Netanyahu warned on Sunday that Iran would reach the brink of nuke bomb

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88F06P20120917

Netanyahu has gotten out of control the way he is trying to exert as much influence over our election as he has and expects us to go to war with Iran and do Israel's dirty work. These are our fuckin sons and daughters and he has the nerve to ask us to send them to war as Israeli puppets? I would love for a terrorist to blow Netanyahu's neo-conservative ass off the face of the earth.

Anyone who supports Netanyahu at this point is un-American.

talk about a welfare state....Israel is by the biggest recipient of government hand-outs I've ever seen...

netanyahu says a lot of things and appears to be getting more and more desperate..i'm more worried about an israeli false flag attack to pull us into war than i am about iran honestly. it's not like they've never pulled that one before.

If Netanyahu feels like Iran is such a threat to him, he's more than welcome to deploy young men and women in HIS country to go fight guerilla warfare and go nation building in Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE

If Netanyahu feels like Iran is such a threat to him, he's more than welcome to deploy young men and women in HIS country to go fight guerilla warfare and go nation building in Iran.

---

I agree. No surprise he's cranking up the fear-mongering during election time.

He knows that he's taken enough shots at Obama and cuddled up with Romney enough where he's fucked if Obama is re-elected.

The next time he takes a shot at a king, he better make sure the king dies from it :lol

Truth is he knows people in Israel would support a war in Iran even less than people in America would. Even the Jewish population of Israel, outside of radical evangelical Jews, is more fed up with Netanyahu every day.

It's their problem as far as I'm concerned, and I think most Americans agree with me.

LOL nobody listening to Bibi

not even Israel

Look how bad they botched the Lebanon shit a few years ago. Lebanon was finally recovering well and they go and fuck it up by bombing the country back a few decades for no good reason. Israel's foreign policy is about as shitty as it gets.

even if they actually had any nuclear weapon, do they have such techniques to launch it from their land and make it travel half a world to hit the american ground?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Look how bad they botched the Lebanon shit a few years ago. Lebanon was finally recovering well and they go and fuck it up by bombing the country back a few decades for no good reason. Israel's foreign policy is about as shitty as it gets.

---

Netanyahu is a bigger neo-con than Bush or anyone who was in his administration, the guy is totally batshit :lol

This is the ultimate height of irony, but college age reform Jews in Israel are so disgusted with how Netanyahu treats the Palestinians tons of them have been migrating to Germany of all places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latarian Milton

even if they actually had any nuclear weapon, do they have such techniques to launch it from their land and make it travel half a world to hit the american ground?

---

No. And its a long way from a nuclear weapon to a modern delivery system like the big 5 have. I don't even think Israel has a capability of delivering a nuke in a non regional setting.

The big advantage to having nukes is not actually in their use but in their deterrent value.

^And given the fact they're a sovereign country that the US loves surrounding with military bases, they have every right to develop nukes as a deterent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE

If Netanyahu feels like Iran is such a threat to him, he's more than welcome to deploy young men and women in HIS country to go fight guerilla warfare and go nation building in Iran.

---

Especially since he has an elite military with all the top-of-the-line expensive shit, tbh....

I say the U.S. should seek and destroy every known nuclear energy plant in Iran.

Thats because you're a moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Thats because you're a moron.

---

and an evangelical kyke :lol

this is what happen when u give a clown a nuke to play with

you love to say north korea is hot headed, but israel is even fkn worst

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

I say the U.S. should seek and destroy every known nuclear energy plant in Iran.

---

You should do it yourself, Rambo.

ChumpDumper dumping chumps par per etc. Jason Witten no helmet lamborghini mercy imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Thats because you're a moron.

---

I'd rather take the route that I suggested than stand around and wait for Iran to kill millions potentially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

I'd rather take the route that I suggested than stand around and wait for Iran to kill millions potentially.

---

Don't worry, Manny has a habit of looking in the mirror when he says things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

I'd rather take the route that I suggested than stand around and wait for Iran to kill millions potentially.

---

crofl israel is the biggest warmonger on the planet and you expect us to buy into the hype about iran, a country who hasn't attacked anyone since 1798? :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

I'd rather take the route that I suggested than stand around and wait for Iran to kill millions potentially.

---

As ChumpDumper said, you're more than welcome to strap up and do it yourself.

Bibi and AIPAC suckereing USA into war with Iran.

Would Neocons Control Romney?

