IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Is Attack On Iran Imminent?

Quest
post Jun 16 2009, 10:37 PM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36zcho_LEIU


This post has been edited by dMole: Jun 18 2009, 09:33 PM
Reason for edit: Added video embed codes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Jun 16 2009, 11:29 PM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



A good commentary on 'United Against Nuclear Iran Org'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jun 16 2009, 11:43 PM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (JimMac @ Jun 17 2009, 04:29 AM) *


Good info Jimmac!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AirmanDave
post Jun 17 2009, 12:29 AM
Post #4





Group: Core Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 28-May 09
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 4,334



Haha yea that's very good.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Jun 17 2009, 09:59 AM
Post #5





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



What if Iran set off a test A bomb




then said "we will disarm if Israel does"



interesting stand off


not that I advocatemore countries with nuclear weapons but I thin a nuclear armed Iran would stabilize the middle east

A sabilized middle east is clearly not what the Zionists in Israel want
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jun 17 2009, 03:52 PM
Post #6





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



1.
QUOTE
not that I advocate more countries with nuclear weapons but I thin a nuclear armed Iran would stabilize the middle east


I agree. It's counter intuitive.

Te Iranians are not crazy, the things that Ahmadinejad says notwithstanding (what's important is what he does). His position is basically administrative and any decisions of substance are controlled by the Mullahs on the Supreme Council. They are rational and more interested in the survival of their country (so they have something to rule) and preserving the Shia cause. With nukes, anything that happens to the US, Israel or anyone else will be blamed on them, even if it originates from the most likely source, Pakistan, and the Iranians will even be afraid to misspell "Mississippi".


2. Speaking of the Shia-Sunni conflict and Israel, here is an abstract of a recent Atlantic Monthly article:

QUOTE
The definitive Middle East cliché is “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” With Shiite Iran growing stronger, Jews and Sunni Arabs suddenly have a potent basis for friendship. Could leveraging Sunni fears of rising Shiite power finally solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem? The case for a Sunni-Jewish alliance. by Jeffrey Goldberg


Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/israel-sunni
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jun 17 2009, 04:51 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



I find the current news about the Iranian election quite interesting -

It's the ideal outcome for the people who want to invade that country -Ahmadinejad wins, but with allegations of vote fraud and news of state violence against anti-Ahmadinejad protesters. All the world's a stage.

Before this is over, I predict, not only will an invasion of Iran take place, but also North Korea. Japan may be the invading force. I expect regime change in Sudan and Somalia as well, but I expect that will happen without an "invasion" as we perceive it, just as a consequence of what's going on in those countries already. These are the parts of the world the bankers don't have control of yet - this is why 9/11 was thought up. So of course, at some point, Iran will be toppled. ("They" never give up.)

2 cents
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
e-dog
post Jun 17 2009, 09:10 PM
Post #8


ITacHI^ - The Truth Will Set You Free.


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 707
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Sittard
Member No.: 74



QUOTE (Sanders @ Jun 17 2009, 09:51 PM) *
I find the current news about the Iranian election quite interesting -

It's the ideal outcome for the people who want to invade that country -Ahmadinejad wins, but with allegations of vote fraud and news of state violence against anti-Ahmadinejad protesters. All the world's a stage.

Before this is over, I predict, not only will an invasion of Iran take place, but also North Korea. Japan may be the invading force. I expect regime change in Sudan and Somalia as well, but I expect that will happen without an "invasion" as we perceive it, just as a consequence of what's going on in those countries already. These are the parts of the world the bankers don't have control of yet - this is why 9/11 was thought up. So of course, at some point, Iran will be toppled. ("They" never give up.)

2 cents



That's a very plausible scenario, considering the banker's interest, the way the elections/fraud is being covered by the news worldwide- conditioning the people in a way that they will support a war with Iran, just like with Iraq and Afghanistan.
About N-Korea, the fact that Kim Jung Il has declared war to basically the rest of the world also points towards future military "Solution".
The USA already has I believe 4 AFB's in Japan, 1 of them (Kadena) is equipped with new F-22 Raptors (if I am not mistaking) which are capable to penetrate N-Korea's airspace, complete their objectives without being detected because of it's stealth. I could be mistaking about the F-22's in Kadena though, not 100% about that.


