Hitler Torches Iran Deal (Revelation 13:10)

 

Dick Cheney torches Iran deal: ‘What the hell is the president thinking?’

COLIN CAMPBELL Jul. 15, 2015, 8:25 AM

Former Vice President Dick Cheney passionately denounced the Iran nuclear deal in a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity on Tuesday night.

After Hannity asked Cheney why President Barack Obama wants the agreement, the former vice president bluntly said that he didn’t know.

“You asked the key question, Sean. And that is: What the hell is the president thinking of when he thinks this is a great deal? And I frankly simply do not understand. I haven’t met anyone who can explain it to me,” he said.

President Barack Obama announced Tuesday morning that the US and other powers had struck a deal with Iran to curb its ability to produce a nuclear weapon. In exchange, Iran earned a number of concessions, including the rollback of economic sanctions.

But Cheney, like many Republican foreign-policy hawks, has a litany of concerns about the agreement, which he said would only lead to Iran getting a nuclear bomb if implemented. Cheney predicted that other countries would then arm themselves with nuclear weapons in response.

“I can’t help but just shake my head,” Cheney said of Obama. “The one thing that really disturbed me was when he said we have quote ‘stopped the proliferation of nuclear weapons.’ That’s a lie. The fact of the matter is the situation we’ve got, when Iran ends up with a nuclear weapon, that is bound to lead to others in the region to protect themselves.”

Cheney had a dire warning about what would happen after other countries build up their nuclear arsenals.

“That will in fact I think put us closer to the actual use of nuclear weapons than we’ve been at any time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II,” he said.

Lindsey Graham Misses The Mark: Bush Was The Hitler (Rev 13:10)

Lindsey Graham says nuclear deal with Iran is as bad as appeasing HITLER
 
– and warns massive US troop deployment is needed to save Iraq from ISIS

By David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com In Cedar Rapids, Iowa
23:13 17 Jul 2015, updated 07:14 18 Jul 2015

Sen. Lindsey Graham painted a bleak picture of President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy on Friday during an Iowa campaign stop in Cedar Falls, saying his recent nuclear deal with Iran is ‘in the same category as believing that you could get a deal with Hitler.’

‘This is “peace in our time” on steroids,’ said Graham, a reference to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s infamous appeasement of the Nazi dictator – and subsequent boast – in 1938.
Graham, a Republican presidential candidate, also claimed that Obama’s withdrawal of American ground forces from Iraq at the end of 2011 left a chaotic power struggle in its wake that a new surge of U.S. troops would have to put in order.

‘The Obama administration is dangerously naive when it comes to the Mideast,’ said Graham, 60, ‘and have shown a level of incompetency that surpasses Jimmy Carter.’

Painting himself as a war hawk par excellence, the 20-year congressional veteran spelled out his terror-fighting philosophy: ‘When it comes to radical Islam, protecting your family, your friends, our way of life – whatever it takes, as long as it takes. I hope I’m clear.’

But the White House’s bargain with Tehran, he said, ‘is incredibly naive and tremendously dangerous’ and ‘comes from a weak-minded president.’

In exchange for Iran delaying for 10 years its pursuit of nuclear weapons, a group of developed nations including the U.S. agreed this week to lift tens of billions of dollars in economic sanctions, and to life arms and missile-technology embargos in the coming years.

‘I would not honor this deal,’ Graham pledged, looking forward to an Oval Office tenure.
‘I would not agree to give them one dime of money until they change their behavior. I would not allow them to buy one bullet until they change their behavior. I would dismantle their nuclear program, which was the original goal.’

He said that while he would be willing to help Tehran assemble a peaceful nuclear energy program, ‘I do object to large [uranium] enrichment programs in the hands of religious fanatics.’

Friday’s event was hosted by Americans for Peace, Prosperity, and Security, a GOP-linked organization that wants to force national security issues into the forefront of the debate over who will lead the U.S. beginning in 2017.

While he pledged to avoid the temptation to make terrorism a partisan issue, Graham said he had no qualms about making it about Islam.

‘To those who don’t believe this is a religious war, you are making a huge mistake,’ he said. ‘It is a religious war. The Nazis wanted a master race. These people want a master religion.’
‘Radical Islam is becoming more powerful, and somebody needs to put them in a box. The only reason 3,000 died on 9/11 is that they couldn’t get the weapons to kill 3 million of us. If they could, they would.’

‘I’m not trying to achieve peace with radical Islam,’ he added. ‘I’m trying to achieve their destruction. Because nothing else will work.’

A large part of that battle, he emphasized, must be fought in Iraq, a country the U.S. spilled blood to bring out of chaos, but then abandoned nearly four years ago.

‘If we had not stayed in Germany and Japan, only God knows what would have happened to the next generation,’ Graham said. comparing today’s Middle East with the end of World War II.
‘The decision to withdraw the 10,000 [troops] set in motion the rise of ISIL,’ he said, referring to the terror army, ‘of which the predecessor was “Al-Qaeda in Iraq”.’

His voice suddenly lower, Graham predicted troops would have to return in the same numbers.
‘To those who fought in Iraq, it breaks my heart to tell you that we’re going to have to go back, but we are,’ he said. ‘The soldiers did their job; the politicians screwed this up.’

‘It breaks my heart,’ the retired Air Force Reserves colonel said moments later.

‘It does matter what happens in Iraq. They’re coming here if we do not stop them over there. We need about 10,000 U.S. forces, not 3,500.’

