False Flags and the "Cause" for War with Iran

It took me 1.25 seconds to see through the smoke and mirrors of the news headline of the day: Iran has been tied to a broken plot to launch a terror attack against the United States. The report states that Iran was linked with an attempt to detonate bombs to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US, and attack the Israeli embassy in D.C.

The United States has a history of using false flags as a psychological tool to coax the general population into a war frenzy... remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument for war with Iraq, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident? The US has been looking for a reason to take offensive action against Iran. News stories like this, the "would have/could have" busted terror plots, etc... they are merely adding to the public mind-set that "We are at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran."

The purpose behind this report? Here are my theories:

1. A slumping president heading into an election. A fresh war sends the "don't change horses mid-stream" message. Very effective for presidential elections.
2. Eric Holder is under fire for the Fast and Furious situation. Diversion, diversion, diversion.
3. Justification for continued government infractions into Civil Liberties... afterall, if we can't show success the people will grow restless and start taking away some of our Patriot Act powers.

Making the Case for War with Iran?

From the early days of the Iraq (war?) I had seen t-shirts that jokingly stated that the US should get out of Iraq, and into Iran – a play on the peace activist’s request to abandon the military actions of the region. For many years during the Bush administration, and now as we well into Obama’s second year, the US Government seems to be building a case that would appease the witty t-shirt designers.

From nuclear development to supporting insurgents in Iraq, Iran has been in the crosshairs of the United States for some time. I recall the Strait of Hormuz incident in which Iranian speed boats were ‘harassing’ the US war ships, an incident which incited saber rattling by the pro-war groups while equally evoking memories of the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ from the anti-war league. It seems that ne’er a day goes by in which I, as a citizen of the US, am not being pressed by my government to believe that ‘I want to go to war with Iran’.

This week's leading story, just under the BP oil FUBAR in the Gulf of Mexico, has been that Osama Bin Laden is living the high life just north of Tehran – enjoying falconeering, high lifestyle, and surrounded by his wives and children. Even the President of Iran was asked the question, to which he responded ‘I don’t know – hey, he could be in D.C., too’.

If I am following the carrot stick correctly, the entire purpose for Obama to surge in Afghanistan, bring a drone war to Pakistan, and leave Iraq was to bring the fight to Osama Bin Laden and destroy his Al Qaeda network of terror from the top down.

If it is found that Bin Laden is not in Pakistan, rather, in Iran, doesn’t that give Obama the same authority to enter THAT country in the name of justice, the same way that he entered into Pakistan? And doesn’t this provide a convincing final piece to the puzzle for building a case for war against Iran?

I am finding myself compelled to join forces with the anti-war crowd, calling for an end to this perpetual Orweillian war in which the war remains the same, but our enemies and allies mysteriously change on any given day. I must ask the question regarding our role as the 'world police' and if there is any correlation to us being THE world target... increasing the likelihood that our soldiers become targets within the countries that we currently occupy (which STILL include Germany and Japan from WWII). I am at a point where I have to stop the propaganda, and raise some serious questions about when and how these continuous wars will ever end.

Sadly enough a brief look at the history of the United States shows a country continuously at war since before its inception. From fighting the native tribes for conquest of their lands and resources, to the invasion of foreign countries in an imperial effort, the United States has known no time of peace – and it is most certain that the United States has no intention of ending nearly 250 years of aggression – even against her own people. (Has anyone seen the stories on the Pennsylvania ‘we will find you’ television tax ads?)


In closing, when one citizen unplugs from the propaganda bombardment long enough to piece the true history of this nation together and recognizes the habitual pattern, it is little wonder why there is a rising disdain for our nation both from outside sources and from within. With this in mind, I have to raise the red flag on the perpetual war drums from DC, the continued case for war against Iran, and the lengths that the US is going to convince me that ‘war is peace’, and that my ‘ignorance’ is the US’ ‘strength’…

Iran Joins Community of Space Racers

This is not Iran's first satellite, but it is Iran's first satellite which was launched on an Iranian lifting fixture, from an Iranian launch facility.

Iran has achieved Space launch capabilities - which should give the world reason to both celebrate, and to fear.

Though the satellite was extremely small, weighing only 60 pounds, the capability of space launch indicates a technological milestone in ICBM development. The next two milestones would be capability to launch heavier payloads to orbit, followed by the creation of re-entry technology.

Fears aside, I always have to applaud the advancement in space technology. Supposing Iran truly has nothing but peaceful intentions, a new member in the international space race is an exciting new development - and it serves to progress healthy international competition.

My hat's off to Iran on their accomplishments. And at the same time, I pray that they are truly intending their development for peaceful purposes.

