The coming war with Iran

I don't like it. I don't like it cause the whole "terrorist organization" is a lie. It's a conspiracy. It's an amateur justification to get us to strike Iran. We did it to Ghadaffi. We did it to Sadam. Now we're just putting a new name on an old technique. I'm more upset cause we're basically getting involved in another religious squander. America has no business in the middle east. But look at who all funds the politicians right now. I use to like Trump, but now I don't trust anyone anyone politically anymore. We won't have a christian or catholic president for a very long time, as that kind of administration is the only saving grace for America. But last I heard, even our christians and catholics are compromised. Is America lost?

Quote

(04-08-2019 12:25 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  Big step to a war today. This is about as far from MAGA as you can get.

Quote

(04-08-2019 11:11 PM)for.petes.sake Wrote:  I am not a big fan of war but there is a side of me that actually wants a war with Israel to happen. My family is from a nation that is in constant turmoil due to Israeli government influence. Basically there is constant strife between Israeli backed NGOs and the government (basically Israel is involved in every SJW riot in the USA). I do not know why the Israeli government is constantly trying to promote Zionism in every Western nation (even in Nations where they make up less than 10 percent of the population). They basically want every nation with any white people to only have Jewish groups in power. I love the Jewish people but their government is so incompetent and has destroyed what USA could have been. My grandfather told me stories how beautiful and modern USA was before AIPAC. Although Kennedy was a liberal, he did keep the planes on time and women were not rancid sluts. After the Great Society was instituted, all of USA's best talent have changed gender or turned into SJW freaks. Constant illegal invasions are rampant, and the government has trouble balancing its budget due to billions being flown to Israel despite it never participating in its own proxy wars. And due to its incompetence, it is facing a crumbling infrastructure and bankruptcy too. Now it constantly interferes and promotes terrorism all over the world due to Israel feeling insecure for one reason or another. Due to its stupid government they fought a needless war with Iraq that cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives (both USA and Iraq are dumb and dumber in this situation). Many will say that USA is just trying to keep the world peace, but USA has no clue what world peace is (just only trying to promote Israel's power). If USA went towards a route of more cooperation and trade with Russia then it could have avoided so much of the political paralysis. Now the entire world is trying to avoid doing business with it and it has no real allies except its usual "greatest ally". Heck, the Uzbekistan government has more friendly business terms with Russian businessmen than American businessmen. I wish the elections had resulted in a more smarter and more MAGA government taking over USA, not these stupid kippah heads.

Quote

Jimmy Carter stabbed the Shah in the back. Most of you probably don't know, but the spread of neo-liberal "human rights" was a central theme of Carter's policy. Before that, in the 1950s, the US overthrew their democratically elected leader because he threatened to nationalize British oil. Given the US fucks Iran up even worse every time they intervene, they should keep the hell out. China has good relations with Iran, while America is looking for another country to bomb. Chairman Xi is the real god emperor who will save civilization.

Quote

I don't think the US have enough power and credibility now to start something against Iran. Trump is navigating very well between pro Zionist decisions which are not harming for the us ( the embassy move and the Golan height speech ) and a resolute non interventionist policy

Quote

(04-09-2019 12:52 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Jimmy Carter stabbed the Shah in the back. Most of you probably don't know, but the spread of neo-liberal "human rights" was a central theme of Carter's policy. Before that, in the 1950s, the US overthrew their democratically elected leader because he threatened to nationalize British oil. Given the US fucks Iran up even worse every time they intervene, they should keep the hell out. China has good relations with Iran, while America is looking for another country to bomb. Chairman Xi is the real god emperor who will save civilization.

The war economy. Our cash not being backed by promised gold, just government confidence. Finding another victim. It just keeps happening.

