Is there really a False Flag coming to Justify War on Iran?

[Socio]

The Coming False Flag to Justify War on Iran

Former Wall Street Journal Editor and business columnist Paul Craig Roberts, also known as the Father of Reaganomics, lays out some explosive and terrifying possibilities in his latest article, Secret Schemes and Undeclared Agendas.

Roberts' article becomes even more urgent to ponder now. Why? Since his article warning of a coming false flag attack to justify a US attack on Iran came out, several disturbing dominoes have fallen.

1) Admiral Fallon who was the highest ranking military man to refuse to attack Iran . . . suddenly resigns under pressure.

2) A US nuclear submarine just entered the Persian Gulf, and

3) General Patreaus just blamed the last attack on the Green Zone in Iraq . . . on the Iranians. Of course he has no proof, just a hunch. We can see where the dominoes are falling towards, Iran.

Roberts asserts that the neocons need a horrific attack in the U.S. that would allow them to launch war on Iran. Was this Russian agent part of such a scheme? The answer to that may be too disturbing for most Americans to even ponder. Roberts deals with that issue as well.

I don?t believe the Trade Towers was an inside job and I can?t believe the US Government would plan a ?horrific attack? on its own people just to spank Iran. However that nuclear sub parked over there would be pretty convenient for a nuclear reprisal from a nuclear attack on US soil.

 

[fskimospy]

Very unlikely. A nuclear attack on the US would not come from Iran, as Iran is not nuclear capable and this is widely known. In addition, SLBMs have enough range that a sub doesn't have to be in the Persian Gulf to nuke Iran. While I do not think it is above our leaders to provoke an incident as a pretext to attack Iran, I really can't imagine they would be willing to let one of our cities be nuked just to go after some mullahs... especially when a much smaller incident would do.

 

[nageov3t]

come on, you guys have been saying war in iran is imminent since the day after the iraq invasion.

it's not going to happen in any likely scenario, and it's definitely not going to be started by us if it is.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481
come on, you guys have been saying war in iran is imminent since the day after the iraq invasion.

it's not going to happen in any likely scenario, and it's definitely not going to be started by us if it is.

Meh, I'm not so sure about that. I can't see us invading Iran in any reasonable scenario, but I can certainly see us bombing/cruise missile-ing them. I think it's a really stupid idea, but I wouldn't put it past our esteemed leadership for a second.

 

[ProfJohn]

The guy lays out the theory, but offers no proof or even suggests how such an operation would take place.

Also... his article reads like a post of one of our anti-Bush crazies.

 

[Lemon law]

Got to love non Prof John who comes up with---Also... his article reads like a post of one of our anti-Bush crazies.

Lets see if I can get my arms around this concept. Here for all the anti Bush crazies there may or may not be, where in the history of the world have any of these anti Bush crazies damaged our world?

Yet when it comes to the delusional GWB crazies, there is no end in sight to the damage GWB himself and his many minions have done to our world. And now us anti GWB crazies are peeing our pants that GWB might nuke Iran and really screw the pooch, so you guessed, blame anti GWB kooks for maybe being quite justifiably paranoid.

If nothing else, it does make it far more difficult for GWB crazies to sneak anything by. I Call it a public service if it even reduces the chance of GWB doing anything crazy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: loki8481
come on, you guys have been saying war in iran is imminent since the day after the iraq invasion.

it's not going to happen in any likely scenario, and it's definitely not going to be started by us if it is.

+1

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
come on, you guys have been saying war in iran is imminent since the day after the iraq invasion.

it's not going to happen in any likely scenario, and it's definitely not going to be started by us if it is.

Meh, I'm not so sure about that. I can't see us invading Iran in any reasonable scenario, but I can certainly see us bombing/cruise missile-ing them. I think it's a really stupid idea, but I wouldn't put it past our esteemed leadership for a second.

if we bomb Iran, they strike back by bombing Iraq, Israel, and/or Afghanistan.

I don't think even the staunchest hawk wants that to happen.

 

[ranmaniac]

Cheney has been trying to lobby for support for an attack on Iran, which is a bit crazy considering China has over $200 billion dollars invested in Iran, India has $40 billion, Malaysia has $4 billion, and Germany has investment in there as well. Not to mention technical help from Russia with Iran's nuclear reactors, so a bombing of Iran would kill Chinese and Russians in the process.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
come on, you guys have been saying war in iran is imminent since the day after the iraq invasion.

it's not going to happen in any likely scenario, and it's definitely not going to be started by us if it is.

Meh, I'm not so sure about that. I can't see us invading Iran in any reasonable scenario, but I can certainly see us bombing/cruise missile-ing them. I think it's a really stupid idea, but I wouldn't put it past our esteemed leadership for a second.

if we bomb Iran, they strike back by bombing Iraq, Israel, and/or Afghanistan.