ISRAEL STRIKES IRAN?

In June of 2008, IAEA Director, General Mohamed ElBaradei, said that Iran would have a Nuclear Weapon in as little as six months. The six month window has now come and gone, placing any invasion of Iran in a "midnight scenario" - the potential for Iranian Nuclear Retaliation.

Iran is pressuring Arab and other Muslim nations to confront Israel over the full scale invasion of poverty stricken terrorist stronghold, Gaza.

Now, with President Bush set to leave office within the week, Informed sources in Washington tell Newsmax that Israel indeed will launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities soon – possibly in just days.

An Israeli strike against Iran will cause retaliatory strikes against US troops by Iranian sympathizers in Iraq, drawing out a mission that is very near total completion. Such a strike will cause Hezbollah to launch attacks from Lebanon along Israel's northern border. Syria may join in the defense of her ally, and invade the Golan region - or at least begin military bombardment in that region. And finally, any attack on the enrichment facilities is likely to trigger a launch of an Iranian long range missile tipped with nuclear warheads, aimed at Israel - who will likely retaliate with their own nuclear strike.

The first shots of the first major nuclear war may be days away. If Newsmax is accurate, troubling days are ahead.

Nuclear Saudi Arabia?

The IAEA and Saudi Arabia are moving forward with approving civilian nuclear power plants in the Kingdom. This plan outlines Saudi Arabia's plans for oil needs in the future, suggesting that they will be nuclear for all internal energy needs, and use oil strictly as an export.

The increased needs for power around the world are showing a resurgence of pro-nuclear supporters worldwide - often without consideration of waste or weaponizing.

Iran, for instance, is building their first nuclear power plant, but are researching nuclear weapons in parallel, with the voiced purpose of annihilating Israel.

Can Saudi Arabia, a country whose population vehemently hates Western influence (a majority of the attackers on 9/11 were from the Kingdom), move forward with a peaceful nuclear program - or are we left to wonder if a weapons program will also be in the future for the Arab peninsula?

What is more disturbing is that the United States supports the nuclearization of the Arabian Kingdom. On one hand we pressure Iran to cease nuclear ambitions for fear that it would drive further nuclear development in the greater middle east, while on the other hand we are supporting (and most likely sharing technology) the Saudi nuclear ambition. The following map shows the status of all countries around the world regarding their nuclear ambitions:

The problem that the United States is failing to recognize is that the spread of nuclear technology is the forbidden fruit. Once you get the taste, it is natural progression to push the limits - with weapons. Don't believe me? Consider India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.

Can the world move forward in a nuclear future of peace? Or does this latest spread of nuclear technology suggest another wrong turn for safety worldwide?

Death Penalty for BLOGGING?

If the rational world needed another reason to look down their noses at the soon to be ill-fated Iranian government, the Iranian Parliament has just passed a new law stating that "online crimes" - such as blogging about the promotion of corruption, prostitution, and rejecting Islam - are now punishable by death.

Forget that the Iranian Parliament is guilty of funding the corruption of a generation, by airing children's shows that promote suicide bombing as a means to an (un)holy end for the sake of defending their Islamic Republic. Forget that they are responsible for terror training funding throughout the world. And forget that they are the epitome of corruption of civilized society... But let one blogger attempt to speak out against that corruption, and the state will have their heads (literally).

This is a direct affront to the US Constitution's Bill of Rights' 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The restriction of the individual to express themselves through religion or speech restricts the fundamental laws of nature regarding freedom.

I applaud the Iranian Parliament's decision. If the job of the US was ever to get simpler (that is to push for a revolution against Tyrannical Control over their citizens), they are helping by hammering the point home - Iranians are not free. Iranians do not live in a free society. Iranians should live in fear of their government, who now have the power to take your life at their discretion.

Now, feel free to enjoy some uplifting blogging - the entries of a madman:

Iran - US: Battle in Hormuz

As the war of words heats up surrounding Iran's defiant nuclear program, both countries are beginning to unveil what a war between the two countries would look like.

Israel will clearly make the first blow, striking the nuclear sites of Iran in hopes that they can curb their nuclear weapons development. This is going to happen sooner rather than later, and is going to be a massive country wide attack, necessary to destroy all of the nuclear development. As well, Iran's nuclear sites have been built in reinforced bunkers to avoid an Iraq-style destruction (the Israeli's destroyed Iraq's above ground nuclear sites in the early 80's), so these bombs would have to be of some substance.

Iran has declared that if they are attacked by Israel, they will retaliate by destruction of Israel. One would assume that they would push the button and activate their army of suicide bombers to cause civil unrest in the Hebrew nation. Israel's response would be nothing short of total destruction of the Palestinian territories as a reminder that they exist at the pleasure of Israel.

