Santorum hopes the US is behind killing Iranian scientist

JonnyPistachio

Santorum hopes the US is behind killing Iranian nuclear scientists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0imqLFtP ... ture=share

Its "wonderful" that this scientist is dead? So there's no other way? Just kill, kill, kill? He is dying to get the USA in another war. This is the second time I had to watch a GOP candidates video message very closely to see if someone changed the audio as a joke, but the lips seemed to match the gibberish.

polaris_x

of course the US involved ... and as per usual - i suspect this will not be commented upon by our conservative brethren ... much like all threads pertaining to US intervention in Iran ...

mickeyrat

not as up to date as maybe I shoud be.

gimmesometruth27

i'll bet it was the cia AND mossad.

JonnyPistachio

mickeyrat wrote:

so let me get this straight. An Iranian scientist OPPOSED to Irans nuclear program gets murdered and somehow WE are involved when we also oppose this program?

I believe the man murdered was working for the Iranian nuclear program. He was the third one recently murdered I think.

mickeyrat

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

so let me get this straight. An Iranian scientist OPPOSED to Irans nuclear program gets murdered and somehow WE are involved when we also oppose this program?

I believe the man murdered was working for the Iranian nuclear program. He was the third one recently murdered I think.

yeah, I really shoudlnt post in these kinds of threads. I'm not as informed as I need to be to do so.

JonnyPistachio

mickeyrat wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

so let me get this straight. An Iranian scientist OPPOSED to Irans nuclear program gets murdered and somehow WE are involved when we also oppose this program?

I believe the man murdered was working for the Iranian nuclear program. He was the third one recently murdered I think.

yeah, I really shoudlnt post in these kinds of threads. I'm not as informed as I need to be to do so.

nah man, thats OK, I dont think there's been much news about this...probably because they want to keep it hush hush because it was so controversial.

polaris_x

jp ... plenty of news ... but, not surprisingly the focus has been what is iran going to do to retaliate ... it's clearly a joint effort by the US/UK/Israel ... but no one seems to care that the western powers are yet again intervening and ultimately the cause for the tension being manufactured in the middle east ...

but hey - it's good for business ... so, whatever ... :evil:

mickeyrat

Heres what I see. "Experts" claim gas prices north of $4 gal close to $5 by memorial day. I see Deisel dropping ever so slightly recently after remaining constant since the big price hikes a couple yrs ago. All this current talk about sanctions and closing the straits of hormuz. Do ya think that would jack the price of a barrel of oil should this kind of posturing come to life?

polaris_x

mickeyrat wrote:

Heres what I see. "Experts" claim gas prices north of $4 gal close to $5 by memorial day. I see Deisel dropping ever so slightly recently after remaining constant since the big price hikes a couple yrs ago. All this current talk about sanctions and closing the straits of hormuz. Do ya think that would jack the price of a barrel of oil should this kind of posturing come to life?

gas is dependent on many factors outside the price of oil ... the primary being what the oil companies feel like charging ... if they want gas prices to rise, they will ... the oil companies dictate everything and it will always be in their interests ...

as long as america is addicted to oil - this will always be the case ...

in any case - the price of crude has risen steadily over the last decade except for the blip related to the financial crisis ...

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

jp ... plenty of news ... but, not surprisingly the focus has been what is iran going to do to retaliate ... it's clearly a joint effort by the US/UK/Israel ... but no one seems to care that the western powers are yet again intervening and ultimately the cause for the tension being manufactured in the middle east ...

but hey - it's good for business ... so, whatever ... :evil:

To be fair, it's not like Iran is doing anything to reduce tensions. If anything, Iran is "good for business" with their public displays of bravado and threatening to cut of 50% of the world's oil supply. It's not too hard to keep the defense money rolling with enemies like this.

Remember, when Obama first took office he made a gesture to Iran in hopes of future good will and they blew him off. Perhaps Iran's leadership is in effect using the same methods you claim the U.S. uses to stay in power. By presenting on an enemy to unite the citizens against in fear, they gain their backing an unquestioning loyalty.

Jason P

mickeyrat wrote:

Heres what I see. "Experts" claim gas prices north of $4 gal close to $5 by memorial day. I see Deisel dropping ever so slightly recently after remaining constant since the big price hikes a couple yrs ago. All this current talk about sanctions and closing the straits of hormuz. Do ya think that would jack the price of a barrel of oil should this kind of posturing come to life?

Iran has the third largest oil reserve in the world. It would behoove them to keep oil prices inflated.

JonnyPistachio

mickeyrat wrote:

Heres what I see. "Experts" claim gas prices north of $4 gal close to $5 by memorial day. I see Deisel dropping ever so slightly recently after remaining constant since the big price hikes a couple yrs ago. All this current talk about sanctions and closing the straits of hormuz. Do ya think that would jack the price of a barrel of oil should this kind of posturing come to life?