Among the U.S. military tactics needed in Iraq, he said, would be ‘Special Forces units on the ground morning, noon and night, going after ISIL leadership, putting pressure on their leadership.’
‘When they’ve talked on the phone, when they got in the car, they’ll either die or be captured,’ Graham blared.

The senator also spelled out a scenario in which he would help moderate Arab countries oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad.


But he said he expected cultural transformations in return.

‘I will work with you to go into Syria,’ he said, describing an imaginary conversation with Arab nations.

‘But I ask you a few things: “Stop funding terrorism. Close these madrassas down. Let women drive.”‘

A Hitlerian Big Lie: THERE IS NO NUCLEAR FATWA

Op-Ed: Khamenei’s No Nukes Promise is a Hitlerian “Big Lie”

Published: Saturday, November 22, 2014 5:56 PM

Mark Langfan

Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei is running his propaganda-machine on warp-speed.  Non-stop, Khamenei’s twitter feed is posting claims like “#Iran considers the use of WMDs as an unforgivable sin. Nuclear energy for all and nukes for none.”

Khamenei has never published an actual ‘no-nuke’ fatwa, or religious edict.  Nevertheless, US President Obama has touted Khamenei’s “no-nukes”

Obama has touted Khamenei’s “no-nukes” claims as real and sincere, because he believes anything coming from the Iranian government.claims as real and sincere, because he believes anything coming from the Iranian government.

Two-years ago, I wrote about a hypothetical, but quite possible, Iranian EMP nuclear attack on Saudi Arabia that would be low-casualty and “sharia compliant.”  Others have written clearly that Khamenei’s fatwa doesn’t exist.

Now, I have decided to make my point with an uncomplicated analysis, the gist of which is that Khamenei is telling a Hitlerian “Big Lie”.

Adolf Hitler was the megalomaniacal German leader who master-minded World War II.  Hitler called his propaganda theory “The Big Lie”. It was easy enough, he explained, just make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually the world will believe it.

Hitler successfully deployed the Big Lie theory during England’s Munich 1938 “appeasement” and his subsequent betrayal of Czechoslovakia.  On September 26, 1938, several days before Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s Prime Minister, forced Czechoslovakia to cede the protective mountains of the Sudetenland, Hitler ‘earnestly’ told a huge crowd in Berlin that:

“It [the Sudetenland] is the final territorial demand which I shall make of Europe, but it is the demand which shall not give up and which with God’s help I shall ensure is fulfilled.

“… I am grateful to Mr. Chamberlain for all his efforts.  I have assured him [Chamberlain] that the German people desire nothing but peace.  I have also assured him, and I repeat this assurance here, that, once this problem is solved, there exist no further territorial problems for Germany in Europe.”

Hitler lied the Big Lie and Chamberlain bought it. Hitler came close to winning the war, and 80 Million people were slaughtered throughout Europe.  Chamberlain had this to say about his own catastrophic idiocy, “Everything would have been all right if Hitler hadn’t lied to me.”

What if there had been nuclear weapons in 1938. What if Hitler had promised, like Khamenei is promising today, “No nuclear weapons for Nazi Germany.”  Chamberlain, a war-weary England, and far-away Roosevelt in America, would have likely swallowed that Big Lie.  Had the free-world believed a Hitler “Big Lie” on nuclear weapons, there wouldn’t be a free world today.  And in 2014, if the free-world believes Khamenei’s Big Lie, there will be no free-world at all.

Even without a nuclear-bomb, Iran has propped up Alawite Shi’ite Bashar Assad of Syria with Iranian Shi’ite militias who have mass-murdered close to 300,000 Syrian Sunni Muslims.  If Iran is more than willing to murder 300,000 Sunni Muslims to entrench Syria’s minority-dictator Assad, what would Teheran be capable of doing to the Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia, if Iran possessed nuclear weapons?

If it is “legally permissible,” or halal, under Khamenei’s religious view, to sanction Iran’s conventional mass-murder of 300,000 Sunni Muslims in Syria, why wouldn’t it be “permissible,” or haraam, to for Iran to unconventionally mass-murder another 300,000 Sunnis Muslims anywhere else?

And how about Khamenei’s incessant calls to annihilate Israel?  Even without a nuclear bomb, Khamenei recently tweeted regarding Israel, “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated. #HandsOffAlAqsa. ” Khamenei added, the “only means to confront a barbaric regime like Israel is arming the West Bank.”

For an Iran lacking a nuclear bomb, for the time being, the “only means” to annihilate Israel is to “arm the West Bank just like Gaza.”  If Iran had nukes, Iran would have “other means” to confront “a barbaric regime like Israel.”

To Obama’s mind, it may seem proper foreign policy to ignore Iran murder hundreds of thousands, or even millions of Sunnis and/or Israelis on its way to a Shi’ite Imanate.

But the real problem for the continental USA is that Iran likely has whatever nuclear technology North Korea already possesses.   In this regard, Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, the senior U.S. Commander on the Korean Peninsula, recently stated that, “They’ve [North Korea] had the right connections [with Iran and Pakistan] and so I believe have the capability to have miniaturized a [nuclear] device at this point, and they have the technology to potentially actually deliver what they say they have [and] I think they have a launcher that will carry it at this point.”

Therefore, one day we may hear Obama say, “Everything would have been all right if Khamenei hadn’t lied to me.”

But knowing Obama, he will more likely, say, “It’s Bush’s fault.”