Meanwhile, Iran has declared that any attack on their facilities would cause a closure of the Strait of Hormuz - a 21 mile waterway connecting the Persian Gulf and all her oil resources to the Indian Ocean. The Strait lies pinched between Iran and Oman. Iran closing the shipping lanes in the Strait would prohibit the shipment of 40% of the world's oil supply - a move that is not going to be taken lightly by the world community.

As well, Iran (who is counting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as their main
defense against attack), has been studying US military ship operations in the waterways in an attempt to face the foe off their own shores. Iran has developed a "stealthy" sea plane (see picture) that is intended to deliver torpedoes and other anti-ship weapons. (The plane is not stealthy, as the top-mounted rotor would light up any radar detector)

The Untied States reminds Iran that the Naval 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, just on the Persian Gulf side of the Strait, and that any attempt to engage the Navy militarily would be met with "Captains who are ready to defend their ships".

Let's analyze this situation for a minute. The most dangerous foe is one who has nothing to lose. George W Bush is out of office in less than 6 months, with no concerns of re-election. After the November election, regardless of the outcome, Bush has absolutely nothing to lose. November 5th is a day that Iran should circle on their calendars. With the elections behind him, George Bush has a blank check of power that he could use to unleash hell on Iran, especially if Obama becomes president... a legacy ended with an exclamation point!

Should Israel attack prior to US election day, there would be some politicking, but the Iranian Navy would see instant and utter destruction at the hands of the US forces before one missile was fired from their Naval Missile Boats. The Iranians are outgunned, outclassed, and outnumbered in their own waters. Any threat to the US vessels would be seen as an act of war and would be cause for annihilation. The Iranian Navy would last less than 24 hours as we hit them with everything we have got.

On the ground, a campaign of bombing training camps for military and terrorists, as well as military and nuclear bases, would ensue. The US would not need to put boots on the ground. Our goal would merely be to take away Iran's ability to make war. Their infrastructure would not be able to stop the cruise missiles, and other bombs.

The Iranian Air Force would be eliminated while their planes were still on the ground. Bases would be struck overnight. Any plane that did manage to scramble would have no friendly territory to land... and without an enemy actually in the air to dogfight, they would be forced to land at their own peril.


The POTUS has the ability to take military action without the approval of congress for a period not to exceed 90 days. This would make an attack on Iran legal and legit by American Law.

The Iranians talk as if they have a big stick... but what a whiffle bat has in size, it lacks substance. The Iranians are being permitted to exist at the pleasure of the United States... If we decide that they have crossed the line, and actually pose any sort of a threat, there would be hell to pay.

disclaimer: "Iranians" refers to the government of Iran, the military infrastructure, and the other than friendly citizens of that country... all others are exempt.

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

The most dangerous and lasting tool of war is that of the Nuclear variety. Not only are nuclear weapons the most destructive, intended for nothing more than mass casualty, but their blast results in radiation fallout leaving areas unlivable for years, and spreading sickness across the globe.

So why would any country in the world tolerate the current proliferation of this technology?

The simple answer is that no country should tolerate nuclear technology development.

The Cold war saw bomb tests that pushed the limits of what the world could survive, and eventually, with the detonation of the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomb (50 MT detonation Thermonuclear Blast) the world put it's breaks on for "bigger" and began thinking "quantity". This nuclear stockpile was enough for each of the super-powers to destroy the world many times over. But what lesson did we learn from this nuclear contest?

One would assume that the lessons learned were those of awe of the raw power, humility in that power, and to be humble in our reaches to destroy our enemy... as there comes a point where the consequences of your technology will ultimately also destroy you (and everyone else). This ultimate destruction led the USSR and the US into the "mutually ensured destruction" mentality, which saved our two nations from moving forward with nuclear war...

But what about states that have no ill will towards their own destruction, or the death of their own people? What about states that choose to use these weapons as tools of offense against their neighbors?

The answer by any sane individual should be that this technology should be thwarted at all costs!

This is the very reality that we, as a group of logical and rational individuals, are facing in Syria and Iran... countries with an agenda of murder based on religion, in search of a technology that kills indiscriminately, en masse.

Israel, the target of Iran's nuclear weapon's program, is preparing to defend itself against the imminent threat of an Iranian Nuclear Program... and I completely support Israel's right to strike Iranian Nuclear Compounds.