Mitt Romney has articulated few substantive differences between himself and President Obama on foreign policy, but a Romney victory could dramatically change the U.S. approach to the world because he, like George W. Bush, is surrounding himself with neocon advisers, notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

Citing findings in the recently released poll of American opinion on foreign policy conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Drezner observes that “most of America — and independents in particular — want pretty much the opposite of” what Romney says he wants regarding increased military spending and more hawkish policies toward Iran, Syria, Russia, China, North Korea and illegal immigration.

A recent and hugely costly and painful episode that illustrates all of these elements was the Iraq War. The outcome of the 2000 presidential election (and the 9/11 terrorist attack) made the war possible, even though the rhetoric of the 2000 campaign did not make it specifically predictable.

Neocons won enough of the appointment games so that they, in alliance with assertive nationalists in senior positions and an inexperienced president itching to get out from under his father’s foreign-policy shadow, were able to launch their Iraq project.

The mammoth effort to sell the war was so able to shape public opinion that a majority of Americans came to believe that the Iraqi regime and Saddam Hussein were involved in 9/11. The shaping was accomplished not through specific assertions by government officials but by a rhetorical drumbeat that continually linked Iraq and 9/11.

One can find a disturbing similarity in the Chicago Council’s survey results, even though Drezner is pleased to conclude that the poll suggests Americans “have become even more realpolitik” than they were a few years ago.

In one of the poll’s few tests of factual knowledge, respondents were asked what they believe is the current status of Iran’s nuclear program. Only 25 percent got it correct, based on the repeatedly and publicly stated judgment of the U.S. intelligence community: that “Iran is developing some of the technical ability to build nuclear weapons, but has not decided whether to produce them or not.”

Forty-eight percent thought that Iran has decided to produce nuclear weapons and is actively working to do so. Another 18 percent thought Iran already has nuclear weapons.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/09/12...ontrol-romney/


Neocons Slither Back

Ryan bemoaned "the slaughter of brave dissidents in Syria. Mobs storming American embassies and consulates. Iran four years closer to gaining a nuclear weapon. Israel, our best ally in the region, treated with indifference bordering on contempt by the Obama administration." American foreign policy, he said, "needs moral clarity and firmness of purpose."

Ryan was moving his mouth, but the voice was the neocon puppet master Dan Senor. The hawkish Romney adviser has been secunded to manage the running mate and graft a Manichaean worldview onto the foreign affairs neophyte.

A moral, muscular foreign policy; a disdain for weakness and diplomacy; a duty to invade and bomb Israel's neighbors; a divine right to pre-emption - it's all ominously familiar.

You can draw a direct line from the hyperpower manifesto of the Project for the New American Century, which the neocons, abetted by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, used to prod an insecure and uninformed president into invading Iraq - a wildly misguided attempt to intimidate Arabs through the shock of overwhelming force. How's that going for us?

After 9/11, the neocons captured one Republican president who was naïve about the world. Now, amid contagious Arab rage sparked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, they have captured another would-be Republican president and vice president, both jejeune about the world.

Senor is emblematic of how much trouble America blundered into in the Middle East - trillions wasted, so many lives and limbs lost - because of how little we fathom the culture and sectarian politics. We're still stumbling in the dark. We not only don't know who our allies and enemies are, we don't know who our allies' and enemies' allies and enemies are.

As the spokesman for Paul Bremer during the Iraq occupation, Senor helped perpetrate one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in American history. The clueless desert viceroys summarily disbanded the Iraqi Army, forced de-Baathification, stood frozen in denial as thugs looted ministries and museums, deluded themselves about the growing insurgency, and misled reporters with their Panglossian scenarios of progress.

"Off the record, Paris is burning," Senor told a group of reporters a year into the war. "On the record, security and stability are returning to Iraq."

Before he played ventriloquist to Ryan, Senor did the same for Romney, ratcheting up the candidate's irresponsible bellicosity on the Middle East. Senor was the key adviser on Romney's disastrous trip to Israel in July, when Mittens infuriated the Palestinians by making a chuckleheaded claim about their culture.

Senor got out over his skis before Romney's speech in Jerusalem, telling reporters that Mitt would say he respected Israel's right to make a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;js...=28&sub=Sunday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You should do it yourself, Rambo.

---

:lmao:lmao

Romney and Ryan Court Leaders of Anti-Muslim Hate Fest

If there’s anything we know about evangelical Christians, it’s that they comprise a remarkably effective voting block, and the religious right has been a core part of the Republican coalition for decades.

