US launches attack against Iranian nuclear sites

they are soooooo far up the US azz over keeping India from rolling over them - no worry >>> anything negative is just talk

 

Half of the ISI might be. The other half I’m not so sure. The half that hid Bin Ladin is the half we need to worry about.

 

I'm pretty sure this one was shoved up their ass.

 

That's rich coming from them.

 

I know. A friggin joke...

Yes, that's concerning but I do agree with @Illini Warrior as the government itself never would transfer a nuke to Iran, not only because it's diplomatic suicide to do so but should the nuke get used by Iran (and it would) they would also reap the retaliation. They have enough on their plate with India.

While it is not too difficult to assist an old, Jew hating, hardline cleric, they would find it much more difficult to obtain and transport a nuclear weapon. Pakistan, like all nuclear countries, guard and track these weapons with the highest security.

Pakistan did indeed help Iran's nuclear research (also North Korea) in a round-about manner, via Pakistani nuclear physicist Abdul Qadeer Khan; however, this wasn't due to the Pakistani government. Khan did it for money. Years later, after he was exposed, Pakistan did indeed arrest him but later pardon him...probably because he was such a large influence on their own nuclear program. Anyway, the diplomatic fallout for Pakistan was severe, for which they still suffer in many ways. Khan died in 2021 from Covid.

Anyway, yes, it is concerning but highly unlikely...thank God. The main reason is Pakistan wants good relations with the rest of the world and hiding an old terrorist is much different than obtaining and smuggling a nuclear weapon with all the intelligence organizations of the world watching.

 

Iran now launching missiles at US bases in Iraq and Qatar... and the Qatar government helped Iran coordinate it: REPORT: Iran Coordinated Missile Attack on US Base in Qatar with Qatari Government | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Ish is ratcheting up..

Irony of all ironies... Iran would not be what it is now, had the US not toppled their legitimately elected republic in the 1950s. From WIKI: 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

Don't be surprised when eventually there's a WIKI page detailing how the Ukraine war was also the result of CIA overthrow of a democratically elected Prime Minister.

 

Both of those things are true.

 

"Iran would not be what it is now, had the US not toppled their legitimately elected republic in the 1950s."
Hmm...maybe, but, of course, that is pure speculation. Personally, I tend to think most of these countries in the Middle East are a coin toss on any day on how they will turn out or what they will do at any given time. Frankly, I am not a fan of any of them and the best thing Trump ever did was make the US energy independent his first term...even though we were told for decades that was impossible, so we were held hostage by the middle east and their damn oil but no longer.

What I think one has to consider is the 'Great Game' is always, ALWAYS in play on damn near every country in the world, every hour of the day, by either China ('Belt and Road' is perfect example), Russia or the US for influence or outright control. It's a balancing act as you can't get all the countries so sometimes you win, lose or sometimes draw or, in other words, you simply make it so no one wins; nevertheless, the game is always in play - constantly.

I have no idea if the CIA was involved in ousting the Ukraine Prime Minister but let's say they were, especially if you look at the funding provided by NED (National Endowment of Democracy, an NGO funded by the US government), so they probably were. They (CIA) won that round. Certainly, the Russian FSB was countering for control with everything that had, but they lost - period. Sorry about that but the game goes on...

Now, people seem to think because of this it justifies the Russian outright invasion of Ukraine. I think this is horribly short sighted and naive and, in all honesty, ridiculous. Yet, "the Ukraine Prime Minister was democratically elected!" Was he? Do we know that as a fact or was that due to Russian FSB influence? Was even our own president (Biden) democratically elected? I do not believe he was. Our FBI reported that Russia tried to influence our own recent election, so we are not outside the boundaries of the game. Do we try to influence theirs? This is why Putin kicked out all NGOs around 2015. Smart move...but too late to save Ukraine.

So, they loss the intelligence coup in Ukraine but Putin thought he could definitely win by invasion, brute force, and all it has got him is a lot of bodies, sanctions, a worldwide disrespect for his military and his country, and a question of his leadership at home. Frankly, Ukraine has been a losing card for him from day one and now he is in a corner with no way out. He can't win and he can't quit. His so-called justification is nonsense propaganda what my old grandma would call "like a cat covering up $hit." He wanted another Belarus. He got a Ukraine that previously disliked Russian interference who now has a burning hot hate - more so than even Poland - and will be an avid enemy of Russia for generations...just like Poland.