In the lead-up to World War Two, Adolf Hitler made his intentions very clear... the annihilation of the Jewish population from the face of the earth. He stated this every time he spoke, and eventually had the power to begin his war of murder against innocent civilians. Similarly, Iranian leaders are daily calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, and the destruction of Judaism in the world... while subsequently developing nuclear technologies. They have stated their purpose, we all know their tool of choice... and it is our responsibility to never have to ask the question: "Why didn't someone do something?"

Iran is a state undeserving of political courtship. They are dangerous... to Israel, to the US, to their neighbors, and to the innocent citizens of that country who have no power over their insane leaders. The structure of that state needs to be re-thought, and the power needs to be put back into the hands of the educated and rational... not the militaristic religious leaders in power now.

But what consequences are there to Israel attacking Iran?

The leader of the AIEA claimed that he would step down because the Middle East would turn into a fireball. He claims that there is no clear and present danger, yet, and therefore no attack is necessary.

Israel attacked Iraq in the early 80's for the same reasons - destroying their nuclear weapons facilities. Iran has learned from the attack on Iraq, building their facilities further underground and spread throughout their country, so a more coordinated effort would need to take place to ensure the destruction of their program... Israel would have to strike many locations throughout Iran, giving resemblance to a full scale invasion... a move that would unite the Iranian people behind moving into emergency measures and retaliating against Iraq and Israel (Iraq because the US is there). Their attacks would come in the form of hundreds of suicide attacks, civil unrest, and general mayhem...

Suppose, however, that the attack included one on the leaders of Iran as well? The destruction of the leadership would isolate the chaos to Iran, with the occasional attack of US and Israeli interests (no more than usual, I would think)... and the country of Iran may be one step closer to returning to a peaceful country led by logic and wisdom.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of every human to ensure that nuclear technology is no longer allowed to be developed by countries around the world. Instead, I propose using the money to fund alternative sources of energy, such as solar or wind... A country could more easily stimulate their own economy by ensuring technical jobs, cleaner energy, and a more peaceful existence.

Of course... unless that is not their goal?

Iran's Goal: A Nuclear Apocalypse

Iran's quest to bring about the End-Times is as clear as listening to a speech by any one of her leaders. The self-fullfilling prophecy of bringing about the savior of man, or the next prophet, is done so by tragic warfare, with total destruction of humanity in it's current form... It would appear, to anyone actually listening, that Iran's hopes for world peace come only from making haste on bringing about global nuclear war.

This is the problem with religious fanaticism in leadership positions... such as the Iranian panel of religious leaders and the Ayatollah, in charge of overseeing all that the governemnt and people do. Their hope is to please their god by aiding the end times.

Don't believe me? Iran has been trying to obtain the technology to build nuclear wepons since before the revolution, and since 2003 has redoubled their efforts to create not just enriched Uranium for fuel, but Plutonium for bombs. All the while speaking of peaceful energy use, but ending the speeches and policy with "and by the by, we also are going to blow Israel off the map"... let me guess, blow them off the map with peaceful energy?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly mentions the Mahdi, the Muslim Messiah, in his speeches regarding the future of Iran and Iran's energy program.

If we analyse the events and the rhetoric, we can better understand what is unfolding.

The use of religion, or the invocation of the name of a god on behalf of one's cause has been the oldest and strongest form of coorsion in the history of man. Fighting in "god's army" has been a battle cry of both sides of countless wars throughout the ages. Most famous was the Crusades, in which the Holy Land was being reclaimed in the name of Christ. What better way to get atonement than to glorify your god in battle?

With this in mind, there is no question that the leaders of Iran look to influence their subjects, as well as Muslims around the world, who see the tasks they are undertaking as the work of the muslim god. As a muslim, or a citizen of Iran, how can you question the actions of your divinely inspired leaders? To do so would be blasphemy... and to blaspheme would mean death. So it goes, that the leaders of Iran have taken the most widely used page out of the history book, and are once again invoking religion over reason, and their loyal subjects are powerless to stop god.

Next, let's evaluate the "code words" being used by Iranian leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often talks about the use of Uranium for "peaceful purposes" while in the same breath talking about the destruction of Israel and the West. Let me explain: in the eyes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad they are not mutually exclusive... they are, in fact, one in the same. According to the story of the Mahdi, there will be peace on earth when the restores righteousness and changes the world into a perfect and just Islamic society alongside Jesus (who, of course, was Muslim and not Jewish... right?). So the peace comes when the world is controlled by Islam, and we are all subject to Islamic law. That is the ultimate "peaceful purpose"... death to the infadels, and survival and submittal of all loyal islamic subjects to the islamic leadership... I mean allah, of course!

Iran is in a dangerous bind... and that bind is tying knots in the stomach of the rest of the world.

