Jerome Corsi, co-author of NUCLEAR SHOWDOWN WITH IRAN, believes Bush 2 wants a war with Iran? Do you agree?

Question

As a guest on a radio program last night, Corsi said he believes Bush 2 is looking for a reason to start a war with Iran, and may be using the British hostages for this purpose. A massive concentration of U.S. naval power is now present in the area, apparently ready to strike. Why do political leaders who are in trouble most often start a war (or, in this case, ANOTHER war)? Is it a cynical ploy to remain in power, to divert the attention of voters from the most important problems all around them? A move to bully Congress into supporting his aggression no matter what? Whatever became of diplomacy instead of armed conflict which we can no longer sustain?

Corsi also believes that Russia and China, who are allied with Iran, will not stand idly by this time if the United States attacks.

Israel is on full alert, and the United States is simulating attacks on Iran with naval aircraft. If this isn't a recipe for an incident to occur, I don't know what is. Is the gas tank in your vehicle filled up? What about rationed gasoline at $10 or more per gallon? Are you ready?

Answer 1

As far as I am concerned, Bush wants to war against every country.

He needs to understand that he owns the US, not the world. So frequently, he acts as though he wants to control every other country. What is the man's problem?!

Answer 2

I don't believe anyone "Wants" nuclear war. Even the left's favorite whipping boy GW.

I would have to say, Mahmood is the one that is picking the fight and he may wind up getting his **** kicked over it.

Here are some fact you simpletons fail to recognize. The problem is Mahmood see provocation as the impedice for the rise of their next great Caliphat. The Pope of Islam. He wants it. Mahmood wants the papacy in Tehran and power and muslim money that goes with it.

Islam in it's self is innocuous as are most religions. In the teachings of the Koran as professed is that Sharia is the law they adhere too, Sharia law is a 8th century remnant that goes against societal norms. The "fanatical islamo-fascists" bent on world destruction believe that through Jihad the Messiah will come. Well, that said, people are people, I think a person can believe what they wish as long as their belief does not inhibit my ability to believe what I choose.

Islam has three tenants for dealing with non-muslims, Convert to islam, tax and enslave, or kill. While the majority of muslims don't feel this doctrine is valid, the islamo-fascists that are soon to enplace Sharia in Europe with have countless infidels to deal with..

I would recommend some reading before you give islam a pass, read Robert Spencer's book "The Political Incorrect Guide to Islam" and also see if you can get a copy of the DVD "Obsession" which is a very good documentary of radical islam and a must see for anyone who questions why some muslims are creating a very dangerous situation for this planet.

I've known people of all faiths, from Jew, Muslim, Christian Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, and each one have the view that their religion is the "only" correct one and "if only" people would see what they see the world would be a better place..

Here is a link to a must read article that is a glimpse of the future regarding Islam. It is a must read.. it's long but well worth the time.


http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2...

What baffles me is that the supposed "peaceful" muslims and their clerics don't condemn these radicals for fear of reprisal, guess what by denying a problem exists won't make it go away. Muslim radicals killed 3000+ people in NYC and DC on 9/11/01, in my opinion the was is not on Terror, we need to call it what it is, you can't fight an ideology, you need to fight an enemy, radicals are the enemy, the direction their clerics preach is a global sharia under a new Caliphate (muslim pope)..

Do a google on Sharia, you will find many of the same things as you'd find in the Old testament book of Leviticus, while these "laws" were fine and dandy 2000 years ago, the social implications are not valid today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Islamic_Tolerance

Answer 3

I don't believe that. The current administration in office is horrible, but I don't believe a large naval front in Iran is the sign of provoking war. The world is very unsure about Iran's intentions, and we are allied with the United Kingdom. We are only serving as back up until this current situation is resolved. I agree w/ your stance on Congress and diplomacy vs. arms.

Answer 4

Oh Yes! This is ever so true. I happen to know that President Bush disguised himself as the entire Iranian Navy and took those British sailors hostage. They are being held, duct taped to the wall, in the Lincoln Bedroom, right next to the Bill Clinton Memorial Stains.
Of course he had to take a vacation from shooting all those widows and orphans in Afghanistan.
You must be listening to the same Little Green Men that told me this.

Answer 5

Mr. Corsi can say what he likes.
And so can Mr. Bush,

The fact is, we do NOT have the troop strength to engage into a battle with Iran.
And we can thank Mr. Bush for positioning us in this highly dangerous position.

Mr. Bush certainly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I do believe that he is smart enough to know that his options are limited to talking with Iran and working with the United Nations.

Answer 6

You know this old saying don't you, options are like a** h**** everyone has one including Jerome Corsi.