Are you trolling? derailing this thread? j/k, I dont care.
Well, I guess how long could they keep it closed would answer that.

polaris_x wrote:

jp ... plenty of news ... but, not surprisingly the focus has been what is iran going to do to retaliate ... it's clearly a joint effort by the US/UK/Israel ... but no one seems to care that the western powers are yet again intervening and ultimately the cause for the tension being manufactured in the middle east ...

but hey - it's good for business ... so, whatever ... :evil:

What are they saying Iran will do?

mickeyrat

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

Heres what I see. "Experts" claim gas prices north of $4 gal close to $5 by memorial day. I see Deisel dropping ever so slightly recently after remaining constant since the big price hikes a couple yrs ago. All this current talk about sanctions and closing the straits of hormuz. Do ya think that would jack the price of a barrel of oil should this kind of posturing come to life?

Are you trolling? derailing this thread? j/k, I dont care.
Well, I guess how long could they keep it closed would answer that.

polaris_x wrote:

jp ... plenty of news ... but, not surprisingly the focus has been what is iran going to do to retaliate ... it's clearly a joint effort by the US/UK/Israel ... but no one seems to care that the western powers are yet again intervening and ultimately the cause for the tension being manufactured in the middle east ...

but hey - it's good for business ... so, whatever ... :evil:

What are they saying Iran will do?

Jonny? Doesnt EVERYTHING about that region revolve around oil?

Sad as it is this guy gets murdered, its going to do nothingto deter Iran from persueing thier "peaceful" application of nuclear power.

My personal belief ,they are about a year away from a viable nuke weapon. Possibly closer than that.

As for us being invloved directly? Possible but I dont think so. Remember Obama started his term off being willing to sit down with open dialoge. Then again , he does now have ordered blood(bin laden) on his hands. Perhaps a lust for that kind of power has set in.

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

it's clearly a joint effort by the US/UK/Israel .

How do you know that?

I mean, it seems likely that Israel and maybe the US or UK were involved, but what's the proof at this point? Anything?

VINNY GOOMBA

Could Iran have killed their own scientists? :think:

EZ1221C

mickeyrat wrote:

My personal belief ,they are about a year away from a viable nuke weapon. Possibly closer than that.

I understand that it is your belief, but we've been hearing this same thing from the media for a long time. I think its a scare tactic at this point. "Iran might have a nuclear weapon this year! Let's give more money to Israel!"

mickeyrat

EZ1221C wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

My personal belief ,they are about a year away from a viable nuke weapon. Possibly closer than that.

I understand that it is your belief, but we've been hearing this same thing from the media for a long time. I think its a scare tactic at this point. "Iran might have a nuclear weapon this year! Let's give more money to Israel!"

just like Israel DOESNT have them. Means jack shit. Let me ask you this. Aside from Japan, what nuclear country has only power and not weapons? A posturing nation like Iran seems likely to me to want to aquire them to smack down Israel or the big bad mericans. IF nothing else they will be a/the dominant force in the region.

EZ1221C

mickeyrat wrote:

EZ1221C wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

My personal belief ,they are about a year away from a viable nuke weapon. Possibly closer than that.

I understand that it is your belief, but we've been hearing this same thing from the media for a long time. I think its a scare tactic at this point. "Iran might have a nuclear weapon this year! Let's give more money to Israel!"

just like Israel DOESNT have them. Means jack shit. Let me ask you this. Aside from Japan, what nuclear country has only power and not weapons? A posturing nation like Iran seems likely to me to want to aquire them to smack down Israel or the big bad mericans. IF nothing else they will be a/the dominant force in the region.

did I say anything about them not wanting weapons? It is my belief that we are being fed the idea that Iran is close to completion of a weapon to give the US government an excuse to attack Iran, like they did with Iraq. I don't know how close they are to achieving a nuclear weapon, but I think the government and the media want us to believe that they are oh so close so that when Mahmoud and the Iranians step out of line, we can take them out because they are a threat to the US, Israel, freedom, democracy, or whatever.

blueandwhite

mickeyrat wrote:

EZ1221C wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

My personal belief ,they are about a year away from a viable nuke weapon. Possibly closer than that.

I understand that it is your belief, but we've been hearing this same thing from the media for a long time. I think its a scare tactic at this point. "Iran might have a nuclear weapon this year! Let's give more money to Israel!"

just like Israel DOESNT have them. Means jack shit. Let me ask you this. Aside from Japan, what nuclear country has only power and not weapons? A posturing nation like Iran seems likely to me to want to aquire them to smack down Israel or the big bad mericans. IF nothing else they will be a/the dominant force in the region.

Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Switzerland, Finland Germany, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, South Africa and several other nations all have nuclear power facilities without actually having nuclear weapons. Clearly there are plenty of countries that don't measure their worth by their ability to wipe everyone else off the map.

mickeyrat

EZ1221C wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

just like Israel DOESNT have them. Means jack shit. Let me ask you this. Aside from Japan, what nuclear country has only power and not weapons? A posturing nation like Iran seems likely to me to want to aquire them to smack down Israel or the big bad mericans. IF nothing else they will be a/the dominant force in the region.

did I say anything about them not wanting weapons? It is my belief that we are being fed the idea that Iran is close to completion of a weapon to give the US government an excuse to attack Iran, like they did with Iraq. I don't know how close they are to achieving a nuclear weapon, but I think the government and the media want us to believe that they are oh so close so that when Mahmoud and the Iranians step out of line, we can take them out because they are a threat to the US, Israel, freedom, democracy, or whatever.