Should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, or the capability to manufacture them, we will be within a decade of nuclear war.

I ask, if we can see the future and know what tragedies are going to come, is it our obligation to stop them?

Of course I am not suggesting all out war with Iran... but destroying the ability for Iran to enrich nuclear material... for energy or for weapons.

The alternative could be much worse.

US no longer Super Power?

According to Iran, the answer is no. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in yet another bizarre twist on reality, has claimed that Iran is the greatest and most powerful country in the world.

"Iran is the number one power in the world," Ahmadinejad said Thursday in a
speech to the families of those killed in his country's war with Iraq more than
20 years ago. "Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the
powerful and it puts them in their place..." He continued, "You can see how some people here... try to materialize the plans of the enemies and by showing that Iran is small and the enemy is big,"

Let me finish by referring to my cartoon: "But as you can see by this chart, it is Iran who is big and the enemy is actually small"

Iran, a country in a region of great historical value, is headed by a mad-man. As if his recent comments about peace by wiping Israel off the map weren't enough, or his claims that his nukes will be peacefully used to wipe Israel off the map... ummm, I mean for energy... Then this is clear evidence of delusions of grandeur!

Wikipedia helps us dissect what is going on with the Iranian Leadership:

Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία) is an historical term for behavior
characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence - often generally termed as delusions of grandeur. The word is a collaboration of the word "mania" meaning madness and the Greek "megalo" meaning "very large", "great", or "exaggerated", thus combining to denote an obsession with, either in the form of irrational perceived need for or preoccupation with in one's own estimation having and/or obtaining, grandiosity and extravagance (especially in the form of great fame and popularity, material wealth, social influence or political power, or more than one or even all of the aforesaid) and accompanying complete desirous and bombastic abandon; a common symptom if not the key diagnostic feature of megalomania.

It is often symptomatic of manic or paranoid disorders.

Little Hitler is clearly mad, and hell bent on starting a war. Should he have it his way, it will be a war of the nuclear type. A war in which Israel cannot recover... and it is true that should Israel (whose total population is 7 Million) get hit with a single nuclear bomb, killing 200,000 (3% of their total population) she could not recover.

Can Democracy Survive in the Middle East?

Our founding fathers made an astounding declaration to the tyrannical King of England in the late 1700's, stating that it is the natural order of humanity that we are endowed with Life, Liberty, and the freedom to Pursue Happiness. In doing so, they were effectively signing their own execution papers, should a Revolution Fail. But what they did was more than profound in a philosophical sense... it was the essential beginning to a people becoming self governing.

Their basis rejecting being ruled by the King of England was not in favor of rule by a church in their own land, rather a recognition of the basic rights of humanity, and building on that principle, founding a government of the people.

Now it is well discussed that during the American Revolution there were about 1/3 who were "gung-ho" for fighting the British, about 1/3 who decided to stay neutral, and about 1/3 who remained loyal to the crown. The Revolution came about on a political and militaristic front, keeping opposition at bay while maintaining and winning the war.

So now, I want to consider the requirements for freedom, and ask whether the people in the Middle East can actually survive in a democracy, and enjoy liberty.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

All of the countries of the middle east seem to have a Theocratic form of government... even the more secular countries are still under increased pressure from the Muslim Leaders. The theocratic rule is impossible to contest, because the laws and enforcement of those laws are the "word of god" (sic). And as we have seen in the last few years, the theocratic radicals are highly motivated to fight for maintaining their form of prophetic doctrine by ruling over the people with fear of having "god's punishment" handed to you. This would represent the 1/3 loyal to the crown, or in this case, loyal to their religious leaders.

In countries like Sudan, you are not only killed for being Christian, but you are sentenced to death without trial by the people for allowing a teddy bear to be named "Muhammad". In Saudi Arabia, you are not allowed to make the mark "X" as it too closely resembles the Christian Cross... punishment could include life imprisonment. In Iran you are hanged for homosexuality.

What we see is the ability for a democracy to be created, and to survive... if Democracy, in the crudest terms, simply meant "Majority Rule"... but American Democracy is something different... something that can not exist in that part of the world without drastic changes. American Democracy includes Liberty. The ability to lose a vote, but challenge the outcome... to be wrong, but still be heard... to live how one chooses without fear of persecution or death for choices... the only place where the mind, body, and spirit can be free (current government oversteps excluded - we are talking ideology here). In these countries, you do not have the same respect for basic human rights... You do not have the freedom to protest, not even in order to stay your own execution.

The 1/3 who want change in these countries cannot say so for fear of death. The other 1/3 seem content, until their son or daughter is killed by masked men because they were seen showing too much skin or not praying the correct way.