1 More thing and I do not know how much of this is credible but Somebody I know and trust completely who is in the dutch navy told me a pretty weird story last week, somebody working for the US Military/Government approached him and a friend of him, he looked really stressed and out of breath.
He told them he wanted to speak with their commanding officer, when they asked why, he told them he didnt have time to explain everything, but what he did say was that it was about something the USA was going to do which he thought the dutch's military's commanding officer needed to know, then he repeated again that it was of very high priority that he got to talk to their commanding officer (Which is the commander of the dutch navy, army, marines and air force).
They told him how he could contact him and after some time (Minutes/hours), they saw him in a police vehicle, being escorted by 5 more police vehicles (Arrested?).

If the story really is true and that man was "arrested", then that man will probably be tried for treason and executed.

Again, I do not know how much of this story is credible, I am just throwing it out there, maybe some of you know more about this.


IT--
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Jun 17 2009, 11:35 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (Sanders @ Jun 17 2009, 04:51 PM) *
I find the current news about the Iranian election quite interesting -

2 cents


Me too, especially if watching and comparing the US media with the Canadian version of the same events. The American media (CNN) is whipping up the story and putting quite the spin on it. They are suggesting all sorts of outcomes, and that there might be a breakdown occurring, even to suggesting a revolt could be taking place 'right now'!

CNN trotted out Wolf Blitzer hosting the LKL slot to talk about the 'crisis' in Iran for one hour. One of four featured guests, Ben Stein advocated a military solution. On the bottom of the screen while Ben Stein was discussing and hinting around the preemptive strike rational, a ticker/banner below asked the question, 'What should we do about Iran?'

Israel at risk over the nuclear threat was raised, tucked safely between mentioning safety of the other countries in the region and the US. (Iran is a threat, the message). The program paired Iran with North Korea, establishing both in the same breath as a dangerous nuclear threat; Ben Stein worried about waking up with Seattle gone overnight. Scaremongering.

Opposite in tone and intensity, almost neutral the Canadian news picture was very calm and brief, Iran was not showcased (they did that last night). It showed a busy marketplace in Tehran, business as usual during day time, but a quiet afternoon on boulevards for a day of mourning. Then they focused on evening clashes between police and groups of protesters for about 2 minutes, some of it bloody. The tone was low key, the message was - riots continue - but the CBC was not selling the idea of a breakdown nor possible revolution. Its worth noting that Canada has the only Western network Journalist left in Iran (so they claim), because the other countries' media has been kicked out. This CBC journalist was on the scene all day and into the evening with one camera. No side talk at the news desk of military issues, bombing threats, and no mention of Israel's security. The CBC's tone could have something to do with the fact that they want to keep their journalist there, who knows.

I came away thinking the US media is planting the seeds to justification military aggression, and that this eventuality is in the cards (again). I wouldn't have said so before I saw the news tonight, I thought the danger was over for now. The NEWS tonight in the US switched me 180 degrees. Earlier, i was going to explain why the US will not attack Iran. I flip flopped again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jun 17 2009, 11:49 PM
Post #10





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi JimMac!

You could be right. Here's an article:

QUOTE
Why the US Wants to Delegitimize the Iranian Elections
Are You Ready for War with a Demonized Iran?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS


Key excerpt:

QUOTE
What is the source of the information for the U.S. media and the American puppet states?

Nothing but the assertions of the defeated candidate, the one America prefers.

However, there is hard evidence to the contrary. An independent, objective poll was conducted in Iran by American pollsters prior to the election. The pollsters, Ken Ballen of the nonprofit Center for Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the nonprofit New America Foundation, describe their poll results in the June 15 Washington Post. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was conducted in Farsi “by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award.”*

The poll results, the only real information we have at this time, indicate that the election results reflect the will of the Iranian voters.