So it comes as no surprise, perhaps, that the two top members of the Republican ticket, presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, would court the Family Research Council at its recent Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., where, on Friday,

But what is appalling is that the event this duo endorsed quickly devolved into a hate fest directed against an American religious minority.

"This is not about a film, this is about free speech!"

Nakoula, an Egyptian-born Christian who is currently serving a sentence for bank fraud, was interviewed to determine whether he had violated the terms of his parole, which prohibits him from going on the internet, through his involvement with video, which was posted on YouTube.

In Starnes’ telling, though, the interrogation of Nakoula was government “intimidation” of a “Christian filmmaker.” He did not mention that Nakoula was a felon on parole.

Ironically, Starnes runs a Web site on Fox News Radio's site where he routinely condemns what he views as anti-Christian or anti-American behavior.

But the other speakers at the luncheon event were small fish compared to Jerry Boykin. The retired U.S. Army lieutenant general was perhaps more fitted for being to a case study on religious hostility than to lecture an audience about it.

Boykin, whom FRC hired in July to become its executive vice president, has a controversial history of Muslim-bashing, such as when he claimed that the war on terror was a spiritual war between Muslims and "Christian America" in 2003

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...tter711367&t=3

Gecko and Ryan just enhancing their credibility as neocon Muslim-haters and hate-filled "Chrisitians"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The outcome of the 2000 presidential election (and the 9/11 terrorist attack) made the war possible, even though the rhetoric of the 2000 campaign did not make it specifically predictable.

---

:lol As if Gore wouldn't have been a huge warmonger too...

Gore was not a member of PNAC, was not an oilman, was/is not a war-mongering, imperialistic neocon.

As part of Clinton's EXEC would have been well aware of the threat from al Quaida that Clinton passed to the Repugs, and therefore might have prevented 9/11 by pushing the NatSec apparatus much harder than dubya/dickhead/condi who basically did nothing about terrorism in Jan-Sep 2001.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons

Gore was not a member of PNAC, was not an oilman, was/is not a war-mongering, imperialistic neocon.

---

VRWC conspiracy does not control Al Gore? I thought it was totally unfuckable and us, totally fucked.

You think Al Gore would've kept the VRWC at abay, and us out of war?



(btw, isn't Al Gore a Scoop Jackson democrat, or he used to pretend to be one?)

do you sometimes make stuff up, boutons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

VRWC conspiracy does not control Al Gore? I thought it was totally unfuckable and us, totally fucked.

You think Al Gore would've kept the VRWC at abay, and us out of war?

(btw, isn't Al Gore a Scoop Jackson democrat, or he used to pretend to be one?)

---

I SAID effectively, not your words, that I think Gore would not have LIED the USA into Iraq-for-oil, and he, with is experience with Clinton's attempt to get OBL, probably would have taken the terrorist chatter about plans into buildings more seriously than the vacationing/"we-got-our-1%-tax-cut-rammed-through" Repugs. He wouldn't have had Iraq as a priority as dubya did in his first cabinet meeting.

Monday morning quarterbacking. interesting how your analysis of past and future events dovetails so well with your preconstructed narrative. . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

As part of Clinton's EXEC would have been well aware of the threat from al Quaida that Clinton passed to the Repugs

---

:lol Conveniently forgetting that Clinton was pushing for the unconstitutional war in Iraq before Dubya ever did

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Romney and Ryan Court Leaders of Anti-Muslim Hate Fest

If there’s anything we know about evangelical Christians, it’s that they comprise a remarkably effective voting block, and the religious right has been a core part of the Republican coalition for decades.

So it comes as no surprise, perhaps, that the two top members of the Republican ticket, presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, would court the Family Research Council at its recent Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., where, on Friday,

But what is appalling is that the event this duo endorsed quickly devolved into a hate fest directed against an American religious minority.

"This is not about a film, this is about free speech!"

Nakoula, an Egyptian-born Christian who is currently serving a sentence for bank fraud, was interviewed to determine whether he had violated the terms of his parole, which prohibits him from going on the internet, through his involvement with video, which was posted on YouTube.

In Starnes’ telling, though, the interrogation of Nakoula was government “intimidation” of a “Christian filmmaker.” He did not mention that Nakoula was a felon on parole.

Ironically, Starnes runs a Web site on Fox News Radio's site where he routinely condemns what he views as anti-Christian or anti-American behavior.

But the other speakers at the luncheon event were small fish compared to Jerry Boykin. The retired U.S. Army lieutenant general was perhaps more fitted for being to a case study on religious hostility than to lecture an audience about it.