I don't think even the staunchest hawk wants that to happen.

I find it unlikely they would significantly strike in Iraq, as they are very friendly with the Iraqi government at this time, and probably wouldn't want to jeopardize their long term interests. Moreover, their air force would not survive long if it was sent on offensive missions outside of Iranian airspace... certainly not all the way to Israel. Their main avenue of attack would have to be ballistic missiles, and to my knowledge they only have about 40-50 operational missiles that are capable of hitting Israel. This is not a huge threat.

As I've said in other threads, the main threat they have is monkeying with the straights of hormuz. It's very much within their ability, and it would hurt us terribly without too much effort on their part. (although it would make the world hate them) For this reason I don't think we'll bomb them (because it would be incredibly stupid), but then again invading Iraq was incredibly stupid too, and this is certainly within the realm of possibility for these retards.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
come on, you guys have been saying war in iran is imminent since the day after the iraq invasion.

it's not going to happen in any likely scenario, and it's definitely not going to be started by us if it is.

Meh, I'm not so sure about that. I can't see us invading Iran in any reasonable scenario, but I can certainly see us bombing/cruise missile-ing them. I think it's a really stupid idea, but I wouldn't put it past our esteemed leadership for a second.

if we bomb Iran, they strike back by bombing Iraq, Israel, and/or Afghanistan.

I don't think even the staunchest hawk wants that to happen.

I find it unlikely they would significantly strike in Iraq, as they are very friendly with the Iraqi government at this time, and probably wouldn't want to jeopardize their long term interests. Moreover, their air force would not survive long if it was sent on offensive missions outside of Iranian airspace... certainly not all the way to Israel. Their main avenue of attack would have to be ballistic missiles, and to my knowledge they only have about 40-50 operational missiles that are capable of hitting Israel. This is not a huge threat.

As I've said in other threads, the main threat they have is monkeying with the straights of hormuz. It's very much within their ability, and it would hurt us terribly without too much effort on their part. (although it would make the world hate them) For this reason I don't think we'll bomb them (because it would be incredibly stupid), but then again invading Iraq was incredibly stupid too, and this is certainly within the realm of possibility for these retards.

Without opining on the larger question of the likelihood of their attacking, on the issue of whether they'd pay a price to do so, consider the price they paid on Iraq:

- Thousands of American casualties
- Estimated $3 trillion+ cost eventually for the war so far
- Trashing the US reputation globally, breaking tradition 'US won't start a war' (as transparently false as some of the pretenses have been historically, e.g. Vietnam/Mexico)
- Violating UN Charter and setting precedent for any nation to launch 'pre-emptive war'
- Weakening US ability for other military actions/war against Al Queda in Afghanistan

Given that, I don't think the cost of the war can be argued to be a reason they won't do it, especially when their ideology has them convinced about 'long term benefits', i.e., PNAC

 

[piasabird]

May as well attack Syria and Iran all at once. We would end up fighting them all anyway. Isreal can take care of itself and Lebanon. Iran is the head of the snake. If we did attack Iran we would of course be paying more for oil and gasoline. Of course we could just give up pull out of Iraq.

 

[Aimster]

Nobody is going to attack Iran during this regime (Bush).

We would lose a war if we invaded. If we bombed them we would have to invade.

Only a religious zealot would attack Iran.. say .. Mccain.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
come on, you guys have been saying war in iran is imminent since the day after the iraq invasion.

it's not going to happen in any likely scenario, and it's definitely not going to be started by us if it is.

Meh, I'm not so sure about that. I can't see us invading Iran in any reasonable scenario, but I can certainly see us bombing/cruise missile-ing them. I think it's a really stupid idea, but I wouldn't put it past our esteemed leadership for a second.

if we bomb Iran, they strike back by bombing Iraq, Israel, and/or Afghanistan.

I don't think even the staunchest hawk wants that to happen.

I find it unlikely they would significantly strike in Iraq, as they are very friendly with the Iraqi government at this time, and probably wouldn't want to jeopardize their long term interests. Moreover, their air force would not survive long if it was sent on offensive missions outside of Iranian airspace... certainly not all the way to Israel. Their main avenue of attack would have to be ballistic missiles, and to my knowledge they only have about 40-50 operational missiles that are capable of hitting Israel. This is not a huge threat.

As I've said in other threads, the main threat they have is monkeying with the straights of hormuz. It's very much within their ability, and it would hurt us terribly without too much effort on their part. (although it would make the world hate them) For this reason I don't think we'll bomb them (because it would be incredibly stupid), but then again invading Iraq was incredibly stupid too, and this is certainly within the realm of possibility for these retards.

