H15252
Headlines : "War on Terror"Iran Attack Likely Within A Year
Ron Paul explained on the Alex Jones radio show today that the West may attack Iran within a year. According to him, the Neo-cons are waiting for the perfect opportunity to strike while continually trying to add Iran’s Revolutionary Guard force to the list of terrorist organizations. Further on, the West and Iran exchanged verbal blows today. Bush warned of ‘nuclear holocaust’ if Iran got the bomb, France warned of an ‘Iranian bomb or bombing Iran,’ and Iran dismissed all threats of attack.
[Posted By grady]Republished from Prison Planet
Presidential candidate Ron Paul believes that an attack on Iran is highly likely within a year and that the Bush administration is simply waiting for the right opportunity, or event on which to blame Iran, before launching the assault.
“If I were a betting man I would bet that they will attack Iran before the end of this administration, which means in the next year or so,” the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show today.
“The plans have been laid just like the plans were laid to go into Iraq a long time before they did but they had to wait for the right opportunity.”
“The radical Neo-Cons are still there – they may have been diminished a little bit but they’re still very very influential and very very powerful and they have the President’s ear so I think they’re just laying the plans, waiting for the opportunity,” said Paul.
Posted by grady
Hm. Maybe I’m naive (though I don’t like to think so), but I highly doubt there will be an attack on Iran- it would just be ludicrous for everyone involved. But we’ll see what happens I guess.
the playbook looks the same as the one used during the lead up to the Iraq war.
economic sanctions, u.n. resolutions, tit for tat chicken and egg reasoning from impotence to irrelevance and lots and lots of saber rattling.
it will sure be interesting to see the reaction from Russia and China in the aftermath.
while Iran and the Shia in Iraq consolidate against Israel, Syria, Lebanon will watch the u.s. fight four wars and assist there religious brethren however they can.
Al Qeada will declare that infidel muslims (those Shia and Sunni not fundamentally aligned with the concept of a caliphate) are better than infidels from the West anyday and will provide its’ talent.
the Shia, Sunni and Kurds will create a new country called “Balkanistan”.
China will take GW’s licence to drive the war machine, by dumping the dollar.
Russia will support the Kurds and the Turks during the takeover of the new pipeline through Kazikstan but will not go the route of a military engagement for a land grab between there and the Persian Gulf.
China and Russia will align to let the u.s. know that they’ve been a bad country and deserve a nukular spanking. (New York, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Pearl Harbor, San Diego, et al?)
any takers?
The cards seem to show true for this one. Every presidential candidate wants to look like a cowboy on being tough on Iran. Congress is the same. Who’s gonna complain – the guys who make the bombs and profit from the oil?
Every presidential candidate wants to look like a cowboy on being tough on Iran.
that’s not true
on Iran;
You’re right about Ron Paul. Despite his views on immigration, he looks like a reasonable man. However, does he have a snowball’s chance at this, despite his popularity on the interweb?
Views on immigration? He also has many other views very different from the far left. He is anti-abortion, tough on crime, supports free trade, smaller government, and supports allowing states to decide on the death penalty.
In fact, his views are a lot closer to mine.
As far as abortion, he’s personally anti-abortion, but doesn’t think it’s a Federal issue, but a State issue. He supports smaller government, and has said that the military is the first program he would cut funding for. He supports ‘free-trade,’ in that he opposes tarrifs, subsidies, and supranational treaty organizations like NAFTA or the WTO, which is unique in Washington as far as I know. I think he actually has alot in common with the “far-left.” He doesn’t have alot in common with most Democrats, who are often described as “far left” by the Hannity’s and O’Reily’s of the world. But I’ll give you a hint; the “far left” doesn’t have much in common with the Democratic Party.
Mercenary: Paul is broadly popular among groups that understand Paul’s policy positions and voting record. The media refuses to give much airtime to explaining his policy positions or record, because they don’t like him. The question is whether it is ever possible to elect a candidate that the media and the major corporate backers disaprove of.
regardless of whether he stands a snowball’s chance in hell or not, at least we FINALLY have someone in american politics who makes the least bit of sense when he speaks. he’s not part of the ‘anybody but bush’ crowd or the ‘if u don’t watch FOX news, you’re a secular progressive commie pinko who watches MSNBC and u need to SHUT UP’ crowd. he’s….well, ron paul. he hits the rational point every time. america needs that.
why, on Earth, is he running as a Republican?
That’s because his views are actually traditional Republican values. Neo-cons like to call themselves ‘Republican’ and ‘conservative’, but they share very few values with traditional conservatism, of which is for smaller government, anti-big business/pro-small business, pro personal fredom, etc., the opposite of the neocon manifesto.
He’s a natural to go independent when he doesn’t win the Republican nomination.
Ron Paul’s public persona reminds me of the straight shootin style of Ross Perot.
If you don’t remember how well that worked out, Perot garnered sufficient conservative votes to help Clinton (42) win the the White House in 1992.
Ran again and helped keep him there in 1996.
Some scary deja vu at work here.
Analysts: US Strikes on Iran Predicted Over Nuclear Fears: The Guardian UK’s Julian Borger and Ian Black published a ‘‘special report’‘ Saturday warning that ‘‘the growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months.’‘