Oh I do agree with the media manipulation. I also believe Iran was farther along than they reported they were when they proudly showed the world their centrifuges.

dignin

Jason P wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

jp ... plenty of news ... but, not surprisingly the focus has been what is iran going to do to retaliate ... it's clearly a joint effort by the US/UK/Israel ... but no one seems to care that the western powers are yet again intervening and ultimately the cause for the tension being manufactured in the middle east ...

but hey - it's good for business ... so, whatever ... :evil:

To be fair, it's not like Iran is doing anything to reduce tensions. If anything, Iran is "good for business" with their public displays of bravado and threatening to cut of 50% of the world's oil supply. It's not too hard to keep the defense money rolling with enemies like this.

Remember, when Obama first took office he made a gesture to Iran in hopes of future good will and they blew him off. Perhaps Iran's leadership is in effect using the same methods you claim the U.S. uses to stay in power. By presenting on an enemy to unite the citizens against in fear, they gain their backing an unquestioning loyalty.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.......politics are politics, doesnt matter where you are.

whygohome

dignin wrote:

Jason P wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

jp ... plenty of news ... but, not surprisingly the focus has been what is iran going to do to retaliate ... it's clearly a joint effort by the US/UK/Israel ... but no one seems to care that the western powers are yet again intervening and ultimately the cause for the tension being manufactured in the middle east ...

but hey - it's good for business ... so, whatever ... :evil:

To be fair, it's not like Iran is doing anything to reduce tensions. If anything, Iran is "good for business" with their public displays of bravado and threatening to cut of 50% of the world's oil supply. It's not too hard to keep the defense money rolling with enemies like this.

Remember, when Obama first took office he made a gesture to Iran in hopes of future good will and they blew him off. Perhaps Iran's leadership is in effect using the same methods you claim the U.S. uses to stay in power. By presenting on an enemy to unite the citizens against in fear, they gain their backing an unquestioning loyalty.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.......politics are politics, doesnt matter where you are.

Well put.
So, they are adapting the same disastrous form of fear and nationalism that led to the decline of the U.S.....hmmm.......What was it that Ron Paul said of 9/11..?

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

To be fair, it's not like Iran is doing anything to reduce tensions. If anything, Iran is "good for business" with their public displays of bravado and threatening to cut of 50% of the world's oil supply. It's not too hard to keep the defense money rolling with enemies like this.

Remember, when Obama first took office he made a gesture to Iran in hopes of future good will and they blew him off. Perhaps Iran's leadership is in effect using the same methods you claim the U.S. uses to stay in power. By presenting on an enemy to unite the citizens against in fear, they gain their backing an unquestioning loyalty.

i think if i were iran - i would be skeptical about anything the US does ...

the reality is this: Iran is a problem in the middle east because of US intervention there ... take away their oil reserves and no one would really care about iran ... if the US wanted to alleviate tension in the area - it's pretty simple ... stop covert acts in the region whether its with the CIA or Mossad ... stop supporting Israel unconditionally when the gov't is currently being run by extremists and hardline right wingers ...

and finally stop doing what the oil companies and the mic want them to do ... and stop perpetuating lies to the public ...

JonnyPistachio

whygohome wrote:

....What was it that Ron Paul said of 9/11..?

What did he say?

Jason P

EZ1221C wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

My personal belief ,they are about a year away from a viable nuke weapon. Possibly closer than that.

I understand that it is your belief, but we've been hearing this same thing from the media for a long time. I think its a scare tactic at this point. "Iran might have a nuclear weapon this year! Let's give more money to Israel!"

The threat is being used as a scare tactic. But I also believe Iran will develop a nuclear weapon once they have the capability. Why wouldn't they?

I can understand why Israel would perform covert operations. The amount of hatred between the two countries has well passed the point of return under the current regimes in each country. Both countries would have to undergo sweeping reform and I don't foresee that happening.

polaris_x

having nukes is the only way to ensure security for iran ... everyone knows this ...

whygohome

JonnyPistachio wrote:

whygohome wrote:

....What was it that Ron Paul said of 9/11..?

What did he say?

In short, he states that we are largely/partially to blame due to our disastrous foreign policy dating back to the 1960s.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh ... 91483.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=2372

mikepegg44

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Could Iran have killed their own scientists? :think:

or worse yet, just said they did

JonnyPistachio

whygohome wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

whygohome wrote:

....What was it that Ron Paul said of 9/11..?

What did he say?

In short, he states that we are largely/partially to blame due to our disastrous foreign policy dating back to the 1960s.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh ... 91483.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=2372

Thanks, I'll check those out.

Jason P

What happens if Israel attacks Iran and we are pulled into a war prior to the elections? Is that good or bad for Obama?