Link: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jun 18 2009, 12:25 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Great thread, great comments, if I may say so. People've been talking on the web about when Iran will be attacked for quite some time, yet time frames for an attack leaked from an "insider" have come and gone more than a couple of times ... what I think is, Iran is not gonna just roll over and the guys who want to subsidize/westernize that country know it. They are getting all their ducks in a row. I don't even expect it any time soon ... but I expect it. Not only are they one of the last hold-outs against usury-based western banking in the world, and not only is there a bunch of oil and gas under there, but a pipeline through Iran is the shortest route from the resource-rich Caspian Basin to the Persian Gulf, which feeds into the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean, i.e., a convenient way to pipe oil and gas (which western companies already hold the exploration rights to) to China, India and East Asia. Afghanistan is the next-best-shortest route, but I think "they" have their hopes up for regime change in Iran and are holding their cards for now. That Caspian oil and gas isn't going anywhere.

I was also gonna say, not only is Iran huge, it's beautiful. Google Iran and Tourism and check out the scenery. Not the Middle Eastern desert image most people have in their heads.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Jun 18 2009, 01:10 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jun 17 2009, 11:49 PM) *
Hi JimMac!

You could be right. Here's an article:
Key excerpt:

Link: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html


Thanks tnemelckram, that was a good read. I caught onto the only-one-third internet access too, its not the wide open society of Denmark, that's for sure. Interesting the CIA spend 400 million there to grow a revolt -

Sanders, you could also add-in the fact that Iran has been selling energy to the Eu on their own bourse, pricing and clearing transactions in EURO's..this violates Kissinger's OPEC treaty forcing trade in USD. Saddam switched over to EURO's as payment also, 8 months before the invasion
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jun 18 2009, 01:57 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (JimMac @ Jun 22 2009, 12:10 PM) *
...Sanders, you could also add-in the fact that Iran has been selling energy to the Eu on their own bourse, pricing and clearing transactions in EURO's..this violates Kissinger's OPEC treaty forcing trade in USD. Saddam switched over to EURO's as payment also, 8 months before the invasion


Yeah. Almost forgot about that. For anyone interested, a great synopsis of that angle can be got by watching Robert Neuman's 'Hitsory of Oil'.

Here's a link. Not only informative, but quite funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQhhrzHKMhI
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 18 2009, 09:43 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (e-dog @ Jun 17 2009, 07:10 PM) *
The USA already has I believe 4 AFB's in Japan, 1 of them (Kadena) is equipped with new F-22 Raptors (if I am not mistaken) which are capable to penetrate N-Korea's airspace, complete their objectives without being detected because of it's stealth. I could be mistaking about the F-22's in Kadena though, not 100% about that.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/n-korean-mi...-fighters-japan

In the backdrop of North Korea's continuing nuclear tests The United States reportedly moved 12 of their modern fighter planes F-22 to Japan. This is a direct result of a telephonic discussion took place between US president Barack Obama and Japanese prime minister Taro Aso.

"U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor fighter jets fly over Kadena U.S. Air Force base on Okinawa May 30, 2009. The first of 12 high-tech U.S. F-22 fighter jets landed on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa on Saturday, days after North Korea unnerved the region by [original source is now 404] ... "


http://media.nowpublic.net/images//3e/1/3e...c3b866c2765.jpg


That's 12 of the 183 in the planned "fleet"- "By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 18 2009, 10:42 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



In somewhat related news:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stealth-p...ed-by-air-force

Nov 25, 2006, 11:16 a.m. EST
Stealth plane set for mothballing by Air Force
Relatively youthful F-117 fighter to make room for other, pricier aircraft

By Russ Britt, MarketWatch

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story/Ren...amp;imageID=201

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- Less than two decades after the world first got a look at the F-117 stealth fighter, the first aircraft built specifically to elude radar is scheduled for retirement by the Air Force -- and some wonder whether the plane's mothballing is a bit premature.

The reasons for shelving the plane that played a key role in the first Iraqi war are to make room for such aircraft as the F-22 Raptor, which has been under fire for being too expensive. But the Air Force has reasoned that the F-22 can do what the F-117 does, and more. Air Force officials did not return phone calls.

Pentagon analysts point out, though, that the F-117's lifespan will wind up being much shorter than most other Air Force aircraft. It's due to come out of service in 2008.

"It's probably the fastest retirement since the 1960s," said Bill Sweetman, technology and aerospace editor for Jane's Information Group. "I think the Air Force is trying to cast off older planes."