Quote

(04-09-2019 12:52 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Jimmy Carter stabbed the Shah in the back. Most of you probably don't know, but the spread of neo-liberal "human rights" was a central theme of Carter's policy. Before that, in the 1950s, the US overthrew their democratically elected leader because he threatened to nationalize British oil. Given the US fucks Iran up even worse every time they intervene, they should keep the hell out. China has good relations with Iran, while America is looking for another country to bomb. Chairman Xi is the real god emperor who will save civilization.

Reagan and the deep state were collaborating with Khomeini and his crowd in order to undermine Carter. The release of US hostages right after Reagan took over, and later on, the Iran-Contra deal are a strong indication of this collaboration between the Reagan administration and the mullahs.

Carter was a pretty good president in terms of foreign policy, if you looked at substance versus image. He was closing in on a viable and fair long-term two state solution in Israel/Palestine with Begin/Rabin and Arafat, and his emphasis on human rights is not necessarily a flawed one.

Iran is going to undergo a gradual internal change and liberalization process due to its demography, same with Saudi Arabia. the best thing for Iran is to let this process happen organically, as opposed to doing stuff like funding local jihadis or starting a war against that country on behalf of Israel.

Quote

(04-09-2019 01:22 PM)911 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:52 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Jimmy Carter stabbed the Shah in the back. Most of you probably don't know, but the spread of neo-liberal "human rights" was a central theme of Carter's policy. Before that, in the 1950s, the US overthrew their democratically elected leader because he threatened to nationalize British oil. Given the US fucks Iran up even worse every time they intervene, they should keep the hell out. China has good relations with Iran, while America is looking for another country to bomb. Chairman Xi is the real god emperor who will save civilization.

Reagan and the deep state were collaborating with Khomeini and his crowd in order to undermine Carter. The release of US hostages right after Reagan took over, and later on, the Iran-Contra deal are a strong indication of this collaboration between the Reagan administration and the mullahs.

Carter was a pretty good president in terms of foreign policy, if you looked at substance versus image. He was closing in on a viable and fair long-term two state solution in Israel/Palestine with Begin/Rabin and Arafat, and his emphasis on human rights is not necessarily a flawed one.

Iran is going to undergo a gradual internal change and liberalization process due to its demography, same with Saudi Arabia. the best thing for Iran is to let this process happen organically, as opposed to doing stuff like funding local jihadis or starting a war against that country on behalf of Israel.

Carter screwed up Iran long before Reagan. And the Marxist Human Rights front is being used to open the American borders to illegals.

"The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our "war on terrorism"."

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles..._rights_di


   

Quote

(04-08-2019 11:11 PM)for.petes.sake Wrote:  ...there is a side of me that actually wants a war with Iran to happen. My family is from a nation that is in constant turmoil due to Iranian government influence.

(04-08-2019 11:26 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Your nation can go to war with Iran then, 'cause it ain't our problem.

Quote

Quote:Iran is going to undergo a gradual internal change and liberalization process due to its demography, same with Saudi Arabia.

That's exactly the problem. This happening would easily result in them growing economically to become another power pole in the region, which undercuts the Saudi-Israeli monopoly on military/economic control

Quote

The US doesn't want to go to war with Iran. It wants to go to war with Russia. This has been planned from a long time and Russia knows this.

If you have been following the news that they don't want to show you:

> Russians See U.S. Missile Defense in Poland Posing Nuclear Threat (2009)

https://www.cfr.org/interview/russians-s...ear-threat

> Putin Criticizes U.S. Officials on Missile Defense (2007)

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world...ussia.html

Why would the US put missile defense system in Europe? Russia will never start a war with Europe, and hence with the States. Russia has a few allies and a semi-functional economy. Its' allies, on the other hand, are non-functional.

So yes, you got it right: The US wants to start a war with Russia and they are preparing the grounds. US lands are very unlikely to be stroke as it is too far. So Europe is going to get pretty much all of the heat as it is Russia only bargaining card.

Russia direct geographical allies are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. The US went to an indirect war with Russia in Syria. I think their conclusion is: We can beat them. We are superior.