Boykin, whom FRC hired in July to become its executive vice president, has a controversial history of Muslim-bashing, such as when he claimed that the war on terror was a spiritual war between Muslims and "Christian America" in 2003

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...tter711367&t=3

Gecko and Ryan just enhancing their credibility as neocon Muslim-haters and hate-filled "Chrisitians"

---

LOL, never knew that Christian filmmaker was also a meth dealer. :lmao

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...informant.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clipper Nation

:lol Conveniently forgetting that Clinton was pushing for the unconstitutional war in Iraq before Dubya ever did

---

link? PNAC wrote him to invade Iraq. He didn't.

countries playing with fire will get themselves burnt first imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

I'd rather take the route that I suggested than stand around and wait for Iran to kill millions potentially.

---

How many are going to die in the attacks? How many do you think are going to die in the war that follows? How many will die due to the world economy going into the shitter when the oil stops flowing out of the Persian Gulf because its a war zone? How are you going to guarantee this will stop the nuclear program and how will you guarantee all sites will be destroyed? How will you deal with Russia and China after such an action?

Stupid doesn't even begin to describe this idea.

"HEY GUYS I DON'T WANT MILLIONS TO DIE IN A WAR SO LETS START THAT WAR"

SMH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

link? PNAC wrote him to invade Iraq. He didn't.

---

Quote:

---

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

---

they were all lied to by CIA/NSA. No WMD, but lots of oil

And Clinton didn't bomb or, better, didn't invade Iraq. It was the PNAC oilmen and neocon Jews who did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

they were all lied to by CIA/NSA. No WMD, but lots of oil

---

So Clinton was lied to about WMD's, but Dubya was lying when he said the same exact shit?

Funny, I don't see a difference between the lies spewed by the Clinton administration and the lies spewed by the Bush administration, but maybe that's because I'm not a blind partisan shill, tbh....

Quote:

---

And Clinton didn't bomb or, better, didn't invade Iraq.

---

Wrong again, dumbfuck.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...December_1998)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

netanyahu says a lot of things and appears to be getting more and more desperate..i'm more worried about an israeli false flag attack to pull us into war than i am about iran honestly. it's not like they've never pulled that one before.

---

He's not desperate.

He is appealing to his party's ueber conservative base. SOSDD, only this is Israel.

Meh. Let the Iranians get nukes. If they want it that badly, they can live with the fact that we will have them dialed in with hundreds of times more firepower than they can muster, and a world that won't do business with them, nor trust them.

Russia and China don't want them to have nukes anymore than anyone else does, and Iranian nukes would weaken those two countries political stance considerably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Russia and China don't want them to have nukes anymore than anyone else does, and Iranian nukes would weaken those two countries political stance considerably.

---

I don't know about this, there is evidence to show that the Russians aided and propelled the iranian nuclear program..they are allies and I don't think they would mind iran having the bomb any more than china doesn't mind north korea having it.

That's what I really didn't understand about internal or external support for Israeli action on Iranian nuclear plants. They bombed Saddam's plants but I feel like that was due to instability within the country. Iranian people are mostly (albeit I'm looking from afar) rational and progressive. The government wouldn't start a war, especially a nuclear war, with anyone because the people would definitely form an uprising. The populace is too large and educated not to. Like RG says, I think you let them develop nukes. The main fear I guess is that they sell/give nuclear material to a less stable group like their proxy Hezbollah. I guess it's a real concern for Israel if that fear is legitimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

they were all lied to by CIA/NSA. No WMD, but lots of oil

And Clinton didn't bomb or, better, didn't invade Iraq. It was the PNAC oilmen and neocon Jews who did.

---

It's not about oil in the sense that we're over there just looting them and driving out with tankers full of oil...it's about the petrodollar. OPEC selling oil in dollars and ONLY dollars is the only thing propping up the dollar.

Saddam had started selling oil in Euro's when we decided to invade, and shortly after we switched them back to dollars.

Gaddafi was in the process of creating a gold based african currency and selling oil in gold. So we took him out.

The petrodollar is essential to american dominance and economic strength..these maniacs will go to war to preserve their monopoly on global trade. This thing is banker driven, it gets deeper than just "we want their oil." We still pay for the oil, it's not the oil exactly it's the petrodollar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

It's not about oil in the sense that we're over there just looting them and driving out with tankers full of oil...it's about the petrodollar. OPEC selling oil in dollars and ONLY dollars is the only thing propping up the dollar.