So, my opinion on this is Russia played and lost big time, basically because they tried to force the issue with brute Soviet style force - 'might makes right'. Yeah, not always, only if you win...so goes the Great Game.

 

What is happening in the Ukraine started as a Western led push for access to Ukraine's resource rich east... lead by multi-national oil companies... and championed by Victoria Nuland and a $5B dollar "investment"..



Then NATO walked back a promise they claim was never made... but was clearly posited:

Then NATO "defensive" missiles were parked in eastern Ukraine... 300miles from Moscow... literally the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse... Putin said "remove the missiles or we'll invade"... and NATO blinked...

I'm no Putin fanboy... but one really can't blame his response... especially considering JFK said the exact same thing in '62

 

Reference the advancement of NATO, it's that old saying of 'a verbal contract ain't worth the paper it's written on.' LOL! I would also point out that Russia hasn't lived up to its signed agreements (Budapest Accords), on paper, not verbal. Besides, Russia's willingness to use force and invade a neighboring country showed exactly that all those countries that ran begging to join NATO, were indeed right. Furthermore, it forced Sweden and Finland to join NATO. Imagine that after all those years since 1949, even the Cold War years they remained neutral...not now.

Now, Russia is in a far, far worse strategic position but...let's be real. NATO is not going to invade Russia, not today, not tomorrow. Why? Nukes! So, all NATO truly does is give these smaller countries sort of a MAD policy to keep Russia from ever attacking them because Russia would be going against all of Western Europe and frankly, strength is the only damn thing Russians understand. I use to think Putin was something special, but his handling of Ukraine has been a complete disaster for his country. He's nothing special, just a paranoid ex-KGB tyrant with a stomach for brutality with some common sense...who is also, some say, the richest guy in the world.

Reference the missiles, I really haven't done much research on this but...I don't believe it had spit to do with the missiles. Why? Because you could place those missiles in Poland or the Baltic states and the flight time would be about the same. I do have a theory...

Bandit's theory is it's about natural gas, specifically the recent large finds (think it was in 2012) of deposits in Eastern Ukraine, two each, and one in the West somewhere (think it's on the coast). Considering Russia's trade is based mainly on its natural resources, especially natural gas, and Putin's willingness to use natural gas as a diplomatic/economic weapon - well - who would the West Europeans rather buy their gas from, Ukraine or Russia? What I am saying is I think the invasion had a lot to do with economics and nothing to do with strategic security. He was simply looking for reasons to invade when he couldn't turn the Ukraine into another puppet like Lukashenko's Belarus.

Anyway, that is part of my theory for what it's worth, which is nothing... BTW those two Eastern gas fields are now in Russian hands.

Lastly, I would say this, Putin saved Russia from itself after the collapse, that I will give him but like all dictators he is now his own worst enemy...and he is most certainly Russia's worst.

 

Wonder if Rocket man is now worried?

 

and its over...

 

Unfortunately, you are correct. I do not think this is over. In fact, it is far from over. The problem is Iranian leadership - yet - history has showed us that change must come from within the country. While we here in the West think the people of Iran must certainly want realm change, in reality it is not so clear cut. Besides, our CIA would have assisted any resistance group over the years - yet - it hasn't made a difference which means either the majority of the people don't want new leadership, or the stranglehold is so tight that change is impossible. My guess is it's both. They have had years to push their propaganda into the minds of the masses and, more so, brainwash their children who now are the adults of Iran. Sadly, I do not think this is over.

Israel and the US has stopped their nuclear program for now but that hasn't resolved the underlying problem. It's still alive and well.
For what it is worth, I think Trump did the right thing. In fact, Trump had no other option but make no mistake, this is not over, it just bought us some time. Yeah, the world dodged a bullet...this time.

EDIT: Also, you are correct in that the Arab world don't give a damn about the Palestinians. In fact, they are considered animals by most. All my Lebanese, Iranian and etc. friends have stated as much... "Animals." that was their word, not mine.