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"...give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

If Democracy is becoming a gift given to people, misused by electing leadership that promises to harm others for political or religious gain... then Democracy is little more than a mob rule. We can fight to give it to any and all countries.. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine... and it is a gift in which there is no understanding of the meaning, or the intent. The people are sure to squander it, and will find themselves once again in bondage.

But if Liberty is a prerequisite for Democracy, and the understanding of the principles of basic human rights are fully understood... well, then my friends, we will surely see a Middle East destined to be free.

Have we seen signs of this happening? For sure, there have been some. In Iraq, the people have begun rising up against the terrorists, fighting for their own peace. So there are signs of hope... but they are as brief flashes in a sea of despair. One can only hope that Liberty as well as Democracy takes hold in the Middle East, and true freedom and peace will prevail.

Talking to an Iranian...

I recently had an online discussion with an Iranian citizen, and my how interesting it was. The most interesting aspect of it was the discussion regarding Israel and her existence. Of course we talked about Nukes, US/Iran war prospects, who would win and how... all the things that you would expect one nationalist discussing online with another, but from opposing countries.

One thing in particular caught my attention, and inspired this blog. It was during the discussion of Israel. He was trying (poorly) to form an argument in support of the Palestinian rebellion in Israel, while I was rebutting with his own words about people being allowed to live in a land and govern themselves... He made a statement that really helped explain the mindset of Hamas, Syria, and the Iranians...

He said, "We do not hate the Jews, just the Zionists".

So they don't have a problem with Jews, just Jews that choose to govern themselves.

I sat in meditation on this statement, and am continuously astounded by the backwards (il)logic that is in the mind's of these people... Everyone deserves to be free, and govern themselves... unless they choose to do so in a way that is un-islamic...

The statement that he made is "common sense" in Iran... and the fact that he said it so un-apologetically is frightening... not frightening to the effect that I am afraid of Iran, but to the effect that you can kill a man, but it is meaningless unless you can kill the ideology...

Source

Can Iraq Exist Without the US?

Reuters has published a new article discussing Turkey's increased drive for invading Northern Iraq, the most stable region of the country. Their main reason is because of a the US commented on an incident which happened in 1915. There is always the pesky business of controlling the Kurdish regions in South Turkey by controling the Kurdish north in Iraq.

So with Sunni Turkey chomping at the bit to invade from the north, and Shiite Iran already making incursions into the country from the East, the question is this: Can Iraq continue to exist without a strong US presence?

Considering that the central government will never have the complete control over the country as Sadaam did, and that national pride is lower on the totem than religious loyalty, it would seem that Iraq does not have a chance at survival.

Assuming that the US leaves, and the country is left without a national army able to defend it's borders, then the most likely course of events (as I proposed earlier this year) are that Turkey succeeds in moving into the north for "security" reasons against the Kurds - as they are already attempting to do, Iran moves into the Shiite strong holds of the South-East, and eventually takes the southestern region. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will have to militarize their borders for fear of a Shiite incursion into the Sunni lands, and another attempt at taking the oil fields of the region. The eastern half of the country is desert, and therefore would be claimed by one or the other invading countries...

Which leaves the security of the region up to the Turkish/Iranian relations... which are shaky at best.

So how is the country of Iraq going to be able to fight off invaders? There will be much resistance in the north, as the Kurds do not want to be ruled by the Turks OR the Iranians, but would rather form Kurdistan. There would be little resistance in the south, as the Shiites would most likely find comfort in the safety that Iran could provide against Sunni Al-Quaeda attacks. Iraq will be unable to sustain itself or defend itself without the protection from the US.

And the rest is history.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: We are the same...

According to the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking from Columbia University, the Iranian people and the citizens of the US are the same and should be friends... if it wasn't for that pesky little Jewish state of Israel!

He said that he does not directly call for the destruction of the Jewish state, but for the Jews of Israel to live under Islamic rule of the Palestinians... much like Jews live under the Islamic Regime of Iran peacefully...

He believes that peace and freedom is limited to anyone who is non-Jewish... and I am sure that under his breath he said non-Christian too!

And he firmly believes that women in his country are more free than women anywhere else in the world.

Where I do agree with him is that if the problems with Israel would stop, then the middle east would be in peace... He believed that the region was at more of a peace before the 1948 creation of Israel... what he doesn't realize is that the British and French ruled the region at that time... and it was not until they left pinheads like him in charge of themselves that all the problems of the modern day middle east began.

So, I agree... all of the middle eastern countries should forfeit all of their power to the US, British, and French governments... let us go back to ruling them.