Since now they know that they are ready, the next step is to start a real US-manned war in Iran. Russia understands that Iran is a key element and there is high chance that the US-Russia war will ensue from the Iran war.

If you were made a president today and were shown that the wars the US has gotten into and all these deals that lasted for decades were a preparation to crash Russia; will you simply decide to cancel all of that and declare peace? I don't think so. The war is trans-presidential. It is a very long effort to complete world-domination.

If the US math is accurate and they have ground superiority with Russia and its militia; they'll win. There is no other military power in the world beside the US and Russia. The Iraq-Afghan war losses will be laughed at and forgotten. ISIS/Islamists will disappear. China will obey. Other countries that refuse to obey will become the equivalent of real world poor fugitives that can't have a bank account or sign a lease. Israel will be probably destroyed in the process.

The US will then emerge as a supreme unmatched world power. Globalization will be finally achieved.

Quote

^Israel wants to go to war against Iran, badly, so of course this means a war that will be waged with US blood and treasure, this has been the pattern since 2001. Two decades and $6 trillion in taxpayer debt later, it's still very much the same program with people like bolton, Kushner, Abrams and co running the show.

Sites like the American Thinker and down on to the MSM are going to start that cycle of designating new terrorist regimes that will have to be changed, it's the same old story.

(04-09-2019 01:46 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 01:22 PM)911 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:52 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Jimmy Carter stabbed the Shah in the back. Most of you probably don't know, but the spread of neo-liberal "human rights" was a central theme of Carter's policy. Before that, in the 1950s, the US overthrew their democratically elected leader because he threatened to nationalize British oil. Given the US fucks Iran up even worse every time they intervene, they should keep the hell out. China has good relations with Iran, while America is looking for another country to bomb. Chairman Xi is the real god emperor who will save civilization.

Reagan and the deep state were collaborating with Khomeini and his crowd in order to undermine Carter. The release of US hostages right after Reagan took over, and later on, the Iran-Contra deal are a strong indication of this collaboration between the Reagan administration and the mullahs.

Carter was a pretty good president in terms of foreign policy, if you looked at substance versus image. He was closing in on a viable and fair long-term two state solution in Israel/Palestine with Begin/Rabin and Arafat, and his emphasis on human rights is not necessarily a flawed one.

Iran is going to undergo a gradual internal change and liberalization process due to its demography, same with Saudi Arabia. the best thing for Iran is to let this process happen organically, as opposed to doing stuff like funding local jihadis or starting a war against that country on behalf of Israel.

Carter screwed up Iran long before Reagan. And the Marxist Human Rights front is being used to open the American borders to illegals.

"The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our "war on terrorism"."

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles..._rights_di

This is the sanitized, BoomerCon version of the story, that site is riddled with Fox-level neocon content.

The Shah got too big for his britches, even breaching subjects he shouldn't go near. Iran was on the verge of becoming an independent regional power, so he had to go.





Khomeini was groomed in England and France, and his revolution was propped up by the deep state:

/thread-61598...pid1932244

https://www.sott.net/article/287752-Was-...tish-agent

Quote

That was an interesting interview. Now I like the Shah even more. It nicely exposes the whole game. Iran was a Western liberal government under the Shah, so it had to go. But now it has to go because it isn't a liberal Western government.

"Farah Diba Pahlavi, the last Shahbanu of Iran, said these words during an interview in her home:

“My husband said to me that if Jimmy Carter keeps this up, ultimately Khomeini will come back and with him will come an Islamic revolution. The Russians will invade Afghanistan, Iraq will go to war against Iran, and who knows what horror will come upon the world.”"

