Archive for the 'Iran' Category

No nukes for Iran Khamenei fatwa ‘most treacherous’ Britain

June 19, 2009

No nukes for Khamenei.  We need to draft 2 million men and do a ground invasion of Iran.  That is the only way to keep them getting nukes.

Martin Fletcher:

What Khamenei says is Islamic law.  This is a fatwa.  Just like America is the foremost enemy of Islam.  This is why we can’t let them have nukes.  Death to Britain is effectively the fatwa.  By saying Britain is “most treacherous” in a formal sermon, Khamenei has effectively said it is a duty under Islam to destroy Britain and kill all British wherever you find them.  That means we must do a ground invasion to keep Iran from getting nukes.

In Mumbai they said

““kill whites, especially British and American tourists””

British doesn’t mean Pakistani.  When they say they want to kill British it means those of British descent anywhere in the world.   When the British people everywhere are united we can not be defeated.  We must rally and defang Iran before it gets nukes.  Then surround and blockade Pakistan to give up its nukes.  The same with North Korea.

The people who chant “Death to UK” or Death to British are not British when they come to the UK or US or Australia no matter how long they stay.  They will keep killing us to the n-th generation.  That is historical fact.  We must send them back.  Or we shall be nuked with our own nuclear weapons.

The head of the FBI’s WMD is a Muslim born in Iran.

Even in 2007, they shouted Death to UK before a match:

The spectators shouted “Death to UK” before the match. A black banner was attached to the entrance of the stadium showing the text “Death to UK”.”


Spirit: Iran says Death to Israel. Death to the Jews.  You can vote for Obama or McCain.

AIPAC: Do we get to laugh at Letterman jokes about Palin if Obama wins.

Spirit: Yes.

AIPAC: Its worth it.


This is real.  Choices have real consequences.  What you say and do matters.  The future really depends on what we do now.  Americans are used to no consequences for their choices. That time is over. We are now in the time of conesquences.  Think about it.


Mohammed Mosaddeq was a Saddam Hussein

February 9, 2009

“Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?”

Robert Naiman
Posted February 4, 2009 | 01:34 PM

If the US and Britain and France had removed Hitler from power in Germany in 1934 we would be hearing from the Left that we should apologize.

Even the PC Wikipedia if you read the details admits that Mossadegh was a 3rd world strong man bent on power and willing to turn to the Soviet Union to get help.

Quote from Wiki

Mosaddeq then moved to dissolve parliament, in spite of the Constitutional provision which gave the Shah sole authority to dissolve Parliament. After taking the additional step of abolishing the Constitutional guarantee of a “secret ballot”, Mosaddeq’s victory in the national plebiscite was assured. The electorate was forced into a non-secret ballot and Mosaddeq won 99.93% of the vote. The tactics employed by Mosaddeq to remain in power were dictatorial in their result, playing into the hands of those who wished to see him removed.[citation needed] Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mosaddeq’s emergency powers were extended.

“The tactics employed by Mosaddeq to remain in power were dictatorial in their result, playing into the hands of those who wished to see him removed.

What weasel breath.

If we had removed Hitler in 1934, they would be saying that Hitler’s actions played into the hands of the wily British, simpleton Americans and emotionally overwrought French once again.   The calls for us to apologize for overthrowing Hitler would be coming from everywhere on the Left.

Mosaddeq was a power hungry 3rd world strong man who wanted total power.  He took away the secret ballot and the vote was over 99 percent for him.  That’s fraud and fear.   Mosaddeq was an evil dictator in the mold of Stalin, Hitler and Saddam.  Stopping him was something Iran should thank us for.


“Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?”

Yes.  Every time we betray the truth it kills us inside.