Or perhaps they should all "stop the problems with Israel" by leaving them alone. Israel is trying to defend itself... if there wasn't an outside force calling for it's destruction, Israel would not have to be in a constant state of war!

"President"... Stop your lies... your truth came out even after you attempted to sidestep the questions. You are an ignorant man... Hell, you believe that "the phenomenon of homosexuality" does not exist in your country... and that your subversion of women is because you respect them so much as the mothers of Iran.

I say to you, BAH! Your ambitions of world domination and submission of the Jews are very much in line with the psychotic pipedreams of Adolf Hitler... and your fellow countryman along with you!

You will never truly understand freedom... you will always represent the worst parts of human nature.

The State of the World *Amended for a friend

Firstly, I apologize to my two loyal readers for my long absence. Life has been so busy that I shan't even start down that path!

I wanted to discuss the state of the world. As a brief overview, these are the things that are really sticking out in my mind:

US/Russo relations are further strained by Russian response to European missile shield, and begin Soviet sorties over the Arctic ocean. They are also laying claim to the North Pole, dissolving their government, and instilling a strong sense of national pride in "youth camps". Sounds like the cold war isn't over... but I have to admit, Bush's foreign policies regarding Russia have been the protagonist in this epic play.

Iran is really being a pain in the rear... which is a double edged sword. The PEOPLE of Iran are unhappy with their leadership, like the US is with theirs... but the two governments are locking in to a war of words, and per Iran, a Final Answer (similar to the Final Solution of Hitler?) on October 12th. And the huevos that the Iranian President has, wanting to lay a wreath at the WTC Ground Zero site... really... like you would expect the US president to be allowed to lay a wreath at the old US embassy in Tehran in remembrance of the Marines killed and the hostage situation of the early 80's. PLUS, Iran has been working with Syria to mount chemical weapons onto missiles, pushing for nuclear weapons, and most likely trading nukes with North Korea. I was a little concerned about Iran before, but now I fear that war with them is inevitable... which is going to bulk up support for the government and eliminate any hope for change from the people.

Syria was just bombed by Israel for trying to smuggle nukes in from Iran. Of course Syria was the country of least concern, until the Nancy Pelosis of the world began visiting them and giving them any sort of legitimacy... now we are seeing assassinations by Pro-Syrians in Lebanon, inevitable war with Israel, and more problems in Iraq from the increasingly rogue country.

And I had a discussion with a liberal friend up in Washington State as I was visiting over the weekend. She was touting the Bush/McCain immigration "reform", i.e. amnesty plan. She was talking about how she was having construction done on her house, and the first group of union workers were crap, so they fired them and brought in (what were potentially) illegals, who worked longer hours for cheaper pay with better quality. My first thought was that the union guys are a product of the union environment... where you don't have to work long and/or hard to keep your job... you have strength in numbers and that trumps any working standard (I've seen this in action... ). Then she argued that we should work to build up Mexico so we don't have them running across the border. I told her that the problem with "world government mentality" is that the US becomes some sort of a nanny to the other countries. Our country ends at the borders, therefore our constitution ends at the borders, and our involvement should end at the borders. IF the Mexicans want a better living situation, go home and fix the problem. Please come back when, and only when, you plan to accept American culture and American Loyalty... but of course the liberal agenda has worked wonders in destroying American Culture... and expanding it around the world... so now borders are blurred, and it makes no sense that governments fight because "we are the people of one world"... well... needless to say it was an interesting conversation, and as I was discussing the issues I was being bashed for my views... a common liberal tactic. Of course if you try the same tactic you can expect a lawsuit or some crap like that. (In my humblest opinion)

Anyway... I have been gone, but I have not been uninvolved! I look forward to sharing some more ideas with you all more regularly now!

God Bless!

Land of the Free?

As I was watching news reports in the days after the Iowa Straw Poll, and listening to conservative talk radio shows in the same time, something struck me as odd...

The very same talk show hosts on the AM dial who prior to the Ames Straw Poll where billing it as a relevant event, marking true support for "America's Candidate", were now debunking the results... and why??? Because the big news out of the event was that Mike Huckabee, the underfunded underdog came in a awe inspiring second place and was the media favorite after the contest...

So the Pro-Romney, Pro-Rudy AM radio hosts who have been responding to Pro-Huckabee callers with "Good guy, doesn't stand a chance" were eating their words... Yes, I am talking about Rush, Hannity, and Hugh Hewitt...

And then it really got me thinking about how we are going about choosing our next President... when a man with as much Message as Romney has Money is belittled because he is not the talk show's favorite, and the host keeps repeating those words "doesn't have a chance", then I ask this simple question: How is this Presidential election any different than the 2005 Iranian Presidential election?