https://www.quora.com/Did-President-Cart...overthrown

Quote

(04-09-2019 09:43 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 11:11 PM)for.petes.sake Wrote:  I am not a big fan of war but there is a side of me that actually wants a war with Israel to happen. My family is from a nation that is in constant turmoil due to Israeli government influence. Basically there is constant strife between Israeli backed NGOs and the government (basically Israel is involved in every SJW riot in the USA). I do not know why the Israeli government is constantly trying to promote Zionism in every Western nation (even in Nations where they make up less than 10 percent of the population). They basically want every nation with any white people to only have Jewish groups in power. I love the Jewish people but their government is so incompetent and has destroyed what USA could have been. My grandfather told me stories how beautiful and modern USA was before AIPAC. Although Kennedy was a liberal, he did keep the planes on time and women were not rancid sluts. After the Great Society was instituted, all of USA's best talent have changed gender or turned into SJW freaks. Constant illegal invasions are rampant, and the government has trouble balancing its budget due to billions being flown to Israel despite it never participating in its own proxy wars. And due to its incompetence, it is facing a crumbling infrastructure and bankruptcy too. Now it constantly interferes and promotes terrorism all over the world due to Israel feeling insecure for one reason or another. Due to its stupid government they fought a needless war with Iraq that cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives (both USA and Iraq are dumb and dumber in this situation). Many will say that USA is just trying to keep the world peace, but USA has no clue what world peace is (just only trying to promote Israel's power). If USA went towards a route of more cooperation and trade with Russia then it could have avoided so much of the political paralysis. Now the entire world is trying to avoid doing business with it and it has no real allies except its usual "greatest ally". Heck, the Uzbekistan government has more friendly business terms with Russian businessmen than American businessmen. I wish the elections had resulted in a more smarter and more MAGA government taking over USA, not these stupid kippah heads.

Touche.

Your post made me laugh because I realized how this (((small minority))) is so similar to the Iran policy I outlined. But only a side of me would like to see a war happen (the other side of me thinks about what happened in Iraq). At least we can all agree that the Iranian government sucks.

Quote

(04-08-2019 11:26 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Your nation can go to war with Iran then, 'cause it ain't our problem.

Let us know how it works out for you!

You know what they might actually do it. I have been looking at the Afghan militarily personnel numbers and there is 200k active personnel and 100k in reserve (that is a massive force for a small and poor country). This is not including the possible thousands of Taliban members who would willingly join a war against Iran. I have a theory that the war in Iran will be fought using Afghan soldiers. The Afghan government does not pay these soldiers from Afghan taxpayer money because the afghan government only stays afloat due to United States Aid. Afghani soldiers have been properly trained by American forces and will be used in the front lines against Iran. And it would be popular war in Afghanistan too because their is a lot of ant-Iran sentiment (due to how stupid the Iranian government is and its role in Afghanistan). The war hawks would make a killing just sending Afghan soldiers since they would not follow any military red tape and can be paid for pennies on the dollar. They would still foot the American taxpayer the bill of equipment but now they will skim on the soldier wages too.

Also I bleed red,white and blue. I just feel bad for my parents homeland and how they talk about how much suffering that goes on there.

Quote

Can't American soldiers just down their tools instead of fighting these banker's wars? Are they brain washed? No offence to anyone in the military.

Quote

(04-14-2019 02:09 PM)for.petes.sake Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 11:26 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Your nation can go to war with Iran then, 'cause it ain't our problem.

Let us know how it works out for you!

You know what they might actually do it. I have been looking at the Afghan militarily personnel numbers and there is 200k active personnel and 100k in reserve (that is a massive force for a small and poor country). This is not including the possible thousands of Taliban members who would willingly join a war against Iran. I have a theory that the war in Iran will be fought using Afghan soldiers. The Afghan government does not pay these soldiers from Afghan taxpayer money because the afghan government only stays afloat due to United States Aid. Afghani soldiers have been properly trained by American forces and will be used in the front lines against Iran. And it would be popular war in Afghanistan too because their is a lot of ant-Iran sentiment (due to how stupid the Iranian government is and its role in Afghanistan). The war hawks would make a killing just sending Afghan soldiers since they would not follow any military red tape and can be paid for pennies on the dollar. They would still foot the American taxpayer the bill of equipment but now they will skim on the soldier wages too.