Khobar Towers Iran: From Conspiracy Theory to Fact

December 23, 2006

(from Jihad Watch) By Carol D. Leonnig in the Washington Post, with thanks to Davida:

A federal judge ruled yesterday that Iran is responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing and ordered that the government pay $254 million to the families of 17 Americans who died in the attack in Saudi Arabia.


search “Khobar Towers” “conspiracy theory”

9,730 hits

“Khobar Towers” “anti-Muslim”

601 hits

“Khobar Towers” bigots

9,140 hits

So this goes, in the MSM, from an anti-Muslim bigot Conspiracy Theory to fact in one day. Moreover, it turns out the government knew this all along.

Imagine what would happen if the MSM read the Koran before telling us what it says. Or read Jihad Watch.

IAEA Cites Material Found At Iran Facility

November 15, 2006

Associated Press
Wednesday, November 15, 2006; Page A13

“VIENNA, Nov. 14 — New traces of plutonium and enriched uranium, potential material for atomic warheads, have been found at a nuclear waste facility in Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Tuesday, as Iran’s president boasted that his country’s nuclear fuel program would soon be…”⊂=AR


Iraq battle phase deaths were under 200. The time to fight wars is when our losses are 200 or even 2000 not 200,000 or 20 million. A ground invasion may cost fewer US deaths than bombing alone because a ground war increases our options to strike their counter strike options, but doesn’t give them more ability to strike our ships in the region.

They will hold back missiles to use on our ships. To root out those missiles we need ground troops. We don’t want carriers going down from their missiles. That will cost us far more lives than using ground troops from the start.

== Comment 2

The longer things go along, the higher the chance something will happen.

The Joint Chiefs recommended using force in the Cuban Missile crisis. We now know the Soviet commander had tac nukes and would have used them. Kennedy didn’t go along with the chiefs because of the Bay of Pigs. So it was probably 50/50 or higher that we would have had a nuclear war, and we got lucky.

With Iran, the ways of thinking are more different, and so war is far more likely than with the Soviets.

A bombing run on them will leave them with missiles and other forces including subs. Over time they will get one or more of our carriers. We have fewer deaths if we do a ground invasion and get it over. This cuts off the clock. That lowers the probability of bad outcomes for us. This applies to their missiles and their nukes.

Like Pakistan, they will sell what they have to make money, for ideology, to create an alliance against us, and because they don’t think like we do. Nuclear programs leak from the top, A Q Khan, middle, Klaus Fuchs, and bottom, David Greenglass.

We are overrun with spies in our universities, high tech businesses, H1B programs, etc. Why do we think it will be different for Iran when it isn’t for Pakistan?

This article represents hypotheses, speculation or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

read more | digg story

“U.S. Deaths In Iraq Near Peak Months”

October 27, 2006

“General Cites Battle For Anbar’s Capital”

By Ellen Knickmeyer and John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, October 27, 2006; 8:34 AM
Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200. Occupation phase deaths average 70 or more per month. We should invade Iran and leave Iraq. The lives saved in Iraq would pay for the Iran invasion. This way we get something for our deaths,denuking Iran.

We get our army in Iraq on the Pakistan border where we can surround Pakistan and make it give up its nukes and bin Laden.

We have to fight wars of strategy now while we lose 200 killed in battle phase.

The two drivers of occupation deaths in Iraq are foreign Sunni Arab fighters and Shiite Sunni historic rivarly in Iraq. Both are absent in Iran.

Saudi Arabia is funding the Taliban through Pakistan ISI against US troops in Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Iraq and Sunni resistance in Iraq. We must invade and occupy Saudi Arabia and rename it Multicultural Arabia. We should open it up to immigration for multicultural sources including illegals from the US.

America is going to discover in 25 years its an also ran from history. We have to act now while we still can to turn off what attacked us on 9-11 and has been attacking us. That comes from Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

FDR didn’t stop at Normandy and take casualties he marched into Germany and ended Fascism. We need to march into Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan.

== Comment 2

People will volunteer to invade and occupy Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan because they know that’s a plan and a strategy for total victory over what attacked us on 9-11 and is attacking us. Bush sits in the White House with Prince Bandar making a torture pact, and then no one volunteers to bleed and die in Iraq and Afghanistan while the Saudi royal family funds the Sunni resistance in Iraq and the Taliban in Iraq.