The decision is puzzling to some, as not all the Air Force's older aircraft are headed for the scrap heap. Other fighter planes that were conceived prior to the F-117 -- including the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F/A-18 Hornet -- still are flying and are expected to endure well into the 2020s.

There also are such durable aircraft as the B-52 bomber, which debuted in the early 1950s and is expected to keep flying for several more decades.

"It is premature," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Strauss Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information. "The Air Force is scrounging for bill payers to help pay for the F-22."

There are a number of other reasons, though, that could be behind the decision to retire the F-117 -- many of which the Air Force is unwilling to discuss, analysts say.

One key is that no follow-up versions of F-117 have ever been commissioned. While the B-52 is working on its sixth decade in service, it remains in the fleet because the Air Force has commissioned several versions of the plane over the years. Its first production model was the B-52A; its newest is called the B-52H. So far there have been 744 B-52s built.
High-maintenance

Only 59 F-117s were produced, and there may be several reasons for that. Sweetman says upkeep for the F-117 can be demanding.

"It's a high-maintenance aircraft, always has been," he said.

Also, it was proven in the Kosovo War that the plane can be vulnerable. One F-117 was detected and shot down there in 1999 while another was damaged. Reports say the top-secret technology may have been compromised after the crash as Russian inspectors were believed to have been invited by Serbian troops to view the aircraft's remains.

Detecting the plane has gotten easier over the years. There are indications that when it gets wet, it can be picked up on radar. Certain types of systems, known as long-wavelength radar, sometimes can detect the plane; that's believed to be the case in the Kosovo incident. And it's always been vulnerable to detection when its bomb bay doors are open.

Furthermore, the plane may not have performed as well as initially claimed in Operation Desert Storm. Wheeler, who evaluated weapons performance for the General Accounting Office shortly after that brief conflict, said that while the F-117 did well, its performance was "grossly overstated" by the Pentagon.

The fighter purportedly was used to take out Iraqi radar defenses in the first hours of the war, but those defenses were not completely down until several days later, Wheeler said. Only three of the F-117's 15 targets were destroyed in the first hours of Desert Storm.

Throughout Desert Storm, the Air Force claimed the plane hit 80% of its targets, but it actually was closer to 40% to 50%. It also was billed as a plane that didn't need radar-jamming aircraft accompanying it, but several were used alongside the F-117 in Iraq, he said.
-----------------------
(Continued from page 1)

"It was false advertising by the Air Force," Wheeler said. "It was not a silver bullet."
Conceived in 1973

The F-117 was conceived in secret during the Cold War, in an era when tensions between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union ran high. Stealth technology had been an obsession for U.S. scientists since the 1950s, but remained a pipedream prior to the development of carbon-fiber material for aircraft in the 1960s.

When that became possible, the F-117 contract was awarded in 1973 to Lockheed Advanced Development Projects, also known as the "Skunk Works," in Burbank, Calif. The group now is part of Lockheed Martin Corp. /quotes/comstock/13*!lmt/quotes/nls/lmt (LMT 83.49, +1.44, +1.76%) and is based in Palmdale, Calif.

Known by the code name "Have Blue," the program was kept classified until 1988, when production of the aircraft was almost complete. It made a first flight in 1977, the delivery of the first production jet took place in 1982 and it was fully operational by 1983.

All those milestones took place in secret. Meanwhile, the plane was tested at the remote Groom Lake region outside Las Vegas, and housed at the nearby Tonopah Test Range.

"It's going to go down in history as a pioneering aircraft," said Jane's Sweetman. "It was the quickest way to get a stealth aircraft into service."

Unlike its more expensive sister aircraft, Northrop Grumman's /quotes/comstock/13*!noc/quotes/nls/noc (NOC 47.37, +0.26, +0.55%) B-2 stealth bomber, the F-117's costs were kept down, allowing the program to swoop in under the radar of the American public.

The cost for research and development, plus the entire lot of 59 planes was $7 billion, Sweetman says. That's about the cost of three B-2 bombers.

The F-117 was used from parts from other, existing planes, which the Air Force reportedly claimed would be used for spares in order to hide the program.

One knock against the facet-shaped plane, which resembles a cut diamond, was that it was unstable due to the radar-evading design. An airplane's tail is used to keep the craft stable, but the F-117's tail was more swept than upright. Pilots were said to have called the plane the "Wobblin' Goblin."
Not invisible

One misconception about the F-117 and other "stealth" aircraft are that they are invisible, Wheeler said.