Also I bleed red,white and blue. I just feel bad for my parents homeland and how they talk about how much suffering that goes on there.

You think a bunch of lacklustre Afghans who prefer fucking young boys and men as a favourite past time will not only be capable of fighting Iranians but fighting for those who destroyed their country to take its resources?

I wonder how many green on blue there would be. I'd be more worried about young Iranian boys and our guys than the Iranian soldiers if you had those morons fighting alongside us.

Quote

(04-14-2019 02:09 PM)for.petes.sake Wrote:  Also I bleed red,white and blue. I just feel bad for my parents homeland and how they talk about how much suffering that goes on there.

If you're talking about how much you hope America gets in a war on the other side of the planet because that's where your family is from, you don't "Bleed red white and blue", and America made a big mistake when it let you and your family in.

EDIT: A lot of the Iraq war was driven by highly placed Iraqi (And also Israeli) immigrants who were pushing for war. (There aren't a lot of Iraqi immigrants, but a lot of them got into positions of influence and power, probably because their immigration was facilitated by the CIA. These were the guys telling the CIA about the "rape rooms" and WMDs, etc.) We listened to those guys and went to war with Iraq, and the result was the decimation of America. 5.6 TRILLION dollars spent, and thousands of young lives lost, not to mention our massively decreased standing in the world and a billion other terrible knock-on effects.

No more stupid wars. It's not our problem.

Quote

I always get a laugh when I hear about an immigrant that has such love for their "homeland".

I got into an argument with my sister once because I said that most immigrants to Australia are not real Australians.

She asked me who I thought I was to make that call. I told her that if Chinese or Afghans or Iraqis or Somalians invaded Australia then I would shoot them without hesitation. Then I asked her if she believed that Chinese Australians would shoot Chinese invaders or Somalian Australians would shoot Somalian invaders.

She gave me the usual chickenshit response of "it should never come to that" but I made my point. If your loyalties are divided in any way then you're not really a patriot. You're just an extended guest.

Quote

(04-17-2019 10:04 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I always get a laugh when I hear about an immigrant that has such love for their "homeland".

I got into an argument with my sister once because I said that most immigrants to Australia are not real Australians.

She asked me who I thought I was to make that call. I told her that if Chinese or Afghans or Iraqis or Somalians invaded Australia then I would shoot them without hesitation. Then I asked her if she believed that Chinese Australians would shoot Chinese invaders or Somalian Australians would shoot Somalian invaders.

She gave me the usual chickenshit response of "it should never come to that" but I made my point. If your loyalties are divided in any way then you're not really a patriot. You're just an extended guest.

Does that work in reverse too? Say you identify as Australian with roots in Denmark and have family there. You move to Denmark and live there for a decade.

Australia invades Denmark for whatever reason - do you shoot them immediately despite having ties to both countries?

Quote

(04-17-2019 10:04 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Then I asked her if she believed that Chinese Australians would shoot Chinese invaders or Somalian Australians would shoot Somalian invaders.

Taiwanese Chinese would shoot their mainland Chinese cousins if they invaded, and Somalians plainly have no problem shooting each other (hence their constant civil war since 1991).

So I think the answer to that question is yes.

Whether or not a recent immigrant would feel enough kinship with his fellow citizens to leap to their defence is another question...To be fair though, many white Australians (especially the younger generation) demonstrate a complete lack of patriotism, not to mention basic physical fitness, so they would also be pretty useless in the event of an invasion.

Quote

(04-18-2019 03:30 AM)fiasco360 Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:04 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I always get a laugh when I hear about an immigrant that has such love for their "homeland".

I got into an argument with my sister once because I said that most immigrants to Australia are not real Australians.

She asked me who I thought I was to make that call. I told her that if Chinese or Afghans or Iraqis or Somalians invaded Australia then I would shoot them without hesitation. Then I asked her if she believed that Chinese Australians would shoot Chinese invaders or Somalian Australians would shoot Somalian invaders.