Bush airlifts out the bin Laden family after 9-11 instead of asking for a million volunteers. Bush airlifts out Pakistan generals in Nov 2001fromKunduz Afghanistan, see Seymour Hersh, instead of arresting them. This is why no one wants to volunteer.

Bush says we are going to bleed on the beaches at Normandy forever, not march into Germany and end fascism. Bush instead meets with Hitler (Prince Bandar) and does a torture deal. Now no one volunteers to be perpetually strafed on the beach at Normandy.

Wake up Bush and be loyal to America not Prince Bandar. Why should Americans die for Prince Bandar to go on torturing people with Bush? Why should Americans die in Iraq and Afghanistan so that the Saudis can keep on funding the killing of Americans?


Bush praises the religion of peace, Saudi Arabia’s ideology, and makes torture compacts with Prince Bandar. Bush has a call to prayers broadcast at Gitmo 5 times a day. No one in America wants to fight in his war in Iraq and Afghanistan that is guaranteed to fail to defeat Saudi Arabia and occupy it.


linda.d.leibhart | Oct 27, 2006 3:23:39 PM quote I certainly hope you are being sarcastic in suggesting we invade these countries. Our troops are stretched too far as it is. end quote.

Yes, serious. We can use the army in Iraq to invade Iran and leave Iraq completely. That saves 70 lives a month in occupation deaths. Since battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200, we may end up saving lives over a 1 to 2 year period.

This also helps Iraq by taking out Iran as a source of support as well as dashing hopes of insurgents. We can swing back through Iraq later if we need to.

We should adopt a roving patrol model, not a static sentry model. We should not be a static sentry in Iran, but remove nukes, the regime, religious courts and law, and then move on to the Pakistan border.

We should also increase our military. By 1945 we had 10 million men under arms. We can restore our volunteer force to the 1991leve. If we have a real plan for people to believe in other than die in peripheral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan we can get volunteers.

Going to the sources, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will be something people will volunteer for. Dying in peripheral wars so Bush can make torture compacts with Prince Bandar, have calls to prayer at Gitmo, build a mosque at Quantico and call what attacked us the religion of peace will not get volunteers.

This 9-11, schools celebrated and praised what attacked us, not what we believe in. That is a country that is insane and going down to defeat. Dying in Iraq and Afghanistan shows defeat.

We rarely talk about Saudi Arabia funding the insurgencies against us in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the UK press does. Bush, the MSM and Congress are focused on peripheral wars.

Its as if in WWII, we had stopped at Normandy and then become experts there and taken German shelling. The equivalent is Saudi money today killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Rumsfeld was right to want to leave Iraq. We should simply knock over what harms us and leave. We lost 200 battle deaths in Iraq. We lost 50,000 inViet Nam, over 300,000 in WWII.

Because we train Chinese students in physics grad schools and not Americans, our technology lead will be gone in a few years. China will sell the same or even better weapons to Iran, Pakistan, etc. This is thanks to George Allen’sSkil Bill, as well as Bush, Kennedy, McCain, Warner, etc. who have undermined our people’s education and given away our know-how and thus our jobs, security, and advantages.

We have to strike now while we lose 200 killer or even 2000 killed per war. This advantage will be gone in a few years, because George Allen andCornyn et al are giving it to China.

They don’t think, so we have to.

This article represents hypothesis, speculation or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

” U.S. Officials: Iraqi Security Could Be Ready in 12-18 Months”

October 24, 2006

“Ambassador Says Iraqi Political Leaders ‘Must Step Up'”

By Debbi Wilgoren and Howard Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; 11:18 AM

“Top U.S. officials in Iraq today predicted that Iraqi security forces could be largely self-sufficient within 12 to 18 months and said the Iraqi government is building a timetable for disarming militias, quieting insurgents and solving ongoing struggles for economic and political power.”

WaPo Comments.

