This guy can actually tell the future! *AMAZING*

[NotChetHanks]

 

"Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." <~ How the hell could he know in 2007 where the US would go to war? AMAZING! I should have him tell me the next Powerball numbers, I want to be rich!

[Dot Matrix]

The US would be idiotic to step into Iran.

 

It's not too hard to predict where the next hot spot will be. The areas over there have been unstable for ages, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess which one will flare into a small conflict.

[mudslag]

I think you forgot to add the /s at the end of your post C-Squarez.

 

 

 

 

How the hell could he know in 2007 where the US would go to war?

 

FYI C-Squarez in the video he's talking about what happened back in '01 not '07 and FTR we haven't gone to war with any of those countries other then Iraq.

[NotChetHanks]

I think you forgot to add the /s at the end of your post.

 

On purpose. I'm sure 100 people will write this off as a coincidence.

I think you forgot to add the /s at the end of your post C-Squarez.

 

 

 

FYI C-Squarez in the video he's talking about what happened back in '01 not '07 and FTR we haven't gone to war with any of those countries other then Iraq.

 

 

I know. This isn't the first time I've seen this video. The interview was in 2007 but he's talking about an encounter he had 10 days after 9/11. Going to war is one thing, intervening with the countries mentioned is another. We both know you are smarter than that. We were involved in Libya, now Syria, talk about military action in Iran and have boots on the ground in few of the other countries if not all.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

 

How the hell could he know in 2007 where the US would go to war?

 

That's quite easy actually. Any sovereign state, not currently subservient to the globalist elite is a potential target. The only deterrent which works is nuclear defence.

 

As for Iran, it's a grande jewel the globalists have been salivating about ever since Alexander the Great made a trip there two thousands years ago. And in order to neutralize it, you obviously have to start with its satellite states.

[NotChetHanks]

That's quite easy actually. Any sovereign state, not currently subservient to the globalist elite is a potential target. The only deterrent which works is nuclear defence.

 

As for Iran, it's a grande jewel the globalists have been salivating about ever since Alexander the Great made a trip there two thousands years ago. And in order to neutralize it, you obviously have to start with its satellite states.

 

 

And why is that so hard to understand? There is a point in life where you have to stop believing in coincidences. When there are too many coincidences, it's not a coincidence. 

[Torolol]

well, since this is conspiracy room ,...
 

That's quite easy actually. Any sovereign state, not currently subservient to the globalist elite is a potential target. The only deterrent which works is nuclear defence.
 
As for Iran, it's a grande jewel the globalists have been salivating about ever since Alexander the Great made a trip there two thousands years ago. And in order to neutralize it, you obviously have to start with its satellite states.

There also:
www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1833.cfm
conspiracy theorist folks at cutting edge already see this coming since 2003
 
The conspirationist pretty much based their theory from this book:
www.amazon.com/The-Pentagons-Thomas-P-M-Barnett/dp/0425202399
 

brief idea represented from that book can be viewed on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon's_New_Map

EDIT: annoying " ' ", i must re-type the wikipedia reference as it contain the '.

I just use the code tag.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Torolol

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

And why is that so hard to understand? There is a point in life where you have to stop believing in coincidences. When there are too many coincidences, it's not a coincidence. 

 

 

Gullibility, ignorance, and lack of willpower to think for themselves are to blame because it's so much easier to watch TV and get all the answers from there than to do a research. In fact, because a mind is immersed into this web of lies since childhood I truly understand that it's hard for some people to break with the old habits. And generally speaking, the people are not fond of change, including changing the way how they view the world.

[Hum]

WOW -- I can tell the Future too. :D

[compl3x]

Looking at geopolitical issues currently facing the world and making accurate predictions about where conflicts will break out isn't proof of precognition.

 

If you read his Wikipedia page you see that he is a highly dedicated, well educated retired general. I wonder if any of that has anything to do wit his ability to accurately discuss politics and potential world issues?

 

 

Nah, must be a supernatural power. That is a much more reasonable conclusion.

[Growled Member]

WOW -- I can tell the Future too. :D

And it's so bright that I have to wear shades to view it. :P

[libertas83]

Common sense would have told you what he said. It is sound military strategy. I knew it the day of 9/11 what we would do. There is a reason the war was not called War on Al Qaeda or the Qaedan War or anything to do with that group. War on Terror meant we were going to go after all the Islamic Terrorist groups including Hezbollah (Iran, Lebanon, and Syria groups) and Hamas.

 

Now if you look at the map of the Middle East, there are some very important historical and strategic places you have to take out to affect major change. Afghanistan was not it. As they said in Star Wars, "it was far too remote". So pick a country? Saudia Arabia is protected by oil interests, Kuwait and UAE are both allies. Syria has chemical weapons and very powerful state. Egypt was an ally. Turkey is an ally. Lebanon is a hot mess protected by Syria. Oh wait, there is Iraq, we are beat them easily once, so it is a push over. We can win that one easily and it gives the key strategic advantage to Iran. You don't need any other country to positions yourself strategic to Iran other than Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Now a lot of you like to act like Iraq was innocent in all of this. Saddam bluffed with reassurances from France we would not attack. He was trying to look more powerful than he was so that Iran would think twice about attacking him. He had every intention of restarting nuclear program and chemical programs had he been left alone. So that leaves only 3 choices that the U.S. ever had with Iraq.

 

1.) Leave him alone and wait until we he decides to rebuild his program without worrying about inspections anymore.

2.) Keep wasting money and time doing a ###### for tat with him over inspections and embolden more people to defy the U.S. (See Iran and NK)

3.) Go to war if he doesn't meet his conditions proving that the U.S. is not bluffing.

 

Now talking about thinking for yourselves. All of the evidence of Saddam that is not widely publicized or talked about in the media is how much illegal weapons he still had and plans for his programs all buried in the desert. That asserts the U.S. position's for going to war with Iraq. However, since no "smoking gun" was found of direct chemical weapons programs everyone looks at the U.S.'s credibility as shot and with the popular media and Democrats against the war, it emboldens our enemies to ignore us and do what they want.

[Tigurinn]

I bet though he wouldn't have seen this coming :D