The answer... It Isn't!

In Iran, the Guardian Council sifts through the field of candidates and selects the candidates that THEY think are fit to run for president. There are no real primaries, no real pre-contests... it is who the Council decides should run, and the people hear that the guardian council has selected a field of candidates, all else are not worthy.

In the US, the Media and Talk shows anoint the candidates that they think are fit to run for president. The primaries are no longer on election day, but on the front page of TIME, or on talk radio shows where the "other" candidates are asteriks candidates, and their beloved Mitt Romney (who is still in single digits nationwide) is always granted the title of debate winner, or poll winner, because the other candidates don't count anyway (almost a direct quote from Hugh Hewitt). The Media decides who should get the airtime, who's name they will praise and who's name they will be debunking. The people hear the Guardian Council... I mean the Media Elites... and see that all else are not worthy in their eyes.

So are we getting the elected officials we deserve? Are we falling for the carrots at the end of the media elite's stick?

With 25% of the GOP vote going to "other/unknown", you have to wonder what candidate we are going to settle for... "Tell us, oh wise council of elite media, for we no longer have the ability to be free thinkers..."

OR, we can rise up, as we did in Iowa... time and again, supporting a candidate with executive experience and a strong Jeffersonian message... We can use this election to take back America, restoring it back to the wonderful Land of the Free... We can look at candidates with substance, intelligence, and core conservative values. Look in your hearts... you know what is right.

Do we want to live in a land of the elite ruling class, or do we want to live in the America that our forefather's endowed us with... the free land, where the government does not rule, the media does not rule, but the people... the common people... you and me... we rule, because we are free.

Reject the elite class. Flood their phone lines with calls. Fill their e-mail inboxes with letters. Send them letter after letter to fill their studio. Organize rallies outside their broadcasting buildings, demanding support for a Jeffersonian candidate willing to give power back... Take the power back from the elites, or suffer at the hands of their appointed leaders.

God Bless!

Middle East - Ticking Time Bomb

The ever evolving conflict in the Middle East has taken yet another turn. Al Qaeda has given a two month ultimatum to the Iranian government to cease all ties to the Iraqi Shiite government or face war.

This is the "spilling over" that we had been warning neighbors in the region about... so by arming radical elements and funding their operations, even if just the US, is now going to start spilling across international borders.

This is at the same time when Iraqi politicians are invoking the US second amendment, and urging the citizens to take arms and defend themselves, as a last line of defense against criminals and terrorists. In the wake of the deadly attacks over the weekend, one which killed over a hundred innocent civilians, the Iraqi government has finally asked the people to start taking responsibility for their own safety... (this may be the first step in them understanding the need to fight for their own survival and freedom, and stop depending on the government for a socialist solution)

So as the US is in a showdown this week, where the answer may be given as to when the US will be pulling battle forces out of Iraq, the tensions in the region are escalating... perhaps in anticipation of the US withdrawl. The US congress is debating a defense spending bill, and with Republicans jumping off of the President's war-wagon, it is likely that we will have a timetable for troop withdrawl... What this will look like, what bases will remain, what forces will remain is all to be decided.

What I see as happening if the US withdraws all forces, bases, etc, is as follows:

• Al Qaeda makes good on their promises to attack Iran
• Iran invades Iraq as a response, since Iran houses the terrorist group
• Turkey invades Iraq from the north to secure northern oil fields in the wake of the Iranian invasion
• Iraqi-Sunnis begin fighting Shiites who support the Iranian invaders (this is already taking place)
• Syria and Jordan move forces into the Iraqi desert to secure their borders, and ensuring the violence and/or the Iranians do not move into their country.
• Iraqi government surrenders to invading forces, agrees to disband and divide country to newly recognized borders.
• US liberals begin outcry as to the lack of our involvement in the humanitarian crisis during this war

I have suggested 7 events that may take place due to our withdrawl in the face of escalating international pressures. Each event is a cascade from the previous event... and it only makes sense considering the current tensions bundled with the previous hostilities between the regional neighbors...

The point is that the people of Iraq are at the point where they see the necessity defend themselves, thus building a sense of national pride and will to self govern... and that Al Qaeda, seeing the potential for a wider regional conflict, is willing to pull Iran into this knowing that it will increase the body count... and the US is powerless throughout this entire unfolding because we have been emasculated by socialist-world-government-liberal-Americans.

It is like a choose your own adventure book... Total chaos by US withdrawl, or an increasing sense of stability by US presence?

Hell, we are still in Germany and Japan after more than 60 years of post WWII peace... what about that don't the Liberals understand? Stability takes time, and American Unity...

God Bless...