She gave me the usual chickenshit response of "it should never come to that" but I made my point. If your loyalties are divided in any way then you're not really a patriot. You're just an extended guest.

Does that work in reverse too? Say you identify as Australian with roots in Denmark and have family there. You move to Denmark and live there for a decade.

Australia invades Denmark for whatever reason - do you shoot them immediately despite having ties to both countries?

Yes.

That this is even in question simply demonstrates the extent to which rootless cosmopolitan globalism has infected so many minds.

You either move temporarily for business reasons etc or you move with the purpose of finding a new homeland for your bloodline. If war were to break out with the country that you arrived from and you were not loyal to the country you now resided in then at very least you are obligated to leave the country your "homeland" is at war with.

If I were living in Denmark then either it would be for business or because I wanted to become Danish (or rather wanted my children's children to be considered Danish). Much like dual citizenship is nonsensical bullshit I would not seek to become a citizen of Denmark unless that is where my utmost loyalties laid.

Those that believe citizenship is merely a formality that allows you to pick and choose where you want to live until such time as your responsibilities there become too great an annoyance to bother with are indeed the very definition of rootless cosmopolitan globalists.

As recently as WW2 we had the sense to put foreign born citizens in temporary camps when we were at war with the nations of their origin. In America they put the Constitution on hold to do it and they were right to. Muslim terror attacks in the West are bad enough when we're only fucking around with their nations on a part-time basis. Try to imagine what kind of havoc the 3.8 million ethnic Chinese roaming around America could cause if America went to war with China, particularly if it didn't seem justified to the average ethnic Chinaman. Between the non-participants, the peaceful protesters and the non-peaceful saboteurs you would soon see what a farce the idea of "Chinese Americans" was.

On a regional and per capita basis this is even worse in Australia. You only have to walk through a major Eastern city here and see businesses presented entirely in foreign languages to realize that the Chinese population here is nothing more than an advance force for a future conflict. If they would not pick up a rifle and shoot a Chinese soldier then they are not Australians. Period.

Quote

(04-16-2019 04:33 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

(04-14-2019 02:09 PM)for.petes.sake Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 11:26 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Your nation can go to war with Iran then, 'cause it ain't our problem.

Let us know how it works out for you!

You know what they might actually do it. I have been looking at the Afghan militarily personnel numbers and there is 200k active personnel and 100k in reserve (that is a massive force for a small and poor country). This is not including the possible thousands of Taliban members who would willingly join a war against Iran. I have a theory that the war in Iran will be fought using Afghan soldiers. The Afghan government does not pay these soldiers from Afghan taxpayer money because the afghan government only stays afloat due to United States Aid. Afghani soldiers have been properly trained by American forces and will be used in the front lines against Iran. And it would be popular war in Afghanistan too because their is a lot of ant-Iran sentiment (due to how stupid the Iranian government is and its role in Afghanistan). The war hawks would make a killing just sending Afghan soldiers since they would not follow any military red tape and can be paid for pennies on the dollar. They would still foot the American taxpayer the bill of equipment but now they will skim on the soldier wages too.

Also I bleed red,white and blue. I just feel bad for my parents homeland and how they talk about how much suffering that goes on there.

You think a bunch of lacklustre Afghans who prefer fucking young boys and men as a favourite past time will not only be capable of fighting Iranians but fighting for those who destroyed their country to take its resources?

I wonder how many green on blue there would be. I'd be more worried about young Iranian boys and our guys than the Iranian soldiers if you had those morons fighting alongside us.