Saddam had started selling oil in Euro's when we decided to invade, and shortly after we switched them back to dollars.

Gaddafi was in the process of creating a gold based african currency and selling oil in gold. So we took him out.

The petrodollar is essential to american dominance and economic strength..these maniacs will go to war to preserve their monopoly on global trade. This thing is banker driven, it gets deeper than just "we want their oil." We still pay for the oil, it's not the oil exactly it's the petrodollar.

---

I would go along with this idea more than others outside of what i stated, but I don't think this was why. At least it's a credible view in my opinion.

If you dig deeper and study history you'll find that it's exactly the case though. We currently have an agreement with everyone in OPEC to protect their oilfields with our military in exchange for them selling oil exclusively in dollars in return..you just can't make this stuff up. It's a total monopoly on world trade and gives us a huge advantage as an importer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

If you dig deeper and study history you'll find that it's exactly the case though. We currently have an agreement with everyone in OPEC to protect their oilfields with our military in exchange for them selling oil exclusively in dollars in return..you just can't make this stuff up. It's a total monopoly on world trade and gives us a huge advantage as an importer.

---

Are you suggesting we operated like the mob does? Pay the protection price or we will attack?

I have no love for the way our government does many things, but that seems a bit out there for me to believe.

well..don't you find it odd that NO countries EVER trade oil in a currency other than dollars? it never happens. i can understand the dollar being a safe, popular currency..but wouldn't it sometimes ever be convenient to use something else? maybe if say, you're short on dollars at the time? but no, every country ALWAYS keeps a healthy supply of dollars on hand..because dollars are the only currency allowed to be traded for oil.

check out this article..it's from 2000 right before the invasion. saddam had just started to accept euros in exchange for oil. it'll tell you all that you need to know.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...998512,00.html

Quote:

---

Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."
The switch to euros would cost the U.N. a small fortune in accounting-paperwork changes. It would also reduce the interest earnings and reparations payments that Iraq is making for damage it caused during the Gulf War, a shortfall the Iraqis would have to make up.
The move hurts Iraq, the U.N. and the countries receiving reparations. So why is Saddam doing it? Diplomatic sources say switching to the euro will favor European suppliers over U.S. ones in competing for Iraqi contracts, and the p.r. boost that Baghdad would probably get in Europe would be another plus.
--By William Dowell/New York City

---

Sorry, but since I was involved with Desert Storm, and seen all the violations of the UN resolutions afterwards, I don't see it like you do. I agree a good argument is made. I dust don't believe it as a cause.

its okay to be israels bitch toy, but not okay to have a black man running ur country in the best interest of the american ppl??....lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

its okay to be israels bitch toy, but not okay to have a black man running ur country in the best interest of the american ppl??....lol

---

Why do you think such things are about race? I thought intelligent people were past such things. Are you intelligent or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Sorry, but since I was involved with Desert Storm, and seen all the violations of the UN resolutions afterwards, I don't see it like you do. I agree a good argument is made. I dust don't believe it as a cause.

---

You're living in denial bro. I wish the things we did really were genuine and honest, but do you really think a bunch of elitist assholes care how "free" some guys halfway across the globe are? The petrodollar is the one and only common denominator, the missing link that puts it all into perspective. Who's the latest country that they want to attack? Oh yeah that's right, Iran. Once again, it falls in perfectly with the petrodollar theory as Iran has been a voice for moving away from the dollar and selling oil in other currencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

"In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros.[2] When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD.[3]
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran takes this theory as fact. As retaliation to this policy seen as neoimperialism, Iran has made an effort to create its own Iranian Oil Bourse which has sold oil in Gold, Euros, Dollars, and Japanese Yen since its opening. The theory is supported historically by Iranian intellectuals as a move made by the American elites after World War II with the Bretton Woods Act, taking away Gold backing from the Pound Sterling and discreetly starting the eventual pegging of Gulf Arab Oil producers' currencies after Britain gave them independence in 1961 and 1971. These countries were further secured militarily after the Gulf War in 1990. This pegging of the currencies along with the exchanges being exclusively in USD in only two places, the IPE in London and NYMEX in New York City, has given the United States a near monopoly, with growing economies such as India and China waiting in line for orders. Critics say this revolutionary move by Iran in creating a rival market may also be one of the reasons for the ongoing energy-related US competition with Iran.
In mid-2006 Venezuela indicated support of Iran's decision to offer global oil trade in the euro currency.[4]
A controversial change like that in Iran would have limited ability to influence the denomination of sales one way or the other. A large number of traders would have to agree to a change in denomination before a significant change would occur."