"It is never invisible. It is always 'reduced detectable,'" he said.

If this stealth plane is being mothballed, does that mean the end could be near for such aircraft as the B-2, which struck Congress with a severe case of sticker shock after its first flight in 1989? Twenty-two B-2s were built at a cost of $2.2 billion each.

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, says the computers that designed the F-117 and those that built the B-2 and the F-22 are miles apart in sophistication. The F-117 was built with 1970s technology while the other two were created in the 1980s and 1990s.

That becomes apparent on first glance, as the F-117 is marked by sharp angles. Conversely, the other two have smooth, curved surfaces that required more computer power to create. Stealth technology now is being incorporated into all new aircraft, including the upcoming F-35 Lightning, Pike said.

"We're approaching an era where stealth is normal," he said.

Wheeler says, however, that there is a gap left by the F-117's retirement. The F-22, which costs about $69 billion for 183 planes, has only half the payload capacity of the F-117. That won't be made up until the F-35 comes on line.

That aircraft, also being built by Lockheed, remains in development and is not scheduled for delivery until the next decade, he said.

But Loren Thompson, chief operating officer at the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank, said the F-117 now is far inferior to the B-2 and F-22 in terms of stealth capabilities.

"In its day it was impressive. But not by today's standards," Thompson said.

Russ Britt is the Los Angeles bureau chief for MarketWatch.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 18 2009, 10:45 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Also, the [B]F-117 Nighthawk was and is a bomber, not a fighter. That may have something to do with this "fly by wire" stealth brick being retired early, but MIIC politics is likely the primary reason(s) IMHO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Jun 19 2009, 12:00 AM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



AH, YES, THE HARDWARE OF THE EMPIRE........

i was in manhattan several weeks ago for the USN's FLEET WEEK.

i was able to tour the iwo jima, a light helicopter attack carrier.

on the flight deck, they had a v22 osprey. which i was able to examine.

now, there is a flying coffin, in my opinion.

some of you know that at least a squadron was sent to iraq. i have never heard a word about its performance. have any of you? if you have, would you share what you know about what i consider to be a flying coffin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jun 19 2009, 05:47 PM
Post #18


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



is an attack on iran imminent? simply put: NO.

i said it 2 1/2 years ago (and i was right) and i still say it today: there will not be any military action against iran, none. not one missile or bomb, not any groundtroops, nothing, zero, nada, zilch. no conventional military attack will ever occur on iran because:

a- the supreme leader & his supreme cohorts are working directly with whoever really runs america (& the world)
b- russia and china have iran's back

is iran working towards getting nukes? in all likelihood, yes. wouldnt you? but, will iran - once it has such a weapon - turn it against the world and bring about ww3? no. if and when they (iran) do finally obtain a nuke, then they will have (closer to) equal say in the geopolitical stage, and the playing field so to speak, will be more level. so once they are a "superpower" iran will be in a better position to be autonomous over its own destiny.

but for now rhetoric and lies about "enemies" will prevail and people will keep betting that an attack on iran is just around the corner and is going to happen any day. the only attack on iran will continue to be economic sanctions as they have been (which actually works to the benefit of the iran's "taajers" (merchants) who inflate prices, and to the mullahs who hope to keep the people of iran trapped in a permanent economic crisis and busy working 2 1/2 jobs to survive, instead of revolting against the mullah machine). imo - even AFTER iran obtains nukes, imho they will be "punished" only with sanctions (much like north korea).

This post has been edited by paranoia: Jun 19 2009, 05:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jun 19 2009, 10:53 PM
Post #19





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE
Is Attack On Iran Imminent?


Looks to me like it has already begun...
Covertly, by pitting the people of Iran against against their newly *cough*elected*cough* government.

Videos may be found here -

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1819769/1/

( Click on the spoilers for 5 videos at a time )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Jun 20 2009, 12:19 AM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315




Ron Paul on the House Iran Resolution

June 19, 2009 in News by Eric Garris
Ron Paul spoke today against the House resolution on Iran.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd February 2020 - 09:39 AM