can't or won't hear of it. Understandable, given the years of brainwashing they've been subjected to.

Even many of those who seem otherwise intelligent refuse to admit that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes like the majority of people and that's exactly what the ruling elite are counting on.

:yh_peace


Not swayed. ME EITHER!

They're all Goose Steppin our rights and freedoms into the dumpster, all over the media, and people think it's Monty Pythons Silly Walks?!!?:-5

YouTube - Ministry of Silly Walks

Steev;1297818 wrote: Hi Hoppy! Nice to meet like minded folks such as yourself.

I'm just not going to be swayed by any remotely pro government rhetoric. :yh_ttth

What a bunch of crap.

What most people think they see going on out there in the world is NOT what actually is. Not even close.



Many thickheaded or frightened individuals out there that just can't or won't hear of it. Understandable, given the years of brainwashing they've been subjected to.

Even many of those who seem otherwise intelligent refuse to admit that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes like the majority of people and that's exactly what the ruling elite are counting on.

:yh_peace


People just love like minded folks dont they?

Nomad;1298036 wrote: People just love like minded folks dont they?


But of course.

What was your 1st clue? lol

CIA says Iran capable of producing nukes

Bill Gertz

The Washington Times

March 20, 2010

Iran is poised to begin producing nuclear weapons after its uranium program expansion in 2009, even though it has had problems with thousands of its centrifuges, according to a newly released CIA report.

“Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so, the annual report to Congress states.

A U.S. official involved in countering weapons proliferation said the Iranians are “keeping the door open to the possibility of building a nuclear weapon.

"That's in spite of strong international pressure not to do so, and some difficulties they themselves seem to be having with their nuclear program," the official said. "There are powerful incentives for them to close the door completely, but they are either purposefully ignoring them or are tone deaf. You almost want to shout, 'Tune in Tehran.'"

The CIA report is the latest official study expressing concern over Iran's continuing nuclear activities. The International Atomic Energy Agency on March 3 issued a report warning that continuing nuclear activities in violation of U.N. resolutions raise "concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes - Washington Times

Expect more corporate media propaganda on this in the coming days. Don’t epect the corporate media to tell you about the fact the CIA passed nuclear technology on to Iran. James Risen noted this in his book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, published in 2006.

TruthBringer;1300719 wrote: SIZE="3"]B]CIA says Iran capable of producing nukes


I hope they do. It would tend to stabilise the area.

Is a US attack on Iran imminent?

Alex Lantier

WSWS.com

March 30, 2010

In recent weeks there has been a series of press reports as well as statements by military experts that strongly indicate that either the Obama administration or the Israeli government, or both, may be moving toward an attack on Iran.

Some of the press reports have been so detailed and provocative that it is difficult to determine whether they are describing actual plans for military action or whether they are “merely” intended to ratchet up pressure on the clerical regime in Tehran. Even if the United States and Israel are primarily engaged at this point in a war of nerves, the political and military logic of their actions leads inexorably to war.

Yesterday the World Socialist Web Site reported on the Brookings Institution’s simulated war games in which Iran was the target Teams of US officials—“playing” the US, Israel, Iran, and other regional powers—tried to determine the outcome of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear plants. The war game tried to present the conflict as initially remaining limited to exchanges of targeted strikes between Israel and Iran.

US policymakers let it be known, however, that they envisaged ultimately mounting a massive assault on Iran. The war game was halted a week into the war—which, by then, had spread to Iranian or pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon, Israel, the Occupied Territories, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Persian Gulf—with the US preparing strikes to annihilate large sections of the Iranian military.

This was the most prominent of a series of provocative announcements against Iran in the US press. Last week saw reports that the US was stocking bunker-busting bombs at airfields on Diego Garcia, to destroy Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities, and reports of Israeli plans to drop nuclear bombs on these same facilities.

There is an obvious connection between the intensification of preparations for military action and the apparent failure of the US-backed “Green Revolution” to gain the political momentum and social support necessary to topple the Tehran government.

The Green Revolution movement, which never developed support outside a limited middle-class base, became ever weaker in the final months of 2009. At the same time, Washington increased its pressure on Iran in negotiations over its nuclear program, calling for sanctions to be agreed upon by the UN Security Council. In December 2009 the New York Times carried an article, describing the rising power of broadly pro-Ahmadinejad factions of the Iranian military, titled “Hard-Line Rise Alters View of Iranian Nuclear Program.”

It is significant that the current press accounts of preparations for war emerged after the acknowledgment by top US personnel that the Green Revolution was a failure. Contradicting months of US-media propaganda, Richard Haass, president of the US Council on Foreign Relations, told CNN on February 14 that the US had no facts to back up claims by Green Revolution spokesmen that its candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, had won last June’s election. Asked about a US poll showing a 57 percent Ahmadinejad vote versus 27 percent for Mousavi immediately before the elections, Haass replied, “I don’t know if the opposition is 25 percent, 50 percent, or more.”

For the time being, Washington’s Green Revolution proxies have been marginalized. The United States has reacted to this setback by leaking information to the press that suggests that a military operation is in the works.