Here ya go, Iran wants to accept gold as payment for oil. They've been talking about circumventing the dollar for some time now. They've threatened to do it with gold, euros, etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17203132

When we play the reluctant hero and finally attack them, you'll know why and it was planned all along.

I see it conveniently leave out the actual violations of the oil for food program.

I see Boutons hasn't shown up in this thread since getting shat on..... :cry "But it was only lying when BUSH did it!" :cry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clipper Nation

So Clinton was lied to about WMD's, but Dubya was lying when he said the same exact shit?

Funny, I don't see a difference between the lies spewed by the Clinton administration and the lies spewed by the Bush administration, but maybe that's because I'm not a blind partisan shill, tbh....


Wrong again, dumbfuck.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...December_1998)

---

Nobody shits on Boutons, asshole

Clinton was talking, dubya actually pushed hard, lied hard for, and obtained, a bogus Iraq war for oil.

Clinton was going after the real terrorist responsible for 9/11, while dubya and his incompetent team totally ignored AQ,etc terrorism before 9/11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Clinton was talking, dubya actually pushed hard, lied hard for, and obtained, a bogus Iraq war for oil.

---

Clinton not only talked, but signed off on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and a bombing campaign in Iraq during his presidency, B....

Quote:

---

Clinton was going after the real terrorist responsible for 9/11

---

Wow, so he could see the future? In that case, why didn't he just tell the airport security people from the future to not let the terrorists on the planes?

No shit.

Clinton exhausted the supply of cruise missiles we had back then.

The Iraqi Liberation act of 1988 :rolleyes

...what a neocon shill

Quote:

---

This act required the President to designate one or more qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime. Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, respect for human rights, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated seven groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act. (see Note to 22 U.S.C. 2151 and 64 Fed. Reg. 67810). The groups were

The Iraqi National Accord,
The Iraqi National Congress,
The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan,
The Kurdistan Democratic Party,
The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy,
The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (training and equipment), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Not quite an authorization to bomb Iran.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No shit.

Clinton exhausted the supply of cruise missiles we had back then.

---

Did Clinton occupy Iraq costing US taxpayers over a trilliion dollars in new debt and counting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

The Iraqi Liberation act of 1988 :rolleyes

...what a neocon shill

---

I'm a neocon shill? :lmao :lmao :lmao

====

By the way, turns out Clinton ordered THREE bombing campaigns on Iraq during his time in office...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...28June_1993%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...tember_1996%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...cember_1998%29

Still gonna argue that Clinton didn't bomb Iraq, boutons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

netanyahu says a lot of things and appears to be getting more and more desperate..i'm more worried about an israeli false flag attack to pull us into war than i am about iran honestly. it's not like they've never pulled that one before.

---

The United states should just tell them you are on your own if you pull that crap. The US should have Israel on the puppet string, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rascal

The United states should just tell them you are on your own if you pull that crap. The US should have Israel on the puppet string, not the other way around.

---

Agreed! Although I think no relation with Israel would be best tho as they're just too much trouble any way you put or have it.

for those ethnic minorities in the middle east without a land to call themselves too....why not just give them a fkn island and reallocate them there and do what they wanna do....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

for those ethnic minorities in the middle east without a land to call themselves too....why not just give them a fkn island and reallocate them there and do what they wanna do....

---

the middle east is sacred land for them.

they could get smart and buy their way into a land, but the Israelis will never allow that. that is why they keep them living like dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Did Clinton occupy Iraq costing US taxpayers over a trilliion dollars in new debt and counting?

---

That wasn't my point. It's a pussy president that shoots missiles instead of putting in real men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That wasn't my point. It's a pussy president that shoots missiles instead of putting in real men.

---

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

I agree, it takes a real man to send kids he doesn't give two shits about to war! Only a pussy cares about saving American lives!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That wasn't my point. It's a pussy president that shoots missiles instead of putting in real men.

---

Wow, what's sad is that Wild Creeper actually believes that shit, tbh....

In reality, it's a pussy president that feels the need to go to war at all to "spread American democracy" (even though we live in a republic)....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That wasn't my point. It's a pussy president that shoots missiles instead of putting in real men.

---

Wow, just wow.

I don't want to seriously reply unless... do you really believe this or should there be a "/s" at the end?