Without opining on the larger question of the likelihood of their attacking, on the issue of whether they'd pay a price to do so, consider the price they paid on Iraq:

- Thousands of American casualties
- Estimated $3 trillion+ cost eventually for the war so far
- Trashing the US reputation globally, breaking tradition 'US won't start a war' (as transparently false as some of the pretenses have been historically, e.g. Vietnam/Mexico)
- Violating UN Charter and setting precedent for any nation to launch 'pre-emptive war'
- Weakening US ability for other military actions/war against Al Queda in Afghanistan

Given that, I don't think the cost of the war can be argued to be a reason they won't do it, especially when their ideology has them convinced about 'long term benefits', i.e., PNAC

I think I mangled a few pronouns in my previous post, I was tired. I was actually referring to Iran's costs but I didn't make that very clear.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Nobody is going to attack Iran during this regime (Bush).

We would lose a war if we invaded. If we bombed them we would have to invade.

Only a religious zealot would attack Iran.. say .. Mccain.

I doubt McCain even believes in a god

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Nobody is going to attack Iran during this regime (Bush).

We would lose a war if we invaded. If we bombed them we would have to invade.

Only a religious zealot would attack Iran.. say .. Mccain.

what has McCain ever said to imply that he'd favor launch an unprovoked attack against Iran?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Got to love non Prof John who comes up with---Also... his article reads like a post of one of our anti-Bush crazies.

From the orginal article, not the one in the OP but the one linked to in that link.

We know that the Bush regime wants to attack Iran. Despite the NIE report that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program several years ago and despite no signs of a weapons program having been uncovered by IAEA inspectors, Bush, Cheney, and the neocon nazis continue to agitate for striking Iran "before it is too late." Their politicized military commander in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus, keeps insisting that Iran is training Iraqi insurgents and supplying weapons that are killing US troops. Bush and Cheney themselves have made trips to Europe and the Middle East trying to marshall support for an attack on Iran. Anyone who is not deaf, blind and stupid knows that the Bush regime is doing everything it can to create circumstances that will permit a US attack on Iran.

We know for a fact that the Bush regime created false evidence, lied, and deceived in order to attack Iraq. All the reasons given for the US invasion have proven to be false. The real agenda has never been declared. Yet, five years later the traitors in high office who deceived Americans into a war in behalf of a hidden agenda have not been held accountable. As Agatha Christie said, getting away with one murder makes it easy to commit another.

There is so much that Americans do not know about secret schemes serving undeclared agendas. Those who have attempted to clue in fellow citizens are invariably frustrated, because Americans have been trained to dismiss the messenger who brings news of "false flag" events as a "conspiracy theorist."

I'd call that a crazy anti-Bush type rant.

1. "We know that the Bush regime wants to attack Iran. "
We know this based on what?

2. "Despite the NIE report that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program several years ago"
The same NIE that many people questioned and many others say is flat out wrong. Of course we all know Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons which is why they have never got in the way of inspectors right???

3. "Their politicized military commander in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus"
Cheap shot at the general who by most accounts is doing an amazing job.

4. "We know for a fact that the Bush regime created false evidence, lied, and deceived in order to attack Iraq."
If this is a fact then where is the evidence to prove it? Five years into the war and the left can't 'prove' anything.

5. "Yet, five years later the traitors in high office who deceived Americans into a war in behalf of a hidden agenda have not been held accountable. "
Sounds like a few of our anti-Bush posters.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Nobody is going to attack Iran during this regime (Bush).

We would lose a war if we invaded. If we bombed them we would have to invade.

Only a religious zealot would attack Iran.. say .. Mccain.

😕

 

[soccerballtux]

I don't see how we can win the war in Iraq if we don't cut it at the source; they're sending their recruits to train in Iran and then they're coming back and fighting.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Got to love non Prof John who comes up with---Also... his article reads like a post of one of our anti-Bush crazies.

From the orginal article, not the one in the OP but the one linked to in that link.

We know that the Bush regime wants to attack Iran. Despite the NIE report that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program several years ago and despite no signs of a weapons program having been uncovered by IAEA inspectors, Bush, Cheney, and the neocon nazis continue to agitate for striking Iran "before it is too late." Their politicized military commander in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus, keeps insisting that Iran is training Iraqi insurgents and supplying weapons that are killing US troops. Bush and Cheney themselves have made trips to Europe and the Middle East trying to marshall support for an attack on Iran. Anyone who is not deaf, blind and stupid knows that the Bush regime is doing everything it can to create circumstances that will permit a US attack on Iran.

