PDA

View Full Version : Election stakes include life and death, WW III



Soflasnapper
08-28-2012, 11:42 AM
We all should be mindful that there is a threat to the entire world, known as WW III, which is looming without any particular attention being paid to it in the campaigns or on the media in general.

As far as I can tell, Romney gave a green light to Israel to being WW III, if they want. Apparently, Obama has strongly opposed starting WW III.

But Romney's religiously insane favoring of the onset of Armageddon, along with the insane right wing Christionists, who have convinced themselves it means the Lord's return and that they will be raptured to heaven before the main act, threatens to end civilization and mankind as we know them.

I favor the 'no-WW III' position. If framed in this way, I expect most non-religiously insane people would, as well.

But that Israel is blackmailing the entire world with their belligerence and nuclear blackmail and pursuit of hegemonic policies has to be kept a secret from the American people, and I suppose they will remain asleep until it crashes down upon us.

Gayle in MD
08-28-2012, 12:58 PM
Bravo! Ecellent post.

Factual.... and brings the horror of a Romney Presidency fully to the forefront.

I know of no orgainzation which is moe like Talliban thinking, that the Republican Party.

You should post this somewhere with a huge following!

G.

eg8r
08-28-2012, 01:16 PM
LOL, talk about wanting to be heard. It wasn't enough for you to post this BS in the other thread but to copy it and make it its very own thread. Were you afraid you wouldn't get a big enough audience? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I love the "As far as I can tell" part. A real crack up. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-28-2012, 03:02 PM
Do you have the slightest idea to what I refer?

(Yes, I did think it slightly important, enough to take it out of a joke thread about hurricane Obama. Do you not think it is an important topic?)

cushioncrawler
08-28-2012, 04:09 PM
Every time christians say grace at supper they are asking for the Lord to kumm to them, which traditionally meens that they are asking for the end of the world. They think it haz something to do with blessing the meal.
mac.

eg8r
08-28-2012, 04:54 PM
I know you love your conspiracy theories.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-28-2012, 05:52 PM
I do, that is correct.

But this isn't one of them.

See here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran-blog/2012/aug/02/israel-intentions-iran-pressing-question)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speculation over whether Israel is preparing for a unilateral military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities has intensified in the past few weeks after a period in which the atmosphere was less febrile.

The visit of four senior US administration officials the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, the defence secretary, Leon Panetta, the national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and the counter-terrorism chief, John Brennan suggests that Washington is renewing its efforts to rein in Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's inclinations towards military action.

It can be assumed that the administration is also anxious to reassure Netanyahu that it is committed to tackling the Iranian nuclear threat following presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney's visit to Jerusalem earlier this week. Romney, assisted by his senior aide Dan Senor, positioned himself in hawkish solidarity with Israel. Senor even suggested that Romney would back unilateral action launched by Israel, although there was some later backtracking on that stance.

[...]

An unusual view is taken by Larry Dernfer, writing on the +972 website. In a piece headlined "It's over there will be no Israeli attack on Iran", he says: "Israel is not going to attack Iran. Not before the 6 November presidential election, not afterward if Obama wins, <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>and maybe not afterward even if Romney wins</u></span>, which is unlikely. [although that would become far more likely-- my comment]

"It's not that Netanyahu doesn't want to bomb Iran he does, and he makes that clearer every day. What's happened is that there's been such a torrent of opposition in the Israeli media this week from the security establishment, starting with IDF [Israel Defence Forces] chief Benny Gantz, and backed by the Obama administration and Pentagon, that there's no way Bibi [Netanyahu] can get his cabinet to vote for a war, and without the cabinet's backing, he can't do it. The ministers will not support Bibi in an extremely risky war opposed by the heads of the IDF, IDF intelligence, the air force, the Mossad, the Shin Bet and the United States of America.</div></div>

eg8r
08-28-2012, 07:41 PM
Where does anything you have quoted, including the part that is bolded, prove your conspiracy theory that Romney (who is not the POTUS and has no power whatsoever) gave Israel a "green light" to do anything? Romney is a nobody right now and the lefties on this board have told us more than once that Israel does not care what the US thinks for says they are going to do whatever they want. Now you are asking us to believe what you said before, suspend reality now and believe you again that while Israel doesn't care what we say, they are willing to bow down and listening to Romney, a presidential hopeful, is green lighting?

Give me a freaking break. You are so screwed around the axel on this you have no idea which way is up. LOL, all these times we mention something someone other than the presidents says and you are quick to tell us "yeah, well, yeah, well he/she isn't the president are they?" Well wake up McFly, Romney is not the president and according to you he doesn't have a chance at winning so why is Israel all of a sudden listening to him?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-28-2012, 09:31 PM
He has a significant chance of winning, IMO. I have never said differently. He has been behind before now, and ahead before now. This is no done deal for Obama. That kind of talk is foolishness.

Israel did the bidding of the Republican nominee before he was president before, in the hostage crisis, shipping spare US parts to Iran against the embargo Carter had put in place.

Fact is, without refueling their planes, any Israeli attack would be suicide for the pilots. Only the US can provide the in-flight refueling capability to Israel, and get the flyover permission from Saudi Arabia. Israel alone cannot do the numbers of sorties required, after their unrefueled planes are lost one after another.

LWW
08-29-2012, 04:03 AM
WWIII has been raging for decades.

To argue otherwise is to argue that WWII never really ended.

Being that Nazi ideology was taught to Sadat, Saddam and Sadat by Hitler disciples ... that WWII never really ended is probably the more accurate pick.

Soflasnapper
08-29-2012, 09:55 AM
This kind of post-modernism is silly, and strains credulity.

Of course that is false. What are the 'major combat operations' of this war, and who are the protaganists? No major powers against one another, the minimum definition of world war.

Yes, there has been ceaseless war, but mainly as lower intensity conflicts, internal civil wars, each limited to a region. There has not been world-wide conflict per se (even as some dozens of conflicts come and go throughout the world at all times).

There's a decent argument that WE became the Nazis, or after inviting them in over here, had a takeover by them. At the least, their intelligence findings (or inventions) guided the US/Soviet Union standoff for decades, and probably set the Cold War in place on purpose to weaken their twin adversaries. Reinhold Gehlen's Org accomplished these things.

hondo
08-29-2012, 02:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WWIII has been raging for decades.

To argue otherwise is to argue that WWII never really ended.

Being that Nazi ideology was taught to Sadat, Saddam and Sadat by Hitler disciples ... that WWII never really ended is probably the more accurate pick. </div></div>

LARRY, IF YOU MEANT TO SAY CEASELESS WAR, I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU. World War is not truly accurate.

hondo
08-29-2012, 02:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This kind of post-modernism is silly, and strains credulity.

Of course that is false. What are the 'major combat operations' of this war, and who are the protaganists? No major powers against one another, the minimum definition of world war.

Yes, there has been ceaseless war, but mainly as lower intensity conflicts, internal civil wars, each limited to a region. There has not been world-wide conflict per se (even as some dozens of conflicts come and go throughout the world at all times).

There's a decent argument that WE became the Nazis, or after inviting them in over here, had a takeover by them. At the least, their intelligence findings (or inventions) guided the US/Soviet Union standoff for decades, and probably set the Cold War in place on purpose to weaken their twin adversaries. Reinhold Gehlen's Org accomplished these things.

</div></div>

Just saw this. Agree.