You just pointed out one savagery they do yet you called those monsters lackluster? The only thing Afghanistan exports is mercenaries. It is nation that has been in war for almost 40 years and has led to generation of real life monsters. There are hundred of war lords with years of battle experience and savagery. But not only in Afghanistan but these monsters have almost fought every conflict on the Earth after the Soviets have left. They were hired to fight in Chechen wars. They fought in the Armenian -Azerbaijan war. Heck the Iranians hired them (the Shia sect warlords) to fight for the Syrian Government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar

If we were to have world record by number of lives taken by their own hand; this monster would come 2nd only the Genghis Khan. And now the Afghan government (with US support) has welcomed him back last year to the Afghan government (strange he came back just as tensions with Iran were starting). And these monsters only fight for money. Remember, although the Mujaheddin were fighting a holy war against the soviets; all the warlords were getting paid handsomely by the CIA. As long as they are paid, they not care who they fight for (these bastards have killed their own kin for a price). They would be more than capable in fighting Iranian soldiers and would fight willingly.

Not only that but my theory has been applied many times by the US. A recent great example would be Libya. No US army boots were on the ground yet by funding rebels and creating a no-fly zone they were able to topple the Libyan government.

Quote

(04-16-2019 06:48 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(04-14-2019 02:09 PM)for.petes.sake Wrote:  Also I bleed red,white and blue. I just feel bad for my parents homeland and how they talk about how much suffering that goes on there.

If you're talking about how much you hope America gets in a war on the other side of the planet because that's where your family is from, you don't "Bleed red white and blue", and America made a big mistake when it let you and your family in.

EDIT: A lot of the Iraq war was driven by highly placed Iraqi (And also Israeli) immigrants who were pushing for war. (There aren't a lot of Iraqi immigrants, but a lot of them got into positions of influence and power, probably because their immigration was facilitated by the CIA. These were the guys telling the CIA about the "rape rooms" and WMDs, etc.) We listened to those guys and went to war with Iraq, and the result was the decimation of America. 5.6 TRILLION dollars spent, and thousands of young lives lost, not to mention our massively decreased standing in the world and a billion other terrible knock-on effects.

No more stupid wars. It's not our problem.

Yes I agree with what you said. Which is why I just said only a side of me wanted to see war with Iran but then in a later post I said the other side of me realizes what happened in Iraq. I just gave a perspective on the Anti -Iranian sentiment in the middle east. You gave evidence of the falsehoods in Iraq but what Iran is doing in that region is common knowledge. All my points are valid which is why Iran has no real allies in that region (except Syria but they just came out of civil war). Iran's neighboring countries would support a war against Iran.

Quote

(04-18-2019 04:59 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Yes.

That this is even in question simply demonstrates the extent to which rootless cosmopolitan globalism has infected so many minds.

You either move temporarily for business reasons etc or you move with the purpose of finding a new homeland for your bloodline. If war were to break out with the country that you arrived from and you were not loyal to the country you now resided in then at very least you are obligated to leave the country your "homeland" is at war with.

If I were living in Denmark then either it would be for business or because I wanted to become Danish (or rather wanted my children's children to be considered Danish). Much like dual citizenship is nonsensical bullshit I would not seek to become a citizen of Denmark unless that is where my utmost loyalties laid.

Those that believe citizenship is merely a formality that allows you to pick and choose where you want to live until such time as your responsibilities there become too great an annoyance to bother with are indeed the very definition of rootless cosmopolitan globalists.

As recently as WW2 we had the sense to put foreign born citizens in temporary camps when we were at war with the nations of their origin. In America they put the Constitution on hold to do it and they were right to. Muslim terror attacks in the West are bad enough when we're only fucking around with their nations on a part-time basis. Try to imagine what kind of havoc the 3.8 million ethnic Chinese roaming around America could cause if America went to war with China, particularly if it didn't seem justified to the average ethnic Chinaman. Between the non-participants, the peaceful protesters and the non-peaceful saboteurs you would soon see what a farce the idea of "Chinese Americans" was.

On a regional and per capita basis this is even worse in Australia. You only have to walk through a major Eastern city here and see businesses presented entirely in foreign languages to realize that the Chinese population here is nothing more than an advance force for a future conflict. If they would not pick up a rifle and shoot a Chinese soldier then they are not Australians. Period.

Post of the fucking century right here.

Quote