One of the purposes of these threatening reports may well be to goad Tehran into some sort of defensive action that might be portrayed by the US government and the media as a hostile military act. This would provide the US with a casus belli that would be invoked to justify an attack on Iran. Another possibility is that the US (and Israel) expects that the escalation of pressure on Iran will produce new fractures within Tehran’s political elite. In one way or another, Washington is determined to restore the political and economic control over Iran that it enjoyed before the 1979 Revolution, back in the heady days when the Shah functioned as the CIA’s principal agent in Tehran.

The Iranian crisis illustrates the fundamental continuity of US imperialist policy, against claims that Obama would pursue policies fundamentally different from those of Bush. In fact, in a sinister throwback to Bush’s campaign of lies on Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction,” US officials are escalating threats even though they admit they have no “solid clues” suggesting the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

A US and/or Israeli attack on Iran would be a monstrous act of imperialist criminality. Countless thousands of Iranians would be killed in the first hours of a war. Moreover, a war against Iran would have incalculable international repercussions, and would bring the entire world closer to the day of a global nuclear conflagration.

Is a US attack on Iran imminent?

TruthBringer;1300720 wrote: the CIA passed nuclear technology on to Iran. James Risen noted this in his book


There's probably no need to "pass on technology" when the basics are in the public domain, and any country with basic scientific and mauufacturing technology can do the job anyway.

Bill Sikes;1300723 wrote: There's probably no need to "pass on technology" when the basics are in the public domain, and any country with basic scientific and mauufacturing technology can do the job anyway.


So what do you think Bill. Do you think they are gearing up for an attack on Iran just like they geared up for an attack on Iraq?

TruthBringer;1300725 wrote: Do you think they are gearing up for an attack on Iran just like they geared up for an attack on Iraq?


I think there would be a bit more "noise" were "they" intending a significant incursion. A limited "strike" by the USA is unlikely, since it would damage an already very dodgy repuation in the area beyond belief. Israel is possibly the most likely country to make such an attack, but it would be a very big step for it indeed, and very likely precipitate a huge reaction against it. The game might not be worth the candle, and they'd quite probably be better off snarling at each other from a distance, and that way leave others out of it.

Bill Sikes;1300726 wrote: I think there would be a bit more "noise" were "they" intending a significant incursion. A limited "strike" by the USA is unlikely, since it would damage an already very dodgy repuation in the area beyond belief. Israel is possibly the most likely country to make such an attack, but it would be a very big step for it indeed, and very likely precipitate a huge reaction against it. The game might not be worth the candle, and they'd quite probably be better off snarling at each other from a distance, and that way leave others out of it.


Right well the American people better keep Obama (which I heard stands for "One big ass mistake in America") under control otherwise he just might drag our country straight into World War 3.

It is no joke when I say that Obama can make a HUGE mistake by going to war with Iran which could set off a nuclear war Worldwide. So going to war with Iran could have unforseen consequences which could trigger a type of nuclear Armageddon which would cause massive widespread death, disease, and famine.

Here's an interesting video for people to watch:

YouTube - Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

TruthBringer;1300730 wrote: Right well the American people better keep Obama (which I heard stands for "One big ass mistake in America") under control otherwise he just might drag our country straight into World War 3.

It is no joke when I say that Obama can make a HUGE mistake by going to war with Iran which could set off a nuclear war Worldwide. So going to war with Iran could have unforseen consequences which could trigger a type of nuclear Armageddon which would cause massive widespread death, disease, and famine.


By the way that doesn't even include the economic effects of a war with Iran. That type of a war depending on the amount of destruction it causes could truly cause the economic destabilization of every major economy in the World, including the United States and all of it's allies. It would also cause problems for the many countries that don't have very good relations with the United States as well, which would only infuriate them further, possibly pushing them over the edge and into a full scale war with America.

This scenario, by definition, would be World War 3. And World War 3 would make every other war we've had look like a "small bonfire" according to people like Jean Dixon.

And to make it simple for all the American people who haven't quite grasped the concept of this yet, let me put it into the most basic words you can understand.

1. World War 3 would change your life forever. Not for the better. It would be for the worst.

2. It would not be cool. It would be very uncool.

3. It would not end quickly, even if you decided you didn't want to see any more of it. There is no off switch.

4. It would not be like a video game. You could die FOR REAL, your friends could die FOR REAL, and your country could LOSE the war.

Ok? So to the people of America - Stop Obama from ever making such a horrendous decision. The same goes for the people of the UK, for Israel, and for all people of all other nations which are allies of The U.S.

You would live and breath World War 3 if it started. It would be on the news every single day. Every single news channel you turned to would be covering it. The Draft would be reinstated, and ALL able bodied men who could be drafted into the war would be drafted into the war. Most people would lose their jobs if they weren't directly connected to the war. There would be massive food and gas shortages, there would be no time for worrying about what sports team won what competition. Instead you would be focused on survival. Everything would be chaotic, you would not be talking about the same things as you used to. Almost nothing would be operating as it used to be. Classrooms would be running drills on how to escape bombings, etc. It would be panick. Martial law would be declared. Curfews would be put into place. It would be hell on Earth.