We know for a fact that the Bush regime created false evidence, lied, and deceived in order to attack Iraq. All the reasons given for the US invasion have proven to be false. The real agenda has never been declared. Yet, five years later the traitors in high office who deceived Americans into a war in behalf of a hidden agenda have not been held accountable. As Agatha Christie said, getting away with one murder makes it easy to commit another.

There is so much that Americans do not know about secret schemes serving undeclared agendas. Those who have attempted to clue in fellow citizens are invariably frustrated, because Americans have been trained to dismiss the messenger who brings news of "false flag" events as a "conspiracy theorist."

I'd call that a crazy anti-Bush type rant.

1. "We know that the Bush regime wants to attack Iran. "
We know this based on what?

2. "Despite the NIE report that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program several years ago"
The same NIE that many people questioned and many others say is flat out wrong. Of course we all know Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons which is why they have never got in the way of inspectors right???

3. "Their politicized military commander in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus"
Cheap shot at the general who by most accounts is doing an amazing job.

4. "We know for a fact that the Bush regime created false evidence, lied, and deceived in order to attack Iraq."
If this is a fact then where is the evidence to prove it? Five years into the war and the left can't 'prove' anything.

5. "Yet, five years later the traitors in high office who deceived Americans into a war in behalf of a hidden agenda have not been held accountable. "
Sounds like a few of our anti-Bush posters.

God dammit.

You're trying to play the age old dogma game with this whole lack of evidence deal. Listen, you're claiming the positive, the administration is claiming the positive. They're claiming we had good reason to invade without a declaration of war. Whoever claims the positive must provide evidence to back it up. They have not. If they had the evidence, they would most certainly provide it, to dispel any doubt over what our purpose is. The fact that there has not been evidence to prove we should've attacked Iraq can only lead the rest of us to believe that they're full of shit, same goes for you.

Besides, this subject has been beaten to a pulp, and evidence that SHOWS this whole shebang as a lie (even though it's not our god damn responsibility to prove that Iraq WASN'T dangerous to us) has been provided repeatedly. You're just too busy with your fingers in your ears singing the pledge of allegiance to hear it. Hold on to your left-vs-right gonads just a little bit longer - Maybe this waste of life, money, and time will actually prove to be worth it. Not bloody likely, but I guess anything is possible.

You're supporting terrorists.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aimster
Nobody is going to attack Iran during this regime (Bush).

We would lose a war if we invaded. If we bombed them we would have to invade.

Only a religious zealot would attack Iran.. say .. Mccain.

😕

Iran is not Iraq.
70 Million people versus 100,000-500,000 is defeat.

Nobody inside Iran is going to welcome the invaders.

When the Arabs invaded, every Iranian united and fought the Army (Iraq). Some Iranians fought with sticks because there were no guns. Except this Iran is very well armed and everyone will have a gun.

Look at pictures of Tehran. Compare Tehran to Baghdad. It is a completely different country with a completely different outcome if the U.S invaded.

U.S forces will never be able to control Tehran.

It would be like the Arabs marching into Israel. Every Israeli would risk their life for their homeland. Arabs would see a crushing defeat.

 

[WildHorse]

''

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Aimster
Nobody is going to attack Iran during this regime (Bush).

We would lose a war if we invaded. If we bombed them we would have to invade.

Only a religious zealot would attack Iran.. say .. Mccain.

what has McCain ever said to imply that he'd favor launch an unprovoked attack against Iran?

He attends those Christians for Israeli meetings.
Go on Youtube and look at the gatherings.

They are a bunch of religious nutcases IMO.

He will attack Iran for Israel. He would not be doing it for the safety of the U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K30_Zz7tHYs
I find that group to be wacko.

 

[Fern]

We're NOT invading Iran.

We have no one left to invade with. We're all tied up as it is. We'll have to start scaling back soon in Iraq. We're under-manned in Afganistan.

We have no one to invade with.

Bomb a nuclear facility? Extremely remote super outside chance maybe. But we're not invading Iran with ground troops.

Fern

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Aimster
Nobody is going to attack Iran during this regime (Bush).

We would lose a war if we invaded. If we bombed them we would have to invade.

Only a religious zealot would attack Iran.. say .. Mccain.

what has McCain ever said to imply that he'd favor launch an unprovoked attack against Iran?

He attends those Christians for Israeli meetings.
Go on Youtube and look at the gatherings.

They are a bunch of religious nutcases IMO.

He will attack Iran for Israel. He would not be doing it for the safety of the U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K30_Zz7tHYs
I find that group to be wacko.

WOW.

I've never seen that before. It's almost surreal that people can swallow that bullshit.

From the get go, I was always kind of half joking when I said things like "It's like an American jihad on Islam, they're no better". Maybe there was more truth to my quips than I originally believed!