Kissinger got out another old memo, “Light at the end of the Tunnel Memo”? Kissinger is spending time at the White House, teaching Bush old tricks. Those old Kissinger memos are like salted peanuts at the White House. Too bad Kissinger doesn’t tell Bush to just roll over Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia while it only costs us 200 killed in Battle Phase deaths v. 50,000 killed in Vietnam. Instead, Bush and Kissinger sit around like an SNL skit about the Oval Office, asking how can we waste America’s chance to win the big war by getting bogged down in fighting Afghanistan and Iraq while letting Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia fund the wars against while we could win easy.

Kissinger should be telling Bush he’s fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong place. When you lose 200 killed in the battle phase, you should take the war to the source right away. We called it Island Hopping in WWII in the Pacific. We were going for Japan and Germany, not trying to get bogged down in peripheral places for ever.

While Kissinger way busy losing Vietnam he was also busy giving Russia more throw weight and big missiles in SALT I. Kissinger was also letting US grad schools be taken over by foreign grad students and has never spoke out about our know-how being given away. That’s why China is so powerful now and getting more so.

A Q Khan got his Ph.D. in the 1970’s in Belgium and stole centrifuge technology from a job there. We have been giving away our technology and know how and our people can’t get jobs. Kissinger is part of that give away. Bush is doing that now.

===2nd Comment

jhindson | Oct 24, 2006 12:59:23 PM quote The war has gone on longer than WWII and all the trends are bad. end quote.

WWII was over quickly because FDR decided to invade the homelands of what attacked us, Japan and Germany as fast as possible, and then he did it.

Bush decided to get bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of going after Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and UAE.

When you don’t go to the source, you can’t win. They understood that in WWII.

Bush just doesn’t get it. If FDR could have knocked over a country at 200 killed in battle phase, he wouldn’t have sat down and occupied the most peripheal points he could find. But Bush does and Kissinger eggs him on.

== Comment

The US had 10 million men under arms by the end of WWII with a much smaller population.  In the last 2 years of the Bush administration, we could restore our army to the 1991 level, and invade Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.  We could win in 2 years.  That’s what they did in WWII.  They were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and they just won.  You don’t need the permission of Blair or the UN after you are attacked.  You can just go win.  We can win in the next 2 years, or we can sit and bleed occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.  Only someone brain dead would choose to lose when they could win after they were attacked.  Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, and North Korea are tied to enough things over the last 30 years that we have evidence enough.  At this point in history, military force can win.  At the right points in history, armies have changed history and wars have changed history.  We can win now or sit back, bleed at the peripheries and let immigration defeat us.  Victory at all costs.  Just win baby.  Americans want a leader who will invade the homelands of the countries that attacked us not sit and bleed like a fool and invent stupid phrases like stay the course.  Did FDR say stay the course? No, he said Unconditional Surrender.  By the farthest point from Berlin and Tokyo? No.  He took the war to the homelands of what attacked us.  He didn’t call Fascism the religion of peace.  He didn’t set up Fascist Republics in countries he invaded.  He didn’t uphold Fascist Law and Courts, he abolished them, sent the judges packing and imposed our values.  That was popular with our people.  If you have the American people behind you, that’s all you need to win right now.  Soon, it will be too late.

We can win it all, now.  Just arm up and do it.  We don’t need to go to the UN or sit around holding Blair’s hand.  We don’t need to waste time with Europe or China talking to our enemies telling them to hold out.  We don’t have to listen to Europe, China and Russia say don’t fight now when you lose 200 killed per war, wait until its 50,000 or 500,000 in a nuclear war.  Just win now.  Roll over the whole expanded axis, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and North Korea.  Just do it.

This article is hypothesis, speculation and opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

“IAEA Head: Iran Close To Enriching Uranium”

October 24, 2006


By Dafna Linzer

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Page A04

“Iran has taken another step in its ability to enrich uranium, the head of the U.N. atomic energy agency confirmed yesterday, as the Bush administration and European allies failed to reach agreement on sanctions against Tehran’s expanding nuclear program.”

Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200, occupation deaths are 70 per month. The two drivers of occupation deaths in Iraq are foreign Sunni Arab fighters that Iranians wont take in, and the historic Sunni Shiite rivalry for control of Iraq, which by definition is not part of Irans history. The US lost 50,000 killed in Vietnam and Korea.

While the US loses 200 killed in a war is the time to fight wars, not when it loses 50,000 or more. We are finding that in Korea. The US should just roll over Iran without waiting at all. The same applies to other countries that support terror.

The time to fight wars is when we lose 200 killed per war, not when they have more modern technology like we do and we lose 50,000, or in in nuclear war hundreds of thousands or millions.

By OldAtlantic | Oct 24, 2006 7:50:26 AM

Comments at WaPo

Moves toward War with Iran: Part 2
By William R. Polk
The above article disscusses Iran options, assuming some action has been decided on which is the author’s contention in Part 1. The author relays Richard Armitage as stating aerial attack on Iran by itself can’t work. It references other unnamed sources in the Air Force as saying the same thing.

We comment below.

The army to invade Iran with is in Iraq. We will save deaths in Iraq by invading Iran two ways, one we save the 70 occupation deaths a month in Iraq, and two we stop the support of violence out of Iran to Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. We thus help our effort in Afghanistan.

The only way to revive our situation in Afghanistan may be to invade Iran so we can unite our armies on the Pakistan border and pressure Pakistan to give up its nukes and support of the Taliban.

The Iranian leadership, I have been authoritatively told, believes all this is a bluff. ” See Polk above. So does Pakistan’s leadership. That’s why both have ceaselessly worked against us as hard and as fast as they can. They want to build up now while Bush dithers. They think he lacks the will to act. His failure to rebuild the military after 9-11 to the 1991 level, still an all volunteer force, is part of what makes them have disdain for Bush.

Joseph Cirincione, Fool Me Twice

America Moves Toward War with Iran: Part 1
By William R. Polk

… there is at least a 10% chance of an American attack on Iran before the November 7 Congressional elections and about a 90% chance before the administration’s end in 2008″

Gross stupidity in Afghanistan
By Ajai Sahni

Mr. Sahni’s point is that we are losing in Afghanistan, and the name of our problem is Pakistan. To stop the pain, we have to stop Pakistan. That takes an army on Pakistan’s border. Our army is in Iraq, and Bush is to cheap to build us another one. Because of his father’s no new taxes pledge breaking and loss in 1992, Bush wouldn’t rebuild our forces after 9-11 to the level of 1991. Even the Afghanistan mission as our sole effort would have benefited from that rebuilding, especially if we dealt with Pakistan and its role in terrorism and spreading nuclear weapons.


“Independent Voters Favor Democrats by 2 to 1 in Poll
Iraq War Cited Most Often As Top Issue for Elections”

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Page A01

Comments WaPo

Bush has no plan for people to believe in. His plan in Iraq and Afghanistan is 70 Americans killer per month forever. That is not a plan to believe in. Defeating Iran, rebuilding our army, surrounding Pakistan to make it give up its nukes and bin Laden and link to our troops in Afghanistan is a plan. This has meaning. Bush needs to understand that pictures from Iraq have a meaning of no plan by him. Bush has to have a plan that makes sense, a step by step process that gets us somewhere. Without a plan that makes sense, people have nothing to vote for. Bush only offers death. People vote against just dying.

Bush has to have a strategy that gets us step by step from where we are to victory over what attacked us and what threatens us.   He, like Blair, doesn’t have that.  Bush and Blair offer eventual defeat of the West through immigration, and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan in the meantime as their plan.  This is death and defeat.  The Bush Blair program is the death and defeat of the West.  They offer death up front in side show wars instead of going after the source, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Going after these 3 source countries of what attacked us and threatens us would be wildly popular.  Everyone knows that Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia are the real sources of what attacked us and what threatens us.  So to invade them would be wildly popular.   That means defeating our real enemies, who hate us.


This article is opinion, hypothesis or speculation. All other disclaimers apply.


%d bloggers like this: