The Iran Thread II

[Axl Van Sixx]

Why would I assume that the mullahs in Iran are rational? I don't trust any sort of religious fundamentalists, why make an exception for these guys? I don't like the bellicose talk from conservatives in the US towards Iran, but it takes two to tango, its not like Iran hasn't bellicose as well.

I don't trust religious fundamentalists either. But all of this rhetoric about the irrational mullahs assumes that the rulers of Iran are crazy enough to subject their country to certain annihilation by initiating a nuclear exchange with Israel. These fears have no basis in reality, religious fundamentalist government or no. Say what you will about them, but the rulers of Iran have been fairly cautious and rational in their foreign policy. Their rhetoric is another matter...

How exactly is "vanish from the page of history" that much better then "wipe
Israel off the map"? That is still bellicose. Perhaps the Iranian regime believe they should be the ones who should make Israel vanish from the page of history? How this type of language not bellicose? The Iranian regime is extremely reactionary, why should their bellicose talk be forgiven compared to their counterparts in the US? If Iran stopped trying to give the middle finger to the rest of the international community, conservatives in the US would have a lot less ammo to promote a war against that country.

"Vanish from the page of history" has less violent connotations. The idea that the Israeli state could vanish from the page of history leaves room for peaceful dissolution, a one- or two-state solution.

The Iranian regime is definitely reactionary - just as much as the rulers of the U.S. The difference is that the United States is a globe-straddling superpower with nuclear weapons, a bigger military than the rest of the world combined, and military bases in every country, which has constantly interfered in other countries' affairs since the end of World War II, while Iran is a developing nation that has not invaded another country in centuries.

The funny thing is that the hardliners in each country are mirror images of each other. Neocons in the U.S. portray Iran as an evil dictatorship with whom no negotiation is possible, while hardliners in Iran see the U.S. as the "Great Satan" with whom no negotiation is possible. Thus, no negotiations.

The U.S. also constantly gives the finger to the international community, most obviously through its constant vetoes of U.N. resolutions condemning Israel for its human rights abuses in Palestine. The difference, once again, is that America is a superpower with clout and Iran is not, other than its vast oil supplies, which I'm sure have nothing to do with any of this. :whatever:

[Axl Van Sixx]

Okay guys, once again, Glenn Greenwald summarizes all this far more concisely and eloquently than I could. For these reasons, I believe his latest column (http://politics.salon.com/2011/12/04/george_orwell_on_the_evil_iranians/singleton/) is worth quoting in full:

George Orwell on the Evil Iranian Menace

The U.S. has long had Iran virtually encircled as a result of the American occupation of Afghanistan on Iran’s Eastern border, its invasion of Iraq on its Western border, its NATO ally Turkey hovering on Iran’s Northwestern border, some degree (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/world/asia/21iht-stan.1.6256916.html?pagewanted=all) of military relationship (http://www.eurasiareview.com/13072011-turkmenistan-kbr-to-work-on-us-military-contract/) with Turkmenistan on Iran’s Northeastern border, and multiple U.S. client states sitting right across the Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain, where the massive U.S. Fifth Fleet (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0219/US-faces-difficult-situation-in-Bahrain-home-to-US-Fifth-Fleet) is stationed). Additionally, some combination of the U.S. and Israel has bombarded Iran with multiple acts of war over the last year, including explosions (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/western-official-israel-is-behind-recent-iran-explosion-1.395512) on Iranian soil (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-explosion-rocks-iran-city-of-isfahan-home-to-key-nuclear-facility-1.398312), the murder (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/another-iranian-nuclear-scientist-murdered-in-tehran-1.374898) of numerous Iranian nuclear scientists (in which even one of their wives was shot), and sophisticated cyberattacks (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?pagewanted=all). Meanwhile, top American political officials from both parties are actively demanding (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/us/politics/lobbying-support-for-iranian-exile-group-crosses-party-lines.html?pagewanted=all) that an Iranian revolutionary cult be removed from the list of Terrorist organizations (just coincidentally, they’re all on the cult’s payroll). In the past decade, the U.S. and/or Israel have invaded, air attacked, and/or occupied Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (to say nothing of the creation of a worldwide torture regime, a system of “black site” prisons around the world to which people were disappeared, and a due-process-free detention camp in the middle of the Caribbean Ocean where many people remain encaged for almost a full decade without charges). During this same time period, Iran has not invaded, occupied or air attacked anyone. Iran, to be sure, is domestically oppressive, but no more so — and in many cases less — than the multiple regimes funded, armed and otherwise propped up by the U.S. during this period. Those are all just facts.

But — despite all of these facts — all Serious people in the U.S. know that Iran is the Aggressor, the Modern Nazis, a True Menace, while the U.S. and Israel are its innocent peace-loving victims. Today, Iran claims (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/12/04/world/middleeast/AP-ML-Iran-Drone.html?_r=1&hp) that it took down an American drone flying over its country (either by shooting it down or overtaking its control system). Iran has made similar claims (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/did-iran-just-shoot-down-a-u-s-stealth-drone/) before, but this time the U.S. admits (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/04/us-iran-usa-drone-idUSTRE7B30CQ20111204) it last week lost a drone flying over what it claims was Western Afghanistan (not Eastern Iran). Between the intense wall of secrecy behind which the U.S. government operates and the less-than-reliable nature of the pronouncements from both governments, we’ll likely never know what happened for sure. In any event, this is yet another case of increased tensions between the two nations, and it’s thus time for yet another round of Those Evil, Provocative, Aggressive Iranians (because, of course, no peace-loving nation — such as the U.S. — would ever dare shoot down an Iranian drone if it flew over their soil; in fact, just imagine the massive retaliatory response that would be triggered if Iran were found to be flying drones over American soil, let alone simultaneously killing U.S. scientists, causing explosions on U.S. soil, backing U.S. Terrorist groups, and launching cyber attacks on U.S. nuclear facilities, all while occupying Canada and Mexico with more than 150,000 troops). In light of these belligerent U.S. actions and threats — along with seeing how the U.S. treats countries without a nuclear capability versus those who have one – nothing is more rational (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/17/iran-want-nuclear-bomb) than Iran’s wanting a nuclear weapon.

Given the extensive violence and aggression the U.S. has perpetrated, and continues to perpetrate (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/25/the_fruits_of_liberation/), on numerous countries in that region, one might think that not even our political culture could sustain the propagandistic myth that it is Iran that is the aggressor state and the U.S. that is its peace-loving victim. But, of course, one who thought that would be completely wrong. Not only is it a widespread belief, but it’s virtually mandated orthodoxy. But none of that should be at all surprising or confusing, given that 66 years ago, George Orwell — in his 1945 Notes on Nationalism (http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat) — explained exactly the warped form of thinking that creates this mindset:All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. . . . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
I’ve cited that passage before (http://www.salon.com/2009/01/04/terrorism_2/singleton/), but it really does explain so very much (and that form of thinking extends beyond nationalism to all tribal loyalties). It’s how a country that has repeatedly invaded, occupied, bombed, and killed civilians in numerous other nations over the last decade can look at a country that has done little or none of that (but has been practically surrounded by all that aggression) and be convinced: they are the Evil aggressors and must be stopped at all costs.

[Asteroid-Man]

I think the point I made a page back is one not to be missed:

How incredibly stupid can people be to think that the solution to the issues with Iran is war? Honestly people - the people of the country are restless and want a change of regime - people act like they care and then Michael Jackson dies and no one gives a **** about the protesters anymore.

If Iran goes to war, it will only ensure the strength of its current regime; Iranians will arise to defend the country, regardless of who is running it, and those who don't will be thrown in jail for refuting conscription.

The Islamic Republic knows this and WANTS a war as it will only secure their Regime AND make them (the leaders) rich. The cost of oil alone will skyrocket, and might I remind you that those holding the money couldn't care less if there is a war happening at their country or next door; a check is a check. Things like these "drone" preventions, spitting in the US and Israel's faces, paying a small group of students to burn flags and storm embassies and then tear gassing them themselves, rigging elections, making people sign fake confessions, saying that the virus hitting their plants were made by USA and Israel (when the students of Iranian Universities themselves admitted to it), and multiple other actions made by this diabolical regime are taken to ensure a war; and the media will exaggerate and expose these fallacies for ratings, leading to masses conceding to a "need" for war.

It's completely ridiculous and downright embarrassing.

[8wid]

Report: Iran blast completely destroyed major missile-testing site (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-iran-blast-completely-destroyed-major-missile-testing-site-1.399619)

Do the black-ops agents of the West really think we are too stupid to see right through this obvious intentional act of sabotage?

[Axl Van Sixx]

I think the point I made a page back is one not to be missed:

How incredibly stupid can people be to think that the solution to the issues with Iran is war? Honestly people - the people of the country are restless and want a change of regime - people act like they care and then Michael Jackson dies and no one gives a **** about the protesters anymore.

If Iran goes to war, it will only ensure the strength of its current regime; Iranians will arise to defend the country, regardless of who is running it, and those who don't will be thrown in jail for refuting conscription.

You're totally right. I'm good friends with an Iranian Marxist who was jailed and tortured by the government in Tehran for selling a communist newspaper on the street. But when I asked him, he maintained that if his country was attacked, he would nevertheless go back and fight to defend it, because it's his country.

War is absolutely the wrong answer. The neocon opinion-makers who believe that ordinary Iranians would rally to the side of the country bombing them, their country, their family and friends, once again prove their own ignorance of reality.

[Thundercrack85]

Iran is either itching for a war, or insane. I can believe both.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Iran is either itching for a war, or insane. I can believe both.

Yeah, I'm sure they look at what happened to Iraq and think "I wish that would happen to us!"

:whatever:

[Thundercrack85]

Even Gaddafi had the sense to shut down his nuclear program. You don't play nuclear chicken with the United States, much less Israel.

[Asteroid-Man]

First and foremost, this whole idea of countries having to answer to the United States is an ignorant approach to world politics; obviously the same goes for every country.

Secondly, IRAN is NOT itching for war - the IRANIANS are NOT asking for a nuclear program; it's the Islamic Regime that's doing this. And you think that the American Government has poeples' best interests in mind (American or Iranian)? Hell no.

"This is big business". None of these guys give a rat's ass about you or me or some random Persian guy in Iran so don't act like you understand this entire situation based on what you've seen on TV, or in the Newspaper, or based on a couple speeches. I've spent my entire life devoted to understanding the politics behind Iran above all other political matters, and I can tell you now that the solution to Iran's problems is for World leaders to show the student protesters (the real ones) their support so that they have the motivation to topple their "leaders" and so that they instill insecurity in this tyrannical regime.

[8wid]

The basis for the war in Iran has a much credibility as the fact Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by Union Pacific so they could be the ones to lay the golden spike and not another favored competitor.

[Asteroid-Man]

The basis for the war in Iran has a much credibility as the fact Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by Union Pacific so they could be the ones to lay the golden spike and not another favored competitor.
How are those even similar? :huh:

This is the part where we just kick back and let Israel take care of it.http://www.frou.info/g.php
:dry: That's incredibly hateful.

[Destructus86]

Report: Iran blast completely destroyed major missile-testing site (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-iran-blast-completely-destroyed-major-missile-testing-site-1.399619)

Do the black-ops agents of the West really think we are too stupid to see right through this obvious intentional act of sabotage?


Could be that...or they are just too stupid to correctly assembly a missile safely. :)

[8wid]

How are those even similar? :huh:


:dry: That's incredibly hateful.

They're both ridiculous conspiracy theorys aren't they?

[8wid]

Why Iran's capture of US drone will shake CIA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16095823)

[Thundercrack85]

They really need to put a self-destruct option on those drones.

[Marx]

They really need to put a self-destruct option on those drones.

You would think something like that would be standard.

[Paroxysm]

Why Iran's capture of US drone will shake CIA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16095823)

Good.

[craigdbfan]

This is such an obvious Trojan horse. :funny:

As if the US would conveniently drop an advanced UAV with no damage. That thing was pretty much delivered to them.

They were probably tipped off to where they could find it in Iran after it had been dropped off.

Enjoy the shenanigans to come world.

[Asteroid-Man]

They're both ridiculous conspiracy theorys aren't they?
Aw, good call.

Islamic Republic of Iran Preparing for War?! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8936797/Irans-Revolutionary-Guards-prepare-for-war.html)

[8wid]

China Threatens World War Three If Anyone Attacks Iran 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgfP5hX-F1U)

[Asteroid-Man]

I could have sworn I saw that last week.
EDIT: Oh, I did haha - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-3xeP7NFRE

[8wid]

Iran to shut down oil flow in Hormuz Strait in the event of new sanctions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUKEVk83X9Q)

[Midnyte_Sun]

Im not sure which poster said it, but Iran's interest in nuclear energy is a two pronged one. One is for defense, the other is to expand infrastructure and modernize it's towns and cities with a robust energy system.

Iran gaining nuclear energy allows it to better modernize and spread its geopolitical influence without fear of occupation.

This is why the Arab league and US is against it, and why Russia and China are supporting it.

[Thundercrack85]

Actually Russia and China are supporting Iran because it is the enemy of their enemy.

If they want nuclear weapons for defense they really need to review their defense policy.

[8wid]

I'm really not too worried about a US intervention in Iran because we will collapse economically by the time they return the last decade of rhetoric into a real war or if they attack will mean a death blow to the global economy when oil prices skyrocket.

[8wid]

Iran nuclear crisis: Sanctions 'beginning to bite' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16403846)

[8wid]

Iran nuclear crisis: EU moves towards crude oil ban (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16418589)

[8wid]

Iran death sentence for 'CIA spy' Amir Mirzai Hekmati (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16465820)

[Axl Van Sixx]

Look at CNN (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/09/iran-whats-it-up-to/?hpt=hp_c1) today, listing all the alleged provocations of Iran. It's a perfect illustration of how political propaganda operates. You have Western pundits saying over and over, "How can Iran close the Strait of Hormuz? That's an act of war!" And they always conveniently leave out the fact that this Iranian threat came after the U.S. imposed crippling economic sanctions which can only be enforced through the American navy. Those sanctions are themselves an act of war.

But all we hear about are those Evil, Aggressive Iranians and how our heroic leaders are so dreadfully worried about the consequences if they get a nuclear bomb.

http://campaigniran.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/usbases1.jpg

See that blue country in the middle surrounded by American allies, countries invaded by the US, and American military bases? That's the aggressor! Never forget that. :whatever:

[Thundercrack85]

And why are they placing economic sanctions?

[Crazy Quilt]

Look at CNN (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/09/iran-whats-it-up-to/?hpt=hp_c1) today, listing all the alleged provocations of Iran. It's a perfect illustration of how political propaganda operates. You have Western pundits saying over and over, "How can Iran close the Strait of Hormuz? That's an act of war!" And they always conveniently leave out the fact that this Iranian threat came after the U.S. imposed crippling economic sanctions which can only be enforced through the American navy. Those sanctions are themselves an act of war.

But all we hear about are those Evil, Aggressive Iranians and how our heroic leaders are so dreadfully worried about the consequences if they get a nuclear bomb.

http://campaigniran.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/usbases1.jpg

See that blue country in the middle surrounded by American allies, countries invaded by the US, and American military bases? That's the aggressor! Never forget that. :whatever:


They never talk about the fact that even most young, moderate, secular-minded Iranians support the nuclear program. They always want to frame it within the context of "Mullahs with the bomb!".

[Crazy Quilt]

And why are they placing economic sanctions?

That is a good question. As far as I can tell, it's simply because the Iranians wish to have a nuclear program.

Who are we to tell them no?

The last I checked the U.S. is the only country to have actually used a nuclear weapon.

[Thundercrack85]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that it may not be in the world's best interest to let an undemocratic state run by religious fanatics acquire atomic weapons.

[Axl Van Sixx]

You want the official reason or the real reason?

The official reason is because they want to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

The real reason is they want guaranteed access to all that sweet Iranian oil. They don't like an independent Iran that won't fall in line with Western interests. They want regime change, pure and simple.

Iran has already complied with all inspection efforts regarding its nuclear program, in many cases going above and beyond what was necessary according to treaties. You might remember that early in the last decade, UN inspectors traveled to a little country called Iraq and found there were no weapons of mass destruction. One invasion later, US occupying forces found there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction. Shouldn't we be a little skeptical about doing this all over again?

The supposed basis of Western concerns about Iran's nuclear program is its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. People forget the actual content of that treaty: states that didn't have nuclear weapons already would refrain from pursuing them while established nuclear powers would begin the process of dismantling their arsenals. The United States, Russia and China don't seem to be in any hurry to get rid of their nukes, so why should Iran have any obligation not to defend itself against foreign powers that are constantly threatening to bomb it?

[Axl Van Sixx]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that it may not be in the world's best interest to let an undemocratic state run by religious fanatics acquire atomic weapons.

http://www.ijtihad.org/bush_JesusV.jpg

Your move.

[Crazy Quilt]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that it may not be in the world's best interest to let an undemocratic state run by religious fanatics acquire atomic weapons.

And yet the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon is the sanctimonious United States. How bout that?

Also, I'm 99.999% percent sure that if the Ayatollahs were overthrown today and replaced with a secular government, the U.S. would still threaten them for wanting a nuclear program.

[Crazy Quilt]

The real reason is they want guaranteed access to all that sweet Iranian oil. They don't like an independent Iran that won't fall in line with Western interests. They want regime change, pure and simple.


"Lamumba was democracy, Mossadegh was democracy, Allende was democracy/hypocrisy it bothers me"


It's incredible that the United States, the same nation which is the only one to ever use a nuclear bomb(used it TWICE, both times on CIVILIAN targets), the same nation that used it's CIA to illegally overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran(Mohamed Mossadegh) and replace him with the Shah in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize Iran's oil fields(thus leading to the rise of the current government 26 years later), now wants to dictate to Iran whether or not they can have a nuclear program.

[Thundercrack85]

Funny.

But it's hard to see a theocratic dictatorship which brutally represses its own people as an underdog.

[Crazy Quilt]

Funny.

But it's hard to see a theocratic dictatorship which brutally represses its own people as an underdog.

It's incredible that the United States, the same nation which is the only one to ever use a nuclear bomb(used it TWICE, both times on CIVILIAN targets), the same nation that used it's CIA to illegally overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran(Mohamed Mossadegh) and replace him with the Shah in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize Iran's oil fields(thus leading to the rise of the current government 26 years later), now wants to dictate to Iran whether or not they can have a nuclear program.

Most secular-minded, young Iranians who HATE the Ayatollahs also support the nuclear program. Like I said, this is always framed as "Mullahs with the bomb!" in order to frighten people. Iran is a lot more complex place than Westerner seem to give it credit for. I firmly believe that if people overthrew the current government and replaced it with a secular one that the U.S. would still be persecuting Iran for it's nuclear program. That is why I, for one, am not going to be distracted by the scare tactics here.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Funny.

But it's hard to see a theocratic dictatorship which brutally represses its own people as an underdog.

Lose one word - "it's hard to see a dictatorship which brutally represses its own people as an underdog" - and you could be arguing for war against Iraq in 2003.

"But Saddam gassed his own people! How can you support him?"

My friend, saying a sovereign nation shouldn't be attacked is not the same thing as defending that country's government. I was hoping you might be able to show a little more nuance in your thinking.

I have an Iranian friend who was jailed and tortured in his home country for selling a socialist newspaper. He hates the theocratic regime as much as anybody. But when I asked him what would happen if Iran was attacked, he automatically said, "I would go back home and fight for my country. The government may be completely screwed up, but it's still my country and of course I would defend it."

That's what the warmongers don't understand. If the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran, it will just unite the Iranian people against the aggressor that's bombing them and killing their friends and family. Or are you going to argue that they would be greeted as liberators...?

[Crazy Quilt]

Lose one word - "it's hard to see a dictatorship which brutally represses its own people as an underdog" - and you could be arguing for war against Iraq in 2003.

"But Saddam gassed his own people! How can you support him?"

My friend, saying a sovereign nation shouldn't be attacked is not the same thing as defending that country's government. I was hoping you might be able to show a little more nuance in your thinking.

I have an Iranian friend who was jailed and tortured in his home country for selling a socialist newspaper. He hates the theocratic regime as much as anybody. But when I asked him what would happen if Iran was attacked, he automatically said, "I would go back home and fight for my country. The government may be completely screwed up, but it's still my country and of course I would defend it."

That's what the warmongers don't understand. If the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran, it will just unite the Iranian people against the aggressor that's bombing them and killing their friends and family. Or are you going to argue that they would be greeted as liberators...?


:applaud

[Thundercrack85]

Lose one word - "it's hard to see a dictatorship which brutally represses its own people as an underdog" - and you could be arguing for war against Iraq in 2003.

"But Saddam gassed his own people! How can you support him?"

My friend, saying a sovereign nation shouldn't be attacked is not the same thing as defending that country's government. I was hoping you might be able to show a little more nuance in your thinking.

I have an Iranian friend who was jailed and tortured in his home country for selling a socialist newspaper. He hates the theocratic regime as much as anybody. But when I asked him what would happen if Iran was attacked, he automatically said, "I would go back home and fight for my country. The government may be completely screwed up, but it's still my country and of course I would defend it."

That's what the warmongers don't understand. If the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran, it will just unite the Iranian people against the aggressor that's bombing them and killing their friends and family. Or are you going to argue that they would be greeted as liberators...?

It may not come to that. It would be preferable if the Iranian government could be persuaded to stop their enrichment program. But, look how well that worked out with North Korea. But then, they do claim it's for peaceful purposes. Let's hope the same government that does nothing but lie to its own people is telling the truth. Your hatred for America blinds you.

[Crazy Quilt]

It may not come to that. It would be preferable if the Iranian government could be persuaded to stop their enrichment program. But, look how well that worked out with North Korea. But then, they do claim it's for peaceful purposes. Let's hope the same government that does nothing but lie to its own people is telling the truth. Your hatred for America blinds you.

:funny:

Really? You're going to go that route?

Maybe it needs to be said once again: The. Only. Country. To. Ever. Use. Nuclear. Weapons.

And we did it twice, both times against civilian targets.

And yet North Korea as of yet has not used a nuke against the South have they?

[Thundercrack85]

To decisively end the bloodiest war in human history. And never again. There's a difference between that and North Korea using them to hold South Korea hostage.

[Crazy Quilt]

To decisively end the bloodiest war in human history.

That is a matter of some debate, friend.

My grandfather, who was a veteran of that conflict(he was U.S. Marine who served in the South Pacific, at Guadalcanal among other battles), firmly believed that the bomb was not necessary.

There is considerable historical evidence to suggest that the Japanese government was already prepared to surrender when we dropped the bomb. We didn't drop those bombs out of some humanitarian notion of ending a bloody war, get real. It's amazing how effective U.S. imperialist propaganda is in cloaking everything in false altruistic motives.

We dropped the bomb to scare the Soviet Union.

edit: Essentially, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the opening salvo of the Cold War.

[Thundercrack85]

I'm not going to be drawn into a protracted debate about World War II and the justification of using atomic weapons (maybe another day). The Japanese army murdered more civilians in China in a week in retaliation for their assistance in the Doolittle Raid, than both atomic bombs. Need I list what else they did in Asia?

And humanitarian? It was strategic. To end the ****ing war. But as you can ask the Chinese, it did at least stop the Japanese from murdering them by the millions. Not to mention millions of Allied soldiers. Japan had plenty of chances to end the war. Both before, and after Hiroshima. Total war is total war.

[Crazy Quilt]

I'm not going to be drawn into a protracted debate about World War II and the justification of using atomic weapons (maybe another day). The Japanese army murdered more civilians in China in a week in retaliation for their assistance in the Doolittle Raid, than both atomic bombs. Need I list what else they did in Asia?

And humanitarian? It was strategic. To end the ****ing war. But as you can ask the Chinese, it did at least stop the Japanese from murdering them by the millions. Not to mention millions of Allied soldiers. Japan had plenty of chances to end the war. Both before, and after Hiroshima. Total war is total war.

"Blah ****, woof woof"

I seriously hope you aren't trying to argue that the murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians had some kind of moral justification based upon how their military had treated other civilian populations.

[Marvolo]

"Blah ****, woof woof"

I seriously hope you aren't trying to argue that the murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians had some kind of moral justification based upon how their military had treated other civilian populations.

He might be saying karma is a *****. All is fair in love and war.

What's done is done and whether dropping the bombs was right or wrong can be debated til kingdom come but it can't be undone. All we can do is learn from our actions. I'm not going to give my opinion on it cause I think its irrelevant. I would like to say that I've read that had D-Day failed and the war lasted much longer there was a contengancy plan of dropping a bomb on Europe. Luckily that never happened but damn would that have certainly changed history.

[8wid]

Iran car explosion 'kills nuclear scientist' in Tehran (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501566)

The CIA is at it again :cmad:

[chamber-music]

More likely Mossad than the CIA

[Paroxysm]

Probably both.....

[Destructus86]

Look, just reboot the country and start over.

[Paroxysm]

Reboot America, problem(s) solved.

[CaptainStacy]

Probably both.....

Good. And more power TO them.

[Marx]

Iran car explosion 'kills nuclear scientist' in Tehran (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501566)

The CIA is at it again :cmad:

The Iranian government wasted no time in blaming the US and Israel.

[Axl Van Sixx]

The Iranian government wasted no time in blaming the US and Israel.

From Glenn Greenwald's blog (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/11/more_murder_of_iranian_scientists_still_terrorism/):

Does anyone doubt that some combination of the two nations completely obsessed with Iran’s nuclear program — Israel and the U.S. — are responsible? (U.S. officials deny involvement (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/killing-irans-nuclear-scientists/story?id=14152453#.Tw1evW9AaYh) while pointing the finger at Israel, whose officials will not comment but “smile” when asked; the CIA has “targeted” Iran’s scientists in the past, several of whom have disappeared only to end up (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/killing-irans-nuclear-scientists/story?id=14152453&page=2#.Tw1e3m9AaYg) in U.S. custody, including one who “resurfaced in the United States after defecting to the CIA in return for a large sum of money”). At the very least, there has been no denunciation from any Obama officials of whoever it might be carrying out such acts.There's a word for planting bombs and killing civilians in service of political goals: it's called terrorism.

[Quetzal]

I honestly dont think its the CIA... I think its the Mossad.

[Arc-Light]

From Glenn Greenwald's blog (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/11/more_murder_of_iranian_scientists_still_terrorism/):

There's a word for planting bombs and killing civilians in service of political goals: it's called terrorism.

Just imagine what the U.S would be if we were half the evil empire you think we are......your little country wouldn't exist.......just think, and be thankful.

[Thundercrack85]

I wouldn't call Canada... little.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Just imagine what the U.S would be if we were half the evil empire you think we are......your little country wouldn't exist.......just think, and be thankful.

Resorting to the stale "you hate America!" talking point, eh? :whatever:

The United States is a great country. Americans, by and large, are awesome people, just like people everywhere else. The American government is the problem.

There's a difference between criticizing a government, and criticizing a country and it's people. Even conservatives understand this, with their "I love my country but fear my government" bumper stickers. But I guess those kinds of subtleties are beyond you.

[Arc-Light]

Resorting to the stale "you hate America!" talking point, eh? :whatever:

The United States is a great country. Americans, by and large, are awesome people, just like people everywhere else. The American government is the problem.

There's a difference between criticizing a government, and criticizing a country and it's people. Even conservatives understand this, with their "I love my country but fear my government" bumper stickers. But I guess those kinds of subtleties are beyond you.

Oh well.....you didn't think....:csad:

[Arc-Light]

I wouldn't call Canada... little.
Population wise....:yay:

[Axl Van Sixx]

Oh well.....you didn't think....:csad:

Um, okay.

:huh:

[The Overlord]

Um, okay.

:huh:

I think what he is trying to say is your portrayal of the US government as an imperial power is underminded by the fact they haven't conquered Canada, that a truly aggressive imperial power would conquer everything around it.

However there are different types of imperialism. The US is not the Roman Empire, but it is similar to the Athenan Empire which was a democracy and supported local oligarchs in other countries to create client states.

Now the Athenan Empire was hardly the worse political entity in history, the US likewise is far from the worse political entity in history. I just think all their talk of freedom, while being allied with undemocratic governments like the Saudi monarchy rubs people the wrong way.

But I do think some left wingers over emphasis the negatives with US, I don't think its doing anything that different from other countries with power did and I do think there have far worse powerful states in the past. What Belgium did the Congo is worse then what the US has done to other countries. Plus when China becomes the world's super power, its not like the world will become a nice happy place.

Other countries can't just blame the US for their problems, they have take responsibly for their own actions. Sure the US government supporting the Shah was wrong, but the US government is not responsible for the creation of the current Iranian regime. After the revolution in Iran, the Iranians could have created any government they wanted, they choose to create a theocratic regime.

[Midnyte_Sun]

They assassinated the nuclear scientist now that American spy caught recently is going to be definitely executed.

[Axl Van Sixx]

I think what he is trying to say is your portrayal of the US government as an imperial power is underminded by the fact they haven't conquered Canada, that a truly aggressive imperial power would conquer everything around it.

However there are different types of imperialism. The US is not the Roman Empire, but it is similar to the Athenan Empire which was a democracy and supported local oligarchs in other countries to create client states.

Now the Athenan Empire was hardly the worse political entity in history, the US likewise is far from the worse political entity in history. I just think all their talk of freedom, while being allied with undemocratic governments like the Saudi monarchy rubs people the wrong way.

But I do think some left wingers over emphasis the negatives with US, I don't think its doing anything that different from other countries with power did and I do think there have far worse powerful states in the past. What Belgium did the Congo is worse then what the US has done to other countries. Plus when China becomes the world's super power, its not like the world will become a nice happy place.

Other countries can't just blame the US for their problems, they have take responsibly for their own actions. Sure the US government supporting the Shah was wrong, but the US government is not responsible for the creation of the current Iranian regime. After the revolution in Iran, the Iranians could have created any government they wanted, they choose to create a theocratic regime.

Now this is a thoughtful, intelligent response.

The American model of imperialism is different from other historical empires in that it does not rest primarily on force, though that is an important part of it. Rather, the U.S. government coerces other countries into acting the way it wants through its dominance over international bodies like the UN, the IMF and the World Bank, and by flexing its economic muscles.

Look at Canada. The main reason the U.S. has such power over our government's actions is not its military might, but its economic strength. The United States is Canada's single largest market, and given that our economy is particularly export-driven, it's important to keep good relations with our southern neighbour. Those political considerations, along with easy profits, is why we keep the Alberta oil flowing across the border.

The reason leftists devote so much anger to the United States is because as the world superpower, its actions have the most impact. If China or Russia were acting in comparable ways, leftists would be criticizing them (as they did when, for example, the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia in '68). This is also why Noam Chomsky explains his focus on American foreign policy - because as an American, he is in a position to do something about the actions of his government. To portray principled criticism of government actions as kneejerk "America-bashing" is just a Republican talking point.

The idea that "countries should take responsibility for their own actions" sounds reasonable on the surface, but it ignores the fact that there are radical differences in opinion among a country's population. Some Iranians wanted a theocratic regime, sure, but others wanted a liberal-democratic, socialist or communist government. 1/3 of the German electorate in the 1930s voted for the Nazis, but that means 2/3 of Germans opposed the Nazis. The country that ended up falling to fascism had the strongest labour movement in Europe at the time, and things very easily could have been different. But to excuse things like the firebombing of Dresden by saying that Germans had to take responsibility for their actions is to say that all Germans were Nazis.

Imagine if a more powerful country invaded the United States, and there were a huge amounts of American civilian casualties. War supporters in the invading nation could easily say, "well, the United States supported Dictatorial Government X and launched an aggressive invasion of Country Y. They're a brutal imperialist government and Americans need to take responsibility for their own country." Such a sweeping statement ignores the fact that most Americans don't vote at all, and of those that vote a huge number do not support the country's aggressive imperialist foreign policy.

[8wid]

Iran needs to objectively collect evidence that can be used in a world court to justify that either the US or Israel are committing blatant acts of terrorism and war.

[Midnyte_Sun]

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/8040/shahnukeiran.jpg

The irony of this image gets me all the time.

[8wid]

The reason the corporate media demonizes the real peaceful nuclear power plants in Iran is because they want to be the cheerleading section for an invasion of Iran like they were in Iraq about ten years ago now. This build up to war is all about a need to get a pro-US government in charge there to give US and British corporations a better deal on selling oil and to stop the idea of nuclear energy from spreading, especially in an area like the Middle East.

[8wid]

Japan 'to reduce Iran oil imports' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16523422)


Iran crisis: Can conflict be averted? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16521728)



It just seems like the last month or so has seen a huge demonizing of Iran through Western nations and their allies, especially because of a pullout from Iraq. If Obama or Romney get elected President again, it's almost certain there is going to be a major push for a war in Iran.

[Destructus86]

To be honest...i'm not shedding over tears over the assassination...I doubt most of the world is either. I think people are sick of Iran.

[8wid]

^No, but you should be angry that there is a blatant covert campaign by some agency of the West to commit acts of terror and to assassinate foreign officials. Doing so only heightens the tensions of a conflict being provoked. Since there have been half a dozen now in the last two years, this is a very direct effort.

[Destructus86]

^No, but you should be angry that there is a blatant covert campaign by some agency of the West to commit acts of terror and to assassinate foreign officials. Doing so only heightens the tensions of a conflict being provoked. Since there have been half a dozen now in the last two years, this is a very direct effort.

If they really did do the hit...they should have aimed higher. Not just a scientist.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Say goodbye to that American citizen caught spying in Iran. Tit for tat in an international level...

[Thundercrack85]

Say goodbye to that American citizen caught spying in Iran. Tit for tat in an international level...

That would result in international condemnation.

[Axl Van Sixx]

To be honest...i'm not shedding over tears over the assassination...I doubt most of the world is either. I think people are sick of Iran.

How wonderful for you. But I'm sure the scientist's family, and his young son who now has to grow up without a father, feel differently. :cmad:

http://media.salon.com/2012/01/Screen-shot-2012-01-12-at-8.53.05-AM-460x307.png

This undated photo released by Iranian Fars News Agency, claims to show Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, who they say was killed in a bomb blast in Tehran, Iran, on Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2012, next to his son. (Credit: AP)

Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/iran_and_the_terrorism_game/):

That the targeted assassination plot aimed exclusively at the Saudi Ambassador was “Terrorism” was the automatic, unexamined, consensus claim from major media outlets, foreign policy experts, and the U.S. Government. Indeed, the accused defendants were formally charged with “international acts of terrorism” notwithstanding that it was to be a targeted assassination of a Saudi official. If anyone disputed this characterization, it escaped my notice, and I pay close attention to debates over the Terrorism label. Very few people, if anyone, objected at all when this allegedly Iranian plot was repeatedly denounced as Terrorism.

But now that it’s widely believed (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/iran-adversaries-said-to-step-up-covert-actions.html?hp) that some combination of Israel and the U.S. are behind the ongoing plot to serially extinguish Iranian scientists — see here (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/01/11/iranian-nuclear-scientist-killed-in-car-bomb-attack/), here (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/iran-adversaries-said-to-step-up-covert-actions.html?hp) and here (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/killing-irans-nuclear-scientists/story?id=14152453&page=2#.Tw1e3m9AaYg) for just some of the evidence suggesting that — it’s suddenly improper, even outrageous, to suggest that this is Terrorism. That’s because the U.S. and Israel are incapable of committing Terrorism, by definition. Terrorism is only something done to those countries and by Muslims, not the other way around (the list of examples proving this to be true is extensive indeed (http://www.salon.com/2011/07/23/nyt_17/)).

Does anyone have any doubt whatsoever that if Iran were sending hit squads to kill Israeli scientists in Tel Aviv, or was murdering a series of American scientists at Los Alamos (while wounding several of their wives, including, in one instance, shooting them in front of their child’s kindergarten), that those acts would be universally denounced as Terrorism, and the only debate would be whether the retaliation should be nuclear, carpet-bombing, or invasion? As always, Terrorism is the most meaningless — and thus most manipulated — term of propaganda; it’s always what They do and never what We do.Go ahead, answer the question in bold, then tell me with a straight face that killing Iranian scientists is not terrorism.

[Destructus86]

I think there is a big difference between terrorism and government sanction hits.
Terrorism is the act of a radical group in order to PROMOTE FEAR. Assassinations are controlled, SANCTIONED attacks ordered by a chain of command. The primary goal of a military operation is typically not to create fear, but another motive entirely.

If we start calling sanctioned attacks as terrorism, then we may as well call any military action terrorism. Which is just silly. People throw around the word terrorism so easily nowadays. sheesh.

[Destructus86]

How wonderful for you. But I'm sure the scientist's family, and his young son who now has to grow up without a father, feel differently. :cmad:



Emotional reactions don't matter in the big picture. His father was helping build devices of death.

[Destructus86]

And just incase anyone forgot already...Iran's ruler is a mad man who not only supports genocide, but denies the holocaust ever took place. Do you really want someone like that playing with nukes?

[Pagan]

And just incase anyone forgot already...Iran's ruler is a mad man who not only supports genocide, but denies the holocaust ever took place. Do you really want someone like that playing with nukes?


Oh you're going to to run with the "he wants to wipe Israel off the map" meme again? that misinterpretation has been debunked so many times you should be ashamed to rehash it.

He said Israel needed a regime change. Not that he wanted to kill every Jew alive. Quit lying. and on the nukes point. Honestly I'd trust Iran with them as much as I'd trust Israel. Israel is the biggest aggressor (besides the US) in the region. And more likely to use them because they know the US will back them up.

[Pagan]

I think there is a big difference between terrorism and government sanction hits.
Terrorism is the act of a radical group in order to PROMOTE FEAR. Assassinations are controlled, SANCTIONED attacks ordered by a chain of command. The primary goal of a military operation is typically not to create fear, but another motive entirely.

If we start calling sanctioned attacks as terrorism, then we may as well call any military action terrorism. Which is just silly. People throw around the word terrorism so easily nowadays. sheesh.

So you're saying that a govt cannot commit acts of terrorism? That's not what international law says. What if Iran directed some agents to take out some critical Israeli scientists with a car bomb? Do you really believe it wouldn't be called an act of terror?
Has Israel claimed responsibility? You know why they haven't because they've broke international law... again. Not that it matters. They have their lapdog US govt to make sure the UN can't do a damn thing about it.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Emotional reactions don't matter in the big picture. His father was helping build devices of death.

Okay, so by your logic, Iran would be perfectly justified in assassinating Israeli or American scientists engaged in weapons research?

One of these Iranian scientists was shot in the neck outside his daughter's kindergarten. Are you seriously going to tell me that if some American father was gunned down in front of his daughter's school, you would brush it off with "emotional reactions don't matter in the big picture. Her father was helping build devices of death"?

Fat chance. Like the American media, you'd be going on and on about how this was an act of terror/criminal act/act of war by the Iranian government. Of course, when the shoe's on the other foot, no big deal, right?

You should be embarrassed by your ability to so blithely dismiss the tragic human consequences of a government targeting and killing civilians.

P.S. Kudos to Pagan. Great posts.

[mikey1974]

serious question to all you gys (and gals) :

Do you honestly think there's any way to avoid a physical conflict between the US,Israel, & Iran at this point? or have we gone to far down the road of assassinations,nuclear facility construction,flaming rhetoric,terrorist acts,and spiking oil prices to turn back?

and,for the record,i'm on no one's side...i sure as hell don't trust the current Iranian regime to to "never" use any nuclear power they achieve in an aggressive,threatening way some day...on the other side, i can't deny the US has pushed Iran into a corner,which didn't need to happen,due to our "need" to control all the mideast oil....and Israel is it's own entity,and can never do no wrong in the eyes of the West,no matter how often they do bad things...

[Hobgoblin]

Anything can happen but I dont see war as inevitable. What we've been hearing between the US and Iran is saber rattling, not a prelude to war. We do this every once in a while with North Korea, too. Things get tense but diplomacy and cooler heads prevail. I dont see anyone doing anything unless it can somehow be proved that the US or Israel is behind the scientist assassinations. I dont think that is likely.

[Raiden]

serious question to all you gys (and gals) :

Do you honestly think there's any way to avoid a physical conflict between the US,Israel, & Iran at this point? or have we gone to far down the road of assassinations,nuclear facility construction,flaming rhetoric,terrorist acts,and spiking oil prices to turn back?

and,for the record,i'm on no one's side...i sure as hell don't trust the current Iranian regime to to "never" use any nuclear power they achieve in an aggressive,threatening way some day...on the other side, i can't deny the US has pushed Iran into a corner,which didn't need to happen,due to our "need" to control all the mideast oil....and Israel is it's own entity,and can never do no wrong in the eyes of the West,no matter how often they do bad things...

I don't have an answer to this question, but I do know that with the massive deficit and after tangled in two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), the United States have their hands tied when it comes to starting another war again, unless they don't mind taking on another trillion dollars in debt. But Israel will not stay idly by if they really believe that Iran is in the process of developing a nuclear warhead, and they will do whatever they can to make sure it will not happen.

[Axl Van Sixx]

The powers that be in the United States and Israel want regime change in Iran no matter what. For all intents and purposes they're at war with Iran already, given the crippling economic sanctions (which can only be enforced through the American navy) and supporting terrorist acts inside the country.

At this point, I honestly think there are only two things that could prevent war with Iran:

a) Revolution, either in Iran, Israel or the United States. The current governments in the USA and Israel are so dominated by the military, and influenced by either the Israel lobby (in the States) or hardcore Likud elements, that I don't see either changing course from their current trajectory towards war. Revolution in Iran, of course, would change the picture completely and the West would shift its focus to ensuring the new government is in line with its own interests.

b) Iran demonstrating it already has the capability to build a nuclear weapon. There's a reason North Korea has been handled far more delicately than Iran in international diplomacy, and it's nuclear capability.

Funny...the U.S. and Israel might not attack Iran if it has a nuclear weapon. I just can't imagine why the mullahs would want one. :dry:

[mikey1974]

do you think Russia will be the x-factor in this situation? we already know they have agreements and contracts and such with Iran...if Iran closes the Strait,and we go in there with our aircraft carriers and frigates and start firing missiles, would Russia come to the defense of it's "partner"? or would they let Iran burn? we know Putin longs for the return of the Russian Bear , would he be willing to actually get into an armed conflict with the West to help Iran?

****,man,that movie "Countdown to Looking Glass" would become real!!!

[Axl Van Sixx]

do you think Russia will be the x-factor in this situation? we already know they have agreements and contracts and such with Iran...if Iran closes the Strait,and we go in there with our aircraft carriers and frigates and start firing missiles, would Russia come to the defense of it's "partner"? or would they let Iran burn? we know Putin longs for the return of the Russian Bear , would he be willing to actually get into an armed conflict with the West to help Iran?

This is just another reason why war with Iran would be so dangerous. It might not remain a mere regional conflict, but could escalate out of control into war between the great powers.

I don't think Putin would risk war with the West, but attacking Iran would probably drive Russia into the arms of China, setting up a de facto alliance against NATO and the West. And really, at this point, would you blame them? The United States and Israel are by far the biggest threats to global peace and "stability".

[mikey1974]

This is just another reason why war with Iran would be so dangerous. It might not remain a mere regional conflict, but could escalate out of control into war between the great powers.

I don't think Putin would risk war with the West, but attacking Iran would probably drive Russia into the arms of China, setting up a de facto alliance against NATO and the West. And really, at this point, would you blame them? The United States and Israel are by far the biggest threats to global peace and "stability".


honestly,at this point ,this is what scares me the most.... Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, the US going in guns blazing , Russia and /or China coming to Iran's aid, and weapons being exchanged between the US and Russia.... Welcome to World War III !!

[Axl Van Sixx]

honestly,at this point ,this is what scares me the most.... Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, the US going in guns blazing , Russia and /or China coming to Iran's aid, and weapons being exchanged between the US and Russia.... Welcome to World War III !!

This is why politics shouldn't be left to the "experts", because the so-called experts don't know ****. If the last 10 years have taught us anything, it's that ordinary people would run society better than the elitist know-nothings we're constantly told are the best and the brightest.

[Pagan]

Excellent article in Foreign Policy on Israeli sponsored terrorism (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag)


Buried deep in the archives of America's intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush's administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives -- what is commonly referred to as a "false flag" operation.

The memos, as described by the sources, one of whom has read them and another who is intimately familiar with the case, investigated and debunked reports from 2007 and 2008 accusing the CIA, at the direction of the White House, of covertly supporting Jundallah -- a Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organization. Jundallah, according to the U.S. government (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/11/150332.htm) and published reports (http://www.rferl.org/content/Jundallah_Profile_Of_A_Sunni_Extremist_Group/1856699.html), is responsible for assassinating Iranian government officials and killing Iranian women and children.

[Hobgoblin]

Iran Warns Other Gulf States Against Increasing Oil Exports If the Straight is Closed; Saudi Arabia Says Its Not Intimidated

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/16/us-iran-idUSTRE80F0Z520120116


(Reuters) - Saudi Arabia on Monday expressed doubts over Iran's claim it could block the main oil shipping route out of the Gulf and made clear it was ready to pump more oil after sanctions threatened to cut Iranian sales of crude.

Brent crude rose above $111 on concerns about global oil supplies if sanctions freeze OPEC's second biggest producer out of the market or push it towards military conflict, while Saudi Arabia said it would work to stabilize the price at $100.

Israel, which has often said it could strike Iran to stop it developing nuclear weapons, called for tough new sanctions against Tehran to stop its nuclear program.

But it said that for sanctions to work effectively, all countries must join in - a subtle swipe at Russia and China which oppose the latest Western moves.

"Iran must be stopped and the good news is that Iran can be stopped with economic and diplomatic means once the entire international community gathers together with effective sanctions," Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told the BBC.

Tehran has been under a growing array of U.N. and unilateral sanctions for years, but a U.S. bill that President Barack Obama signed into law on New Year's Eve went far further than previously, aiming to stop countries paying for Iranian oil.

The European Union - Iran's second biggest oil customer after China, buying some 450,000 barrels per day of its 2.6 million bpd exports - is also expected to agree to embargo Iranian oil at a foreign ministers meeting on January 23.

The measures go far further than U.N. sanctions agreed by China and Russia and have helped cause a currency crisis in Iran where dollars are now a scarce commodity for Iranians seeking a safe haven for their vulnerable rial-denominated savings.

DANGEROUS

The new sanctions prompted Iran to threaten to close the Gulf to oil trade if it was prevented from selling its oil and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's senior military adviser reiterated Iran would act decisively to protect itself.

"Iran would use any tools to defend its national interests, if it was exposed to any dangers," Major-General Yahya Rahim-Safavi said, according to the semi-official Mehr news agency.

Israel - reputed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal - said such talk was more evidence of the need to act quickly against Tehran.

"A nuclear Iran would mean a new world order where a very dangerous terroristic regime has impunity and also can control oil flow and oil prices," Ayalon said.

U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey is to make his first visit to Israel on Thursday. Israeli media say he will try to persuade his hosts not to "surprise" Washington on Iran.

Saudi Arabia, Iran's main rival for influence in the Middle East which would play a key role in replacing Iranian oil in he event of an embargo, played down Tehran's talk of closing the Strait of Hormuz, the vital shipping lane for Gulf exports.

"I personally do not believe that the Strait, if it were shut, will be shut for any length of time. The world cannot stand for that," Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi told CNN.

"I don't think all these pronouncements are helpful to the international oil market or to the price of oil. It's really disturbing."

Iran's warning to its Gulf Arab neighbors not to raise oil output to replace its crude appeared to have fallen on deaf ears. Naimi said Riyadh could increase production by about 2 million barrels per day (bpd) "almost immediately."

"Our wish and hope is we can stabilize this oil price and keep it at a level around $100," Naimi said.

The leader of China, Iran's biggest oil customer was in Abu Dhabi on Monday, on a six-day tour of the region where he hopes for greater access to its huge oil and gas reserves.

Although Beijing opposes further international sanctions on Iran, it has already cut its purchases of Iranian oil by more than half for the first two months of this year.

A senior Iranian oil official denied reports that Iran's exports to Asia were already suffering due to the intensified sanctions pressure, saying contracts were bring renewed on schedule.

In addition to the confrontation with the United States over sanctions, Iran has accused it of being behind the latest murder of a nuclear scientist, blown up by a bomb attached to his car last in Tehran week, a charge Washington denies.

Parliament speaker Ali Larijani said "some people have been arrested" in connection with the assassination, the fifth such killing in the last two years.

Larijani gave no further details but told state-run Arabic language al Alam TV Tehran was ready to deal with sanctions.

"We are prepared for oil sanctions and have different scenarios, but we would not announce them in order to avoid alerting our enemies," he said.

(Additional reporting by Peter Griffiths in London; Writing by Robin Pomeroy; Editing by Giles Elgood)

[Marvolo]

honestly,at this point ,this is what scares me the most.... Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, the US going in guns blazing , Russia and /or China coming to Iran's aid, and weapons being exchanged between the US and Russia.... Welcome to World War III !!

If we and Russia get into a firing match it will be nuclear. There won't be WWIII. There will be nuclear winter and human death on a possible extinction level. We two powers have enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet 8 times over.

[mikey1974]

now comes this new situation...

What will Iran be willing to do to stop Saudi Arabia from producing more oil to help the West? think they'll actually attack ?

the other thing is this - as stated in the article Hobgoblin posted : would the world be willing to let Iran close the Strait ?

[Pagan]

now comes this new situation...

What will Iran be willing to do to stop Saudi Arabia from producing more oil to help the West? think they'll actually attack ?

the other thing is this - as stated in the article Hobgoblin posted : would the world be willing to let Iran close the Strait ?

Iran would probably hit Iraq's oil production facilities. And there's a good chance that it could escalate. with Pakistan, N Korea and quite possibly Venezuela choosing sides. It could get really ugly,really quick because oil is something no country will do without.

[mikey1974]

i have to admit,this whole situation is starting to unnerve me....seems like neither side is willing to back down ,and just when it reaches a new level,then one side ups the ante to take it to a new level (i.e. we prepare new sanctions - Iran says it'll close the Strait....Saudi Arabia promises to amp up oil production to meet demand, Iran throws out a warning to them)...

considering we're talking about oil,the lifeblood of the corporate world and governments, who knows how far this may go.... i honestly haven't been this worried about a conflict potentially going global (if not nuclear) since the 80's...

[Hobgoblin]

I did find it interesting that while China is not supportive of new sanctions, they have significantly cut their imports of Iranian oil. Ditto the EU being supportive of the sanctions. Iran is going to get jumpy over that.

Looks like Jan 23 will be an interesting day.

[mikey1974]

well,China's PM was in Saudi Arabia just a few days ago,and suppossedly,some sources say, the Crown Prince pretty much mixed business with pleasure,attempting to reduce China's dependence on Iranian oil,and take more from Saudi Arabia...

could be interesting to see if this rattles iran a bit,if true...could they potentially lose a key ally?

[Marvolo]

Why dont we produce our own oil at home, in the USA that is? Why not tell Iran to kiss our ass produce here and their threat to close the straight doesn't cost us oil.

[mikey1974]

cause the environmentalists won't let us....and all the foreign oil companies have their hands in the government,so we'll never truly be free of them...cause in the end it's not about what's good for the country,but about how much money they can get from the lobbiests

[mikey1974]

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

[Thundercrack85]

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

In your face, South Dakota. Wait, what's this got to do with Iran?

[Marvolo]

cause the environmentalists won't let us....and all the foreign oil companies have their hands in the government,so we'll never truly be free of them...cause in the end it's not about what's good for the country,but about how much money they can get from the lobbiests
Environmentalists are forgetting war is bad for the environment. And this not drilling here is tying our hands forcing us into confrontation. I'm tired of this country being shackled by all the dumbasses that reside in it. Maybe they should fight the war that's coming and go straight to the frontlines since they have np desire to help us avoid it.

Do we really need lobbyists? Send their asses to the frontline to.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Environmentalists are forgetting war is bad for the environment. And this not drilling here is tying our hands forcing us into confrontation. I'm tired of this country being shackled by all the dumbasses that reside in it. Maybe they should fight the war that's coming and go straight to the frontlines since they have np desire to help us avoid it.

Wow. This has got to be one of the dumbest political comments I have ever read on the internet, and that's saying a lot.

So because environmentalists don't want the U.S. to use oil - and that includes domestic sources - it's their fault if the country goes to war again for oil?

:facepalm:

There are so many groups that bear more responsibility for a possible war with Iran that it's not even funny.

Blame the oil industry, which wants control over Iranian crude supplies.
Blame the military-industrial complex, which starts wars regularly to keep taxpayer dollars flowing to weapons manufacturers.
Blame the bought-and-paid-for politicians in Washington, who never met a war they didn't like and have done nothing to address climate change or begin the transition to renewable energy.
Blame the corporate media, which spews out anti-Iranian propaganda daily.
Blame the Israel lobby, which has been working for years to build support for an attack on Iran among U.S. policymakers.

Conversely, you could swallow the official line and blame Iran for trying to develop nuclear weapons in the face of constant threats of invasion and attack.

But to blame environmentalists for the tense international situation, when they spend all their time desperately trying to get the U.S. off of oil and to fund research into renewable energy sources - advice that gets lip service from politicians who then ignore it completely and continue feeding our oil addiction - is laughable, Rush Limbaugh-level nonsense.

Considering the fact that environmentalists are also more likely to be anti-war, your attempts to pin the risk of war on them are ludicrous, when they've been the ones at the frontlines fighting against more war for oil.

Contrary to right-wing mythology, tapping domestic oil sources would not free the U.S. from foreign oil, because there's simply not enough to meet the demand. And this also fails to address the other factors driving war with Iran - Israel's desire to eliminate a regional rival, and America's overlapping need to ensure its own domination over the Middle East (while inconveniencing energy competitors like China).

You want to send somebody actually responsible to fight in an Iranian war they started? How about starting with the CEOs, politicians, lobbyists, careerist army generals and corporate media whores and then working down from there?

Do we really need lobbyists? Send their asses to the frontline to.

Now THIS I would be in favour of. :woot:

[8wid]

Iran nuclear: Russia's Lavrov warns against attack (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16613485)

[Axl Van Sixx]

I think I went a little easy on the Iranian government in my last post. I don't tend to fixate on their responsibility because the media does it for me every day, but of course it's a repressive theocracy and hardliners in the government are certainly helping to stir up trouble by antagonizing the U.S.

Nevertheless, it's hard to blame them for that when you consider the brutal history of U.S. intervention in Iran. If anyone is picking a fight here, it's clearly Israel and the United States. No surprise there; why would a relatively small, weak country deliberately stoke tensions with the global military hyperpower?

[8wid]

UN inspectors visit Iran as nuclear tensions rise (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16778292)

[8wid]

What does the future hold for Iran? (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/27/world/meast/5-voices-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2)

Is western media preparing the public for a war with Iran?-A Simple Question-12-12-2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eon28K3x0pQ)

[mikey1974]

be interesting to see what will happen if the UN inspectors find no concrete evidence of Iran working on the The Bomb...

i'd like to think/hope the US will back off a bit then,which would hopefully lead to the reopening of talks between both sides...

Israel,however,is the ultimate wild card...they're going to attack,i have no doubt...just a matter of when....

[mikey1974]

looks like we're going to have a war,whether we want it or not,or can afford it:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/02/panetta-concerned-israel-months-from-striking-iran/

[Marvolo]

Wow. This has got to be one of the dumbest political comments I have ever read on the internet, and that's saying a lot.

So because environmentalists don't want the U.S. to use oil - and that includes domestic sources - it's their fault if the country goes to war again for oil?

:facepalm:

There are so many groups that bear more responsibility for a possible war with Iran that it's not even funny.

Blame the oil industry, which wants control over Iranian crude supplies.
Blame the military-industrial complex, which starts wars regularly to keep taxpayer dollars flowing to weapons manufacturers.
Blame the bought-and-paid-for politicians in Washington, who never met a war they didn't like and have done nothing to address climate change or begin the transition to renewable energy.
Blame the corporate media, which spews out anti-Iranian propaganda daily.
Blame the Israel lobby, which has been working for years to build support for an attack on Iran among U.S. policymakers.

Conversely, you could swallow the official line and blame Iran for trying to develop nuclear weapons in the face of constant threats of invasion and attack.

But to blame environmentalists for the tense international situation, when they spend all their time desperately trying to get the U.S. off of oil and to fund research into renewable energy sources - advice that gets lip service from politicians who then ignore it completely and continue feeding our oil addiction - is laughable, Rush Limbaugh-level nonsense.

Considering the fact that environmentalists are also more likely to be anti-war, your attempts to pin the risk of war on them are ludicrous, when they've been the ones at the frontlines fighting against more war for oil.

Contrary to right-wing mythology, tapping domestic oil sources would not free the U.S. from foreign oil, because there's simply not enough to meet the demand. And this also fails to address the other factors driving war with Iran - Israel's desire to eliminate a regional rival, and America's overlapping need to ensure its own domination over the Middle East (while inconveniencing energy competitors like China).

You want to send somebody actually responsible to fight in an Iranian war they started? How about starting with the CEOs, politicians, lobbyists, careerist army generals and corporate media whores and then working down from there?



Now THIS I would be in favour of. :woot:

Read my post before commenting. I did not say that environmentalist are responsible because they want us to use oil. I said they take part of the responsibility because they don't want us to drill here so we can be self seficient. We could supply our own oil if not for them
We don't even need middle eastern oil.

Yes it is just as much their fault. If we were drilling here we would have a lot more options to deal with the middle east. As it stands now we are pussyfooting around because if we upset these terrorist dogs they cut off oil supply. These environmentalists are tying our hands just as much as the fearmongering war hungry goons in Washington. Sorry you don't realize that but anyone who ties our hands is hurting us. The environmentalist are tying our hands therefore they are hurtings us.

I love animals but human life takes precedent over wildlife imo. I will sacrifice some animals and temporarily sacrifice some trees so we can drill for oil and get out of this dependence on the middle east. Anyone who can't realize and fights to stop the drilling is playing a part in causing this situation. Everyone should be aware of how their actions effect the country on a larger scale. Besides every tree that is removed for drilling two are planted in it's place so they are *****ing about nothing.

I'm sorry you dont see that this war is caused by more than just the obvious people. If you think its ok for us to be dependent on the middle east I'm sorry for that too.

One last thing I don't care if there are more people that are more responsible. That doesnt mean anything. The environmentalists are still tying our hands. Now attack me about this.

On another topic, we really cannot afford another war. I have to say I am tired of this countries fate being determined by what Israel is planning or doing. I'm not anti Israel but to get into anpther war because isreal is trigger happy would be very bad for us. What would be the fallout of us not helping Israel? Would that be an option and would congress do that?

[mikey1974]

Iran potentially developing missiles to reach U.S. East Coast:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/new-iranian-missile-could-strike-us-20120203-1qxpp.html

[mikey1974]

Are we screwed? is there any way to get out of this? the nightmare scenerio seems to be playing out,as we've now reached the level of basically open and hostile threats of attack,terrorist attacks ,and ICBM's between Iran,Israel,and the U.S...

we can only hope that the UN Inspector's find no proof of nuclear weapon's development,because that may be the only thing that cools this situation down,since none of the sides are apparently willing to take a step back...though,i'm slightly optimistic that the U.S. is telling Israel to not attack,and if they do we won't participate in a war with Iran...though if Iran DOES start terrorist attacks against the US in retaliation,then we'll be in it sooner rather than later....

[8wid]

Cardboard cut-out Ayatollah Khomeini tours Tehran (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16876981)

[Hobgoblin]

Israel Warns American Jews to be Aware of Possible Iranian Threats
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-israel-warns-us-jews-iran-could-strike-153636488--abc-news.html

[enterthemadness]

Iran potentially developing missiles to reach U.S. East Coast:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/new-iranian-missile-could-strike-us-20120203-1qxpp.html

Living next to MCAS Cherry Point, this worries me. However, I'm sure we would "**** them up" if they launch missiles at our eastern seaboard.

[mikey1974]

Living next to MCAS Cherry Point, this worries me. However, I'm sure we would "**** them up" if they launch missiles at our eastern seaboard.


if they were going to do it,i'm sure they'd pick a more high-profile target : New York,Boston, Washington,Miami,etc...

[8wid]

That story is absolute bu******. What would they stick at the end of it? They have no nuclear warheads near being ready for an attack like that. A suicide bombing, assassination, or sabotage is much more likely if anything than anything that totally outrageous.

Why would Iran not hit US bases in the area and Europe first? Even sabotage the efforts of the Israeli air force or another more realistic measure like damaging Saudi oil fields or destabilizing the governments in Iraq or Afghanistan?. This is more fear mongering with a very baseless threat to the US.

Iran has never attacked another nation in its modern history, I've heard that Israel is ready to launch an airstrike within whatever amount of time since at least 2005, it would be mean global economic collapse within weeks after the price of oil hikes to three hundred dollars a barrel and the US deficit, let alone that of NATO European nations could not afford a war with three times the number of people in Iraq and four times the land size.

North Korea has long range missiles that can strike Hawaii and Alaska with a nuclear warhead, maybe the south, Australia, or Japan too. They would be a bigger threat.

[Dr. Evil]

In your face, South Dakota. Wait, what's this got to do with Iran?

South Dakota is going to say "we got Mount Rushmore!"

Of course, both Dakotas can easily claim (along with Montana and Idaho) as the states with the least number of African Americans.

[8wid]

Proof (http://stopthewarnow.net/iran/warscenarios.html) of how old the rhetoric of Israel or the US bombing Iran is.

This redundant speculation about a war over the nuclear program in Iran has been going on since at least since the Iraq invasion took place. This means the rhetoric is nearly a decade old and is brought up by corporate media interests whenever the have a slow news day. Not likely that this war is ever going to happen outside the news fairy tales.

[mikey1974]

That story is absolute bu******. What would they stick at the end of it? They have no nuclear warheads near being ready for an attack like that. A suicide bombing, assassination, or sabotage is much more likely if anything than anything that totally outrageous.

Why would Iran not hit US bases in the area and Europe first? Even sabotage the efforts of the Israeli air force or another more realistic measure like damaging Saudi oil fields or destabilizing the governments in Iraq or Afghanistan?. This is more fear mongering with a very baseless threat to the US.

Iran has never attacked another nation in its modern history, I've heard that Israel is ready to launch an airstrike within whatever amount of time since at least 2005, it would be mean global economic collapse within weeks after the price of oil hikes to three hundred dollars a barrel and the US deficit, let alone that of NATO European nations could not afford a war with three times the number of people in Iraq and four times the land size.

North Korea has long range missiles that can strike Hawaii and Alaska with a nuclear warhead, maybe the south, Australia, or Japan too. They would be a bigger threat.

the thing that struck me is that ISRAELI intelligence found this "plot" to develop a missile to reach the U.S....certainly not our intelligence agencies or spy network....

and considering we bascially just told Israel that we won't support or defend them if they do attack without our approval first (and considering we keep telling them NOT to attack) ,i know that even if they will go it alone,they desperately want us in on it because of our bunker-buster bombs and such,then i'm really considering this as a fiction made up y the Israeli's to try and get us in the fight they so desperately want.... "oh,look,they're targeting you now,too! now you HAVE to do something to defend yourselves!!"

[Midnyte_Sun]

Iraq was the same scenario.

[8wid]

Once the US pulls out of Afghanistan, this stupid rhetoric of bombing Iran will disappear and just be like the strange days of going all the way into Iraq during the Gulf War, going to Hanoi, Cambodia, and China during Vietnam. Not to mention the desire to not stop at Berlin or Rome, but to keep going into Madrid and Moscow to take out fascists in Spain and the communists in the Soviet Union. With a Democrat in the White House with more rhetoric than this, there should really be nothing to worry about.

[Thundercrack85]

Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will obviously be a relevant issue for years to come. Not to mention that the US isn't the only one who has a stake in this issue.

[8wid]

^There's no evidence they intent to get weaponized nukes. The nuclear program for energy in the Middle East would be a bigger story to me.

[Thundercrack85]

^There's no evidence they intent to get weaponized nukes. The nuclear program for energy in the Middle East would be a bigger story to me.

Right, hence the fortified, underground facilities. All for peaceful purposes, I'm sure.

[DBryan]

That's bat **** logic.

Let's find industrialized countries that DON'T have fortified, underground facilities.

Can you name them for me?

[8wid]

Right, hence the fortified, underground facilities. All for peaceful purposes, I'm sure.

The evidence presented shows they are not spinning enough plutonium to build a weaponized warhead. Wouldn't you be scared of an airstrike by Israel after the Western media biasedly demonizes everything about your way of life on daily basis for the past eight years now, had the US President call you're country part of an axis of evil after 9/11 along with Iraq and North Korea, then be afraid after the way the US invaded Iraq on similar claims of seeking to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. Wouldn't you be afraid when Western oil companies and contractors are eager in starting a war to commit regime change and to establish their control over your natural resources as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan? I you aren't you should be.

[Hobgoblin]

I would be willing to consider Iran's program could possibly be peaceful, if it werent for all that "Death to America!" "Death to Israel!" "Israel must be wiped off the map!" nonsense. Even if the leaders of Iran apologized for those statements and made moves to improve relations with the West, could we know for sure if they are being truthful?

Yes, you could say that America needs to do the same thing for Iran. Let's face it, neither country will risk losing face in this matter. Pride. That is as much the problem here as anything.

[8wid]

^All three nations have irrational and zealotous leaders who war monger and use rhetoric and threats of violence. As much as the president of Iran has said Israel needs to go, how often have many US conservatives and others said a preemptive strike is needed to take him out and protect the Jews?

I have a feeling that the Iranian president will eventually leave office in a few years and not pursue another term. Once he does and the US has FINALLY pulled out of Afghanistan within four or five years this rhetoric is going to vanish.

[Hobgoblin]

I'm not so sure. The Ayatollahs are the real leaders of Iran I'm told, and they never leave power. They are the one's with the agendas, not presidents.

[Thundercrack85]

The evidence presented shows they are not spinning enough plutonium to build a weaponized warhead. Wouldn't you be scared of an airstrike by Israel after the Western media biasedly demonizes everything about your way of life on daily basis for the past eight years now, had the US President call you're country part of an axis of evil after 9/11 along with Iraq and North Korea, then be afraid after the way the US invaded Iraq on similar claims of seeking to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. Wouldn't you be afraid when Western oil companies and contractors are eager in starting a war to commit regime change and to establish their control over your natural resources as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan? I you aren't you should be.

Please stop pretending this totalitarian rogue state is some poor misunderstood underdog. You can't say you want to wipe Israel off the map, while simultaneously enriching uranium and testing long-range missiles, and expect the Israelis not to take some kind of action.

But yes, if I did all that, I would be scared of an airstrike.

[Hobgoblin]

White House to Slap Iran with More Sanctions

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/new-sanctions-on-iran-intended-to-ratchet-up-pressure-but-could-ease-israeli/

[8wid]

Please stop pretending this totalitarian rogue state is some poor misunderstood underdog. You can't say you want to wipe Israel off the map, while simultaneously enriching uranium and testing long-range missiles, and expect the Israelis not to take some kind of action.

But yes, if I did all that, I would be scared of an airstrike.

The Iranian regime is not a poor misunderstood underdog, most Americans and Europeans don't see through the shady case for war in another country. They are an irrational and oppressive regime, but they have been intimidated by the West into becoming paranoid and more defensive than ever with daily hints that an attack may be inevitable. The testing of long-range missile is just sabre-rattling on the side of the Iranians to counter the US media. Both sides do it and warmonger, but Iran has no history of attacking another nation. There is no evidence they are enriching enough uranium to build a weaponized nuke, it's only the degree needed for a civilian nuclear program. Read the EPA reports yourself to find out.

Israel does not need to attack Iran for anything until there is evidence of a nuclear weapon having actually been built and being readied to be fired, which there is not a single trace of. Israel can build itself up more diplomatically and defensively at the same time to prepare for a foreign missile attack, but there is hardly a reason for them to be scared of a nuclear attack from Iran.

Why would Iran nuke a city like Jerusalem or Tel Aviv where some of the most holy sites in Islam are, make that city uninhabitable for centuries after that attack and be hated for it, kill potentially thousands of Palestinians they wish to protect and make a free and independent state for, risk a nuclear retaliation from Israel's secret nuclear arsenal, and possibly an America too, destroy the global economy overnight with a regional war etc.? It's ridiculous of a notion that Iran would destroy and discredit itself in this way. The reasons for a threat from a nuclear weapons program in Iran is totally illogical. Churches and corporate news love to keep saying it is a real threat to make a buck through scaring their congregations and audiences. Obama keeps on it to get reelected by conservative Republicans.

[Thundercrack85]

The Iranian regime is not a poor misunderstood underdog, most Americans and Europeans don't see through the shady case for war in another country. They are an irrational and oppressive regime, but they have been intimidated by the West into becoming paranoid and more defensive than ever with daily hints that an attack may be inevitable. The testing of long-range missile is just sabre-rattling on the side of the Iranians to counter the US media. Both sides do it and warmonger, but Iran has no history of attacking another nation. There is no evidence they are enriching enough uranium to build a weaponized nuke, it's only the degree needed for a civilian nuclear program. Read the EPA reports yourself to find out.

Israel does not need to attack Iran for anything until there is evidence of a nuclear weapon having actually been built and being readied to be fired, which there is not a single trace of. Israel can build itself up more diplomatically and defensively at the same time to prepare for a foreign missile attack, but there is hardly a reason for them to be scared of a nuclear attack from Iran.

Why would Iran nuke a city like Jerusalem or Tel Aviv where some of the most holy sites in Islam are, make that city uninhabitable for centuries after that attack and be hated for it, kill potentially thousands of Palestinians they wish to protect and make a free and independent state for, risk a nuclear retaliation from Israel's secret nuclear arsenal, and possibly an America too, destroy the global economy overnight with a regional war etc.? It's ridiculous of a notion that Iran would destroy and discredit itself in this way. The reasons for a threat from a nuclear weapons program in Iran is totally illogical. Churches and corporate news love to keep saying it is a real threat to make a buck through scaring their congregations and audiences. Obama keeps on it to get reelected by conservative Republicans.

Iran has no history of attacking another nation? So what. Its leadership has changed radically in the last few decades. Proven itself to be despotic, irresponsible, and increasingly militaristic. Especially in the last few years, with an entire purge of moderate elements.

EPA? Have you read the IAEA reports? Religious fanatics have never needed cause to be paranoid. They do not care about self-preservation. There is no reasoning with them.

You actually believe their claims? They're willing to bankrupt their entire country and become an isolated pariah state for the sake of… at most, a few measly nuclear power plants? A country incredibly rich with energy resources. What is more illogical?

[8wid]

Iran has no history of attacking another nation? So what. Its leadership has changed radically in the last few decades. Proven itself to be despotic, irresponsible, and increasingly militaristic. Especially in the last few years, with an entire purge of moderate elements.

EPA? Have you read the IAEA reports? Religious fanatics have never needed cause to be paranoid. They do not care about self-preservation. There is no reasoning with them.

You actually believe their claims? They're willing to bankrupt their entire country and become an isolated pariah state for the sake of… at most, a few measly nuclear power plants? A country incredibly rich with energy resources. What is more illogical?

The very words you use to describe the behavior of the Iranian regime towards Israel could easily be used for the United States in the past, especially the last decade. America has a war on average every twenty years and all except World War II they have been unnecessary interventions and often aggressive on part of the US. Iran has been at peace as long the US existed. As paranoid as the Iranian regime is, US intervention in Iraq and Libya, the demonizing of it's nuclear program in the media and political speeches, and spying, sabotage, and assassinations by Israel and the CIA, have simply made them more crazy about it. When did you hear the speeches about destroying America and Israel be even an issue to the US until just after the Iraq War began?

The only place Iran is being perceived as a pariah state is in the Western media that doesn't want to believe a Middle Eastern nation is willing to build a peaceful nuclear power plant, which does exist to perhaps to gain energy independence and self-sufficiency and also combat environmental elements like Global Warming which the regime does believe in. Iran committing economic and political suicide for a pointless war with Israel and one that will only contradict its clause of wanting a state of Palestine in the former borders of Israel. They could unless an exchange to kill millions just because they want to see Israel vanish? I think not. If so what has stopped them from buying a nuke on the black market from North Korea or Pakistan and just unleashing suitcase bomb in Tel Aviv? If the Iranian government really wanted to bring on the end of the world, why don't they simply just do something to put it into motion? What are they waiting for? They could falsify an attack by Israel or the United States just as easily as the other side could and justify a war for this reason that would justify an attack on Israel. Why do they need nukes to destroy the country when they have a superior arsenal of Russian made missiles and suicide attacks that would be aided by Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and more. If they don't care about self-preservation then why not destroy Saudi oil fields and the ones in Qatar and Kuwait too? Why not just start a war if they don't care about saving their own nation?

Why is it taking Iran so long to develop a bomb in the first place? After nearly a decade of alarm from the West of the dangers of a nuclear program in Iran they would have produced something or at least conducted a nuclear test like North Korea has done a couple of times. It might provoke an Israeli counter strike like in Iraq in the 80s or Syria in 2004, but why is nothing concrete being built? Hmmm... perhaps because the US loves to produce baseless stories in the corporate media that promotes war propaganda like before the invasion of Iraq... Unless a crazy person in Israel bombs their nuclear facilities, then a war with Iran is not going to happen.

Like I've said before warmongering makes good ratings, newspaper and magazine sales, video game ideas, and entertaining history channel specials, and is good for church congregations to threaten the end of the world is now upon us. Once the president of Iran finally leaves office and the US withdrawals from Afghanistan, this issue won't even be mainstream anymore.

[Hobgoblin]

Here is an interesting article about the crisis from the average Israeli's POV.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-02-03/israel-iran-tensions/52978020/1

[Destructus86]

I would be willing to consider Iran's program could possibly be peaceful, if it werent for all that "Death to America!" "Death to Israel!" "Israel must be wiped off the map!" nonsense. Even if the leaders of Iran apologized for those statements and made moves to improve relations with the West, could we know for sure if they are being truthful?

Yes, you could say that America needs to do the same thing for Iran. Let's face it, neither country will risk losing face in this matter. Pride. That is as much the problem here as anything.

Yeah...the whole "yay for genocide" thing does sort of make you wonder....

=P

[Hobgoblin]

Yeah...the whole "yay for genocide" thing does sort of make you wonder....

=P

I'm being totally unfair to Iran, I know. :o

[mikey1974]

i'm really starting to feel fear....

the ultimate issue here is that Israel WILL attack without any support from any of it's allies...and what the fallout from that will be....

THE U.S. : for the moment at least,we pledge to stay out of it,as we want to continue using sanctions and such against them...but if war breaks out,and Iran starts targeting U.S. ships and troops in the area, we'll definitely be involved within a matter of a week or less....

CHINA: i honeslty don't see them being a factor as they are still building their economy up,and they'd probably rather sit back and hope the conflict would weaken the U.S. and some of our interests around the world,so they can swoop right in and take over....they're on the verge of taking over the world, they don't want to see it blown up right now....ruling ashes means ruling nothing....

THE EU: god only knows...they'll pledge support for the West,but will they actually get militarily involved? i think not,unless Iran targets them as well...

THE MIDDLE EAST: can other nations stay out of it? i realy see that being a hard sell....

RUSSIA: i still consider them to be the ultimate wild card in this...they support iran,and the tone has been belligerent between Putin and the West for years now....but would the Bear be willing to enter a miltary,shooting conflict against the West,knowing full well that it can escalate quickly into weapons being exchanged between the US and Russia,eventually evolving into at least some form of Nuclear War.... Putin wants to relive,and rebirth,the old Soviet Bear and Russia's significance and influence in the world...but,again,what influence is there to have when the world is a blackened rock?

the ultimate question is if the conflict can just stay between Israel and Iran,or will the whole region become involved,leading to more outside countries and unions picking sides and getting in the fight,leading to World War III ?

[Axl Van Sixx]

Western imperialism's war-mongering against Iran: End imperialist aggression and sanctions!

(http://www.marxist.ca/international/iran/728-western-imperialisms-war-mongering-against-iran-end-imperialist-aggression-and-sanctions.html)While the majority of people, with the memory of the War on Terror fresh in mind, are opposed to military conflict in Iran, many do harbour illusions in imposing sanctions on Iran. Some liberal or left-wing minded people, who may oppose war, suggest sanctions as a positive step for intervention against Iran. This is a mistake.

Obama has been able to convince the EU and Japan to accept the sanctions against Iran. Unfortunately, strict sanctions will not benefit the Iranian masses or assist the people in overthrowing their regime. We, as Marxists, harbour no illusions in the reactionary Islamic regime. But international sanctions, and their continuation into a possible armed clash, will only serve to strengthen the Iranian regime, cut through the class struggle, and aggravate the already enormous suffering of the people.

In fact, this is the main intention behind the constant provocations by the Iranian regime against Israel and US. The regime is stuck in a contradiction. Although it is not interested in an armed clash, which would cause it great damage, it is forced to cause the provocations because it needs a foreign enemy to divert the attention of the masses and to blame for the plight of the Iranian people.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and which remained in effect until 2003, illustrate this point. These sanctions devastated the lives of the majority of Iraqis. Life expectancy and quality of life declined with the spread of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, unclean water, and a host of diseases. Average per capita income dropped from $3,510 to $450 in just six years. UNICEF’s director estimated that some 500,000 children under the age of five died as a result of the sanctions, often the result of easily preventable diseases. This served to strengthen the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Sanctions are an act of aggression against the Iranian people, already suffering under the capitalist regime of the mullahs. Already, the sanctions have caused massive inflation of the Iranian Rial. Imported goods have skyrocketed in costs, further aggravating the impoverished conditions of millions. As the squeeze on oil exports are felt, the Iranian economy will be further pushed down, resulting in mass layoffs and the increased cost of living. This will serve as a convenient distraction for the Iranian regime, who are facing massive social unrest at come, but can now point to the West as being at fault for the unbearable conditions of the people.

It is important to remember that massive movements in 2009 came close to bringing down the regime of the mullahs. It is true to say that the movement has been temporarily defeated, but in its wake and as a consequence of it, the Iranian regime has plunged into a political crisis that has led to deep divisions between rival factions of the ruling clique. At the same time, the regime has instituted its own form of austerity cuts, through eliminating subsidies on basic goods like food and fuel. These measures alone are guarantees of a revival of the movement at a later stage.

However, the current sanctions assist in cutting across, and weakening, any mass movements in Iran. They are a dead-end that serves to punish the masses. The ruling clique in Iran can use the convenient threat of sanction and foreign aggression to direct anger towards the outside. The declining standard of living of the Iranian people will justifiably be seen as the fault of the imperialists, and would strengthen the regime’s call for “national unity” against foreign aggression.

Many Iranians remember the plunder of their two neighbouring countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the role of imperialism in the whole region, not least in Iran. They will react to the aggression that threatens them. Our Iranian comrades, organized around the paper Mobareze Tabaqati (http://www.mobareze.org/), have explained that foreign intervention, including sanctions, is acting as a lifeline to the Islamic regime. Concretely, therefore, these measures represent a huge obstacle towards democracy, and the struggle for equality in Iran.

End sanctions on Iran!
(http://www.marxist.ca/international/iran/728-western-imperialisms-war-mongering-against-iran-end-imperialist-aggression-and-sanctions.html)

[Thundercrack85]

i'm really starting to feel fear....

the ultimate issue here is that Israel WILL attack without any support from any of it's allies...and what the fallout from that will be....

THE U.S. : for the moment at least,we pledge to stay out of it,as we want to continue using sanctions and such against them...but if war breaks out,and Iran starts targeting U.S. ships and troops in the area, we'll definitely be involved within a matter of a week or less....

CHINA: i honeslty don't see them being a factor as they are still building their economy up,and they'd probably rather sit back and hope the conflict would weaken the U.S. and some of our interests around the world,so they can swoop right in and take over....they're on the verge of taking over the world, they don't want to see it blown up right now....ruling ashes means ruling nothing....

THE EU: god only knows...they'll pledge support for the West,but will they actually get militarily involved? i think not,unless Iran targets them as well...

THE MIDDLE EAST: can other nations stay out of it? i realy see that being a hard sell....

RUSSIA: i still consider them to be the ultimate wild card in this...they support iran,and the tone has been belligerent between Putin and the West for years now....but would the Bear be willing to enter a miltary,shooting conflict against the West,knowing full well that it can escalate quickly into weapons being exchanged between the US and Russia,eventually evolving into at least some form of Nuclear War.... Putin wants to relive,and rebirth,the old Soviet Bear and Russia's significance and influence in the world...but,again,what influence is there to have when the world is a blackened rock?

the ultimate question is if the conflict can just stay between Israel and Iran,or will the whole region become involved,leading to more outside countries and unions picking sides and getting in the fight,leading to World War III ?

That might make for a good Tom Clancy movie.

The US and Russia aren't going to start World War III over Iran. Putin himself will have enough problems come next election.

[8wid]

Shouldn't we just close this thread? There is not threat from Iran developing a nuclear weapon. It would be nice if there was a single piece of evidence that said this was something more than hype and propaganda from corporate media and military interests, but there's nothing to worry about... Be more worried for the 50 million people who live in South Korea and the 127 million who live in Japan who are under threat from the nuclear arsenal of North Korea that is still a new regime in transition over an already unstable nation. China would love military intervention there because they could oust a US ally on the Korean Peninsula.

Almost 8 million people in Israel and 77 million in Iran shouldn't be of much concern to 300 million Americans plus. Why don't we fix our own economy first instead of worrying about what MIGHT potentially happen in two third world nations.

[Hobgoblin]

Nah, I say we keep this thread open so we can discuss the very complicated relations the West has with Iran. Shouldn't you just stay out of the thread if you don't think this is worth talking about?

[DBryan]

Outside interference in Syria, all part of the build up to attack Iran?

Wx6UuuwpAFo

We need to end the support of zionism. The far right zionists are leading us into bat **** conflicts.

[Quetzal]

Look I feel like Iran could do several easy steps to ease tensions with the U.S. and Israel. Iran needs an Arafat to make peace with the West. Recognition of Israel's right to exist, asking for a tranquilization of hostilities to the West to the people, and either the Ayatollah's figurehead with a moderate and a less hostile president.

These acts WOULD begin a stabilization in tension and reduction of tensions. Iran needs to recognize where the US and the west is heading to. Its not in their benefit to keep this level of argument up.

I view the Iranian program similar to the Latin American land reform governments that unleashed American responses that ended terribly for the host governments. SOME of the Latin American governments realized that the U.S. would be stubborn about this and reacted in time and had their governments and power left intact, surviving American purges via the CIA, War, etc.

Iran could propose other methods of generating power and asking other governments to help in the construction of new power facilities in exchange for ending their nuclear program. This is another method which has worked in history.
=====

Ultimately I believe the ability to avoid confrontation is more in the hands of the Iranians than in ours.

[DBryan]

It's the Israelis and the Americans who keep calling for pre-emptive strikes, not the Iranians.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Look I feel like Iran could do several easy steps to ease tensions with the U.S. and Israel. Iran needs an Arafat to make peace with the West. Recognition of Israel's right to exist, asking for a tranquilization of hostilities to the West to the people, and either the Ayatollah's figurehead with a moderate and a less hostile president.

These acts WOULD begin a stabilization in tension and reduction of tensions. Iran needs to recognize where the US and the west is heading to. Its not in their benefit to keep this level of argument up.

I view the Iranian program similar to the Latin American land reform governments that unleashed American responses that ended terribly for the host governments. SOME of the Latin American governments realized that the U.S. would be stubborn about this and reacted and survived American purges via the CIA, War, etc.

Iran could propose other methods of generating power and asking other governments to help in the construction of new power facilities in exchange for ending their nuclear program. This is another method which has worked in history.
=====

Ultimately I believe the ability to avoid confrontation is more in the hands of the Iranians than in ours.


Basically regime change.

[Axl Van Sixx]

It's the Israelis and the Americans who keep calling for pre-emptive strikes, not the Iranians.

Thank you.

Great article by Arthur Silber where he talks about an ad campaign he'd like to run, similar to Ron Paul's anti-war ads, about a possible war with Iran.

The First Ad: Who Are The Nazis Now? (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/02/first-ad-who-are-nazis-now.html)

I would want to see the ad on every major television network on the same night, right in the middle of primetime. It may well be that no network will run it. But, hey, no crime in trying. (Not this week, at least not yet.) In that case, we'd have to work to make it a huge internet phenomenon. Once it becomes big enough, major news outlets will cover it -- now as a news story. Also great!

The content of the ad would focus on the Gleiwitz incident which Germany used to "justify" Germany's invasion of Poland, as discussed in the preceding post (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/02/fixing-hitler-and-about-what-we-can-do.html). The ad would juxtapose Germany's claims about Poland's "provocation" with U.S. claims about Iran's "provocation." I would suggest using lots of photographs and/or film footage: shots of German leaders and troops, then shots of U.S. leaders and troops, battleships, planes, and so forth. Just imagine how angry some Americans will get. Fantastic!

When the German pictures/films are shown, we hear: "At the end of August 1939, Germany claimed that Polish saboteurs attacked a German radio station and took it over. The Polish saboteurs were actually Germans wearing Polish uniforms. The German government said that the Polish attack justified the German invasion of Poland. But it wasn't true."

Then we see the U.S. pictures/films, and we hear: "Today, the U.S. claims that Iran is working to get nuclear weapons. In fact, there isn't any proof of that. In fact, just recently 'the leaders of the U.S. intelligence community said that they were not sure that Iran was even trying to build a nuclear weapon (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/americas-top-spy-we-dont-know-whether-iran-is-even-trying-to-build-a-bomb/252581/).' The U.S. claims that Iran's determination to have nuclear weapons justifies an attack on Iran. But it isn't true."

Then we see more German pictures/films, and we hear more details of Germany's claims about why Germany had to invade Poland -- and then, "But it wasn't true."

Then more U.S. pictures, and another of the U.S. claims about Iran's actions, perhaps: "The U.S. says that Iran refuses to let inspectors verify that Iran isn't diverting materials to make nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran has repeatedly submitted to more extensive oversight and investigation of its nuclear program than any other country. The U.S. claims that Iran's secrecy and its refusal to be open about its work justifies an attack on Iran. But it isn't true."

After maybe five or six of these comparisons, we get to this:After World War II, the U.S. was a key member of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which rendered judgment on the crimes of the Nazis. The Nuremberg Tribunal condemned Nazi Germany for waging aggressive war. It called aggressive war "essentially an evil thing," and said that "to initiate a war of aggression ... is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." [During this narration, we see photos and films of Nazi leaders and the German military, perhaps with film of Hitler at the end of this section.]

Today, the U.S. claims that Iran is a serious threat to America and to the world, and that an Iran with nuclear weapons is absolutely unacceptable. But there is no evidence at all that Iran is even seeking nuclear weapons. So the U.S. is threatening Iran with military action because of a threat that doesn't exist and may never exist. That means the U.S., which has the most powerful military the world has ever seen, is threatening a much weaker country, a country that couldn't possibly threaten the U.S. in any serious way -- and the U.S. is threatening to launch a war of aggression, which we ourselves have called "the supreme international crime." [During this narration, we see photos and films of U.S. leaders and the U.S. military. I would suggest film of Obama at the end of this section, but that might get us all thrown in jail. And we have more work to do. So maybe just a picture of the U.S. flag.]And then at the very end of the ad, the tagline:So ... Who are the Nazis now?Imagine for a moment what would happen if an ad like that were shown on every television network at 9 PM. Yes, it would cause a huge controversy. As I said, that would be wonderful! This should be followed by four or five more ads -- one focusing on the effects of an attack on Iran, including how it is very possible (even likely) that a war could spread very quickly throughout the Middle East and even beyond -- that we might be in the middle of World War III within months. Another ad could focus on the effects here in the U.S.: rocketing oil prices, enormous economic hardship (particularly affecting the middle class and the poor), maybe widespread government crackdowns on dissenters. A separate ad could compare the lies about Iran to the lies told about Iraq -- and by the way, I wouldn't mention Iraq at all in the first ad. The focus should be solely on Iran, and I myself think nothing should distract from that. Keep the focus very tight, and just on Iran. The ad should be as powerful as possible, and the tight focus is very important for that purpose.

[8wid]

edit

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, I recall when Poland was enriching uranium in hardened, underground facilities, testing long range missiles and threatening to wipe Germany off the map (they've actually used some stronger rhetoric in recent times). Those crazy Poles.

Where's Neville Chamberlain when you need him?

[Asteroid-Man]

I keep hearing people say "give them sanctions" and "just bomb nuclear sites"...

I posted this in the facebook group for the program I T.A. for, and I'm posting it here:

Bombing nuclear zones and making sanctions are both terrible ideas. What the government and most importantly the MEDIA should do is provide support for the student protestors. They’ve lacked interest in this area (or at least up until the death of Michael Jackson swept the front page) and since then, the Islamic Republic has come down on them with an iron fist.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Yes, I recall when Poland was enriching uranium in hardened, underground facilities, testing long range missiles and threatening to wipe Germany off the map (they've actually used some stronger rhetoric in recent times). Those crazy Poles.

Where's Neville Chamberlain when you need him?

Enriching uranium
Kinda makes sense if you're being threatened with attack by Israel or the US every single day, doesn't it?

Testing long range missiles
Yes, how dare those monsters prepare to defend themselves if attacked! :cmad:

Threatening to wipe Country X off the map
Maybe if you read the correct translation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/the-biggest-lie-told-to-t_b_70248.html) of that statement (wanting Israel to "vanish from the page of history"), you wouldn't repeat such idiotic propaganda.

But I'm sure none of these considerations will alter your neocon-derived view of world politics, where it's always 1938, every diplomatic squabble is a new Munich, and every leader the U.S. doesn't like is the new Hitler.

:barf:

[Thundercrack85]

So they are building nuclear weapons, but only for self defense? Okay, well, at least they're only half-lying. And they're building missiles to defend themselves from a country that has a problem with them because of what again? (hint: see above).

Right, mistranslation. I'll take your word for it. But, is, Israel is a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut" also a mistranslation? How many quotes do you want me to dig up from this year alone? Not that the quote "vanish from the pages of history" is much better.

If this was 1938, and Hitler talked like this, even Chamberlain would have trouble selling his brand.

[Asteroid-Man]

So they are building nuclear weapons, but only for self defense? Okay, well, at least they're only half-lying. And they're building missiles to defend themselves from a country that has a problem with them because of what again? (hint: see above).
:dry: Excuse me - what?

Right, mistranslation. I'll take your word for it. But, is, Israel is a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut" also a mistranslation? How many quotes do you want me to dig up from this year alone? Not that the quote "vanish from the pages of history" is much better.
How about this: Post them here and I'll translate them for you. I hate Western Propaganda as much as the next person, but I hate the Islamic Regime a million times more, so you can be sure I'll give you an unbiased translation.

If this was 1938, and Hitler talked like this, even Chamberlain would have trouble selling his brand.
Out of curiosity, (and I agree with the comparison - I just don't think you know why it's a valid one) but what makes you compare the rulers of Iran to the rulers of Nazi Germany?

[Thundercrack85]

He (comrade Axl) said they're enriching uranium because they're being threatened by the US and Israel. Presumably if you're enriching uranium because you feel threatened, you're not doing it so you can build a power plant.

I have read enough quotes. But I appreciate the offer.

Someone compared the US to Nazi Germany on the last page. A rather poor and lazy analogy, and ironic since one is led by an anti-Semtic despot, with a cult of personality, and his sidekick questions whether or not the holocaust happened.

[Axl Van Sixx]

He (comrade Axl) said they're enriching uranium because they're being threatened by the US and Israel. Presumably if you're enriching uranium because you feel threatened, you're not doing it so you can build a power plant.

I have read enough quotes. But I appreciate the offer.

Someone compared the US to Nazi Germany on the last page. A rather poor and lazy analogy, and ironic since one is led by an anti-Semtic despot, with a cult of personality, and his sidekick questions whether or not the holocaust happened.

Let me give an analogy for what you're saying.

There are two world leaders. One is anti-Semitic, and the other attacked nations that did not threaten his country. According to you, I can't compare the second politician to Hitler for launching wars of aggression, but you can compare the first politician to Hitler for being an anti-Semite. Is that correct?

:o

Believe me, that will be my last Nazi analogy on this forum (even though I just posted a link (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/02/first-ad-who-are-nazis-now.html)).

:bdh:

And I never said Iran wasn't trying to build nuclear weapons - that was the head of U.S. intelligence (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/americas-top-spy-we-dont-know-whether-iran-is-even-trying-to-build-a-bomb/252581/). I just said if they were, I probably wouldn't blame them. Why isn't anybody talking about the hundreds of nuclear weapons Israel already has?

[8wid]

How long would an occupation of Iran take? Iraq lasted about nine years and once the war in Afghanistan ends, it will be thirteen years. Combined, the landmass of both those countries would be half the size of Iran, and not even a third of the population in that more urban environment. Can you say at least a twenty year occupation of US and NATO forces? Imagine how much this will add to the US defecit without including the economic affects such as hyperinflation and rising gas prices. Can you imagine thinking another thought like in Iraq that Iran would be a cake walk and also only an aerial war. That is until a 9/11 size attack we always feared Osama Bin Laden would have planned comes to Washington D.C., London, or New York City as a direct result of our attack on Iran.

[Thundercrack85]

Let me give an analogy for what you're saying.

There are two world leaders. One is anti-Semitic, and the other attacked nations that did not threaten his country. According to you, I can't compare the second politician to Hitler for launching wars of aggression, but you can compare the first politician to Hitler for being an anti-Semite. Is that correct?

:o

Believe me, that will be my last Nazi analogy on this forum (even though I just posted a link (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/02/first-ad-who-are-nazis-now.html)).

:bdh:

And I never said Iran wasn't trying to build nuclear weapons - that was the head of U.S. intelligence (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/americas-top-spy-we-dont-know-whether-iran-is-even-trying-to-build-a-bomb/252581/). I just said if they were, I probably wouldn't blame them. Why isn't anybody talking about the hundreds of nuclear weapons Israel already has?

Nazis are the go to villain. I don't deny that I've beaten that dead horse a few times. But my point is simply that Iran is not some helpless country that's facing imperialistic aggression. It's actively provoking. And being an anti-semitic dictator obsessed with wiping out Jews does generally bring up a certain name.

I was referring to that specific "what if".

Israel has had them for half a century. It's not news. Now maybe if they started to threaten to wipe out other countries...

[Asteroid-Man]

He (comrade Axl) said they're enriching uranium because they're being threatened by the US and Israel. Presumably if you're enriching uranium because you feel threatened, you're not doing it so you can build a power plant.
Again, he was talking about enriching uranium, you're talking about them ACTUALLY fashioning nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will NOT be made in Iran - the students will make sure of that. They've already hacked the government computers multiple times (with the world media thinking it was the Israeli and American governments).

I have read enough quotes. But I appreciate the offer.
The point was that you had already made mention of a mistranslation and that there is a very high likelihood that your source of "quotes" could be one of propaganda.

Someone compared the US to Nazi Germany on the last page. A rather poor and lazy analogy, and ironic since one is led by an anti-Semtic despot, with a cult of personality, and his sidekick questions whether or not the holocaust happened.
Ah, the anti-semetic card. No, that's not why it's like the Nazi regime. The Islamic Republic's problems with Israel are more political than anything else, where as Nazi Germany's was ethnic. The Islamic Republic is well aware that ethnically speaking, they come from the same origins as their own Prophet, Muhammad.

So then, wherein lies the similarities?

Lets start from the ground up, shall we? First of all the persecutions of the gays - the gay community in Iran is persecuted in a similar fashion to that of the Nazi regime; this is brought up in American media because of the gay-rights issues apparent in the west as well. Sort of like "You think we're bad? At least we're not as bad as Iran!!"

Then we come to women - again, the West has yet to achieve equality of Men and Women, especially in the area of work opportunities and equal pay, but again "You think we're bad? At least we're not as bad as Iran!!"


Drawing attention to problems with the enemy regime also apparent in their own countries is something that the United States, England and Canada all did during the second World War. They take a look at the issues citizens of their country are most passionate about and apply it to their enemy. Granted Nazi Germany was worse than Canada, USA and UK, but not once did either of those three countries make it an official reason that they had entered the world war to save the Jews. Simply put, they didn't care and neither did most citizens of their own countries.

Now fast forward to 1978 - Prior to the revolution in 1979, a religious minority in Iran had been persecuted since its inception in 1863. Although persecutions of this minority was no longer an official platform of Iran into the 20th century, they continued unofficially. The Baha'is of Iran had been under attack.

Iranian Revolution, 1979 - After the revolution, it became official government policy to have all Baha'is removed from work and school. Their marriage licenses will null, as were any of their diplomas and degrees which they might have obtained before the Islamic Regime. They were then rounded up, placed under surveillance, house arrest, were subject to public humiliation, imprisonment, torture and even death - all of this continues TO THIS DAY.

THAT is why the Islamic Republic of Iran is comparable to the Nazi Regime in Germany - not it's relationship with Israel.

Does the media cover it? Have you heard of this before? Shall I recount the endless atrocities inflicted upon the Baha'is of Iran for you, or do your little "quotes" give you that too?


The fact is, all Governments and Media have agenda's. The current agenda with Iran, believe it or not, is one of oil - strings are pulled all in better business. If war is declared, there's generally a huge insurance check to be collected by the political party in power.

To take either side of this argument is just foolish. There is no "side" to this issue. It's as simple as looking into all of the facts and understanding why people (politicians, news stations, religious elitists etc) say and do what they do.



It saddens me - no it disgusts me to see people's opinions predisposed by those pulling the strings.

[8wid]

FIRST IRAQ AND NOW IRAN---HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGjs6wSXFsE)

[Asteroid-Man]

Why do you keep comparing Iran to Iraq? Sure the American government is using the same excuses as they did with Iraq (for the most part) but the actual issues are hand are COMPLETELY different.

[Dr. Evil]

I do not see a war with Iran happening because I don't see Europe getting involved, mainly because Europe has other issues to worry about than Iran at this point (oh, it's an issue that they have concerns about, but its not at the top of their list).

I say this because Europe has economic matters to worry about, namely trying to stabilize the Euro and trying to ease tensions between The British and the rest of the EU (especially France and Germany) over that issue. Plus, several countries in Europe have recently had new leaders (Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Greece) that may decide that talks are the only way to go in dealing with the Iran issue. Also, France has a major election coming up and the last thing Nicolas Sarkozy needs is to support the US and Israel in military action against Iran, so he will want to go with the diplomacy route if he wants to be re-elected.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Nazis are the go to villain. I don't deny that I've beaten that dead horse a few times. But my point is simply that Iran is not some helpless country that's facing imperialistic aggression. It's actively provoking. And being an anti-semitic dictator obsessed with wiping out Jews does generally bring up a certain name.

Are you aware that Ahmadinejad, as President, doesn't even have that much power? The man with the real decision-making authority is Ali Khamenei. His title kinda gives it away: "Supreme Leader".

But hey, it's so much easier to fit reality into a pre-existing historical archetype. So Ahmadinejad is an "anti-Semitic dictator" instead of what he is, which may be an anti-Semite, but is certainly not a dictator.

Nobody can deny that the Iranian leadership says some incredibly stupid and offensive things. But this is all about domestic politics; there's a parliamentary election this year in Iran. Haven't you noticed that American politicians - Republicans and Obama alike - are threatening Iran more than usual, also in an election year?

Politicians, be they American, Iranian or Israeli, are always happy to win support by demonizing an external enemy.

Israel has had them for half a century. It's not news. Now maybe if they started to threaten to wipe out other countries...

It may not be news (though I think it would be to many North Americans), but it's amazing how it's simply never mentioned in almost any of the stories out there about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon. Don't you think it's a little unusual, not to mention hypocritical, when a country with hundreds of nuclear weapons - or in the case of the U.S., many thousands - is constantly telling us that another country getting one would be some kind of apocalyptic threat?

[Thundercrack85]

Are you aware that Ahmadinejad, as President, doesn't even have that much power? The man with the real decision-making authority is Ali Khamenei. His title kinda gives it away: "Supreme Leader".

But hey, it's so much easier to fit reality into a historical archetype.

Nobody can deny that the Iranian leadership says some incredibly stupid and offensive things. But this is all about domestic politics; there's a parliamentary election this year in Iran. Haven't you noticed that American politicians - Republicans and Obama alike - are threatening Iran more than usual, also in an election year?

Politicians, be they American, Iranian or Israeli, are always happy to win support by demonizing an external enemy.



It may not be news, but it's amazing how it's simply never mentioned in almost any of the stories out there about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon. Don't you think it's a little unusual, not to mention hypocritical, when a country with hundreds of nuclear weapons (or in the case of the U.S., many thousands) is constantly telling us that another country getting one would be some kind of apocalyptic threat?

Actually I was quoting his boss in that one post. If you'll read a page back, I actually point out that the president has little power. Yes, I know the routine. They chant death to so-and-so, but that changes when you start enriching uranium. Those idle threats seem a lot less idle. And most Western leaders have the sense to try not to sound like genocidal madmen. Even in an election year. Most, anyway.

Perhaps. But, I figure inventing them must give you some special ownership rights. The US really should have patented that ****. Russia and China both stole the designs. I'm not crazy about anyone having them. But most of the nations who have them today have shown that they will not use them. Not many people are concerned about Western states (let's count Israel as a Western state for the sake of convenience) starting a nuclear war, or giving them to terrorists.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Actually I was quoting his boss in that one post. If you'll read a page back, I actually point out that the president has little power. Yes, I know the routine. They chant death to so-and-so, but that changes when you start enriching uranium. Those idle threats seem a lot less idle. And most Western leaders have the sense to try not to sound like genocidal madmen. Even in an election year. Most, anyway.

Perhaps. But, I figure inventing them must give you some special ownership rights. The US really should have patented that ****. Russia and China both stole the designs. I'm not crazy about anyone having them. But most of the nations who have them today have shown that they will not use them. Not many people are concerned about Western states (let's count Israel as a Western state for the sake of convenience) starting a nuclear war, or giving them to terrorists.

The United States is the only country in human history to have ever actually used nuclear weapons in war. For it to lecture other countries on nukes is pretty rich.

Speaking of genocide, I guarantee you that if you took half the quotes that right-wing figures in America and Israel always make about Muslims, and changed the word "Muslim" to "Jew", we'd never hear the end of it. But it's perfectly okay to demonize Muslims, because "not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c06UapLlfnw)."

I love how you keep pointing to threatening Iranian rhetoric, but never mention what would happen if they actually got a nuclear weapon. They're not going to use it against Israel, unless they have a death wish (and if you think they do, it just reveals your own prejudice about those barbarous, uncivilized Islamic mullahs). Anyway, there are plenty of hawks (http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranisraelnuclearariel3890624.html) in the U.S. and Israel who have used similarly frightening rhetoric, such as pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Iran and other such nonsense.

Remember General Douglas MacArthur advocating a nuclear strike on China during the Korean War? If you were living in China at that time, would you have described the United States as a danger to world peace led by trigger-happy madmen?

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, the US used nuclear weapons. And it hasn't since. Not in nearly 70 years. Despite the many wars it fought, despite the many times it was on the brink of total war with the Soviet Union. That should tell you something.

I tell you what. If you find me a modern sitting US President (not a Fox News idiot, or a fringe candidate) that calls another country (or a people) a cancer, that needs to be cut, I'll embrace Marxism.

[Asteroid-Man]

What about JFK? He often spoke in such tongue about Russia... but. Also, I find it convenient how you completely ignored the post I made in response to you.

[8wid]

Why do you keep comparing Iran to Iraq? Sure the American government is using the same excuses as they did with Iraq (for the most part) but the actual issues are hand are COMPLETELY different.

What issues are COMPLETELY different?

[Thundercrack85]

What about JFK? He often spoke in such tongue about Russia... but. Also, I find it convenient how you completely ignored the post I made in response to you.

My apologies, I didn't mean to ignore it.

While I am sure that the moderates in the country don't want nuclear weapons, there's not much they can do to stop it. There's not much anyone can do. They can sabotage the regime's efforts, and low it down, but they can't stop it. Not unless there is a popular uprising that overthrows the theocracy.

I didn't start the Nazi comparisons. I don't know who did (it started a few pages ago). I just pointed out the irony of saying the US is more Nazi-like than Iran. The wanting to wipe out the Jews was just the most "topical" similarity. Obviously there are many more and your points are well made.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, except on the nuclear issue.

JFK may have been pissed off with the Soviet Union, but he never used such language. At least, I'm not aware of any such language. He was the guy who wanted a detente.

[8wid]

^JFK is the one who wanted the Russians to accompany the US on a joint space mission to the Moon to plant their flags equally in order to start detante. Nixon, Ford, and Carter continued on this policy until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 showing that the idea was a waste of time with expansionist Russia.

[Asteroid-Man]

What issues are COMPLETELY different?
It comes down to the history of Iran vs that of Iraq. Just look into Iraq's personal history and its relationship with the USA and that of Iran too.

While I am sure that the moderates in the country don't want nuclear weapons, there's not much they can do to stop it. There's not much anyone can do. They can sabotage the regime's efforts, and low it down, but they can't stop it. Not unless there is a popular uprising that overthrows the theocracy.
They can and they were, up until the world media and governments stopped covering it. Honestly, all it takes is that exposure, that support, but a revolution in Iran isn't financially beneficial to countries like the USA or the UK because if a revolution occurs by the people of Iran themselves, they would probably nationalise the oil and that would just **** up the international oil market.

[8wid]

It comes down to the history of Iran vs that of Iraq. Just look into Iraq's personal history and its relationship with the USA and that of Iran too.



Iraq used to be an ally of the United States and was the buffer state against Iran in case they allied with the Soviets or became a free radical against the West. This is why the Reagan administration sold weapons to Saddam Hussein, including the gas he used on the Kurds and any nuclear technology he had. He turned it against the US by invading Kuwait. Iran's democratic government was overthrown by the CIA with the Shah installed until he was overthrown. In retaliation for this Iraq invaded Iran with support from the West. The US puts up puppets and knocks them down when they want revenge for something that did not going according to their interests. They can be a punching bag for the media to spread war propaganda about and to demonize, or if they don't like the regime, one they are bitter at. Both are played against when the West finds it in their best interest.

[Thundercrack85]

Well depending who you ask, the Iraq War was started either because Bush intentionally misled the country into war for profit and / or imperialism. Or because he got faulty intelligence, and jumped the gun like a moron.

Obviously no one wants to make that mistake again.

I'm actually surprised that Iran has been fairly peaceful with Arab Spring happening next door.

[8wid]

Bush's motive is the fact that he is either a paranoid conservative or a greedy corporatist, chances are its both. Either way he was a puppet for big business interests.

The only way to prevent such large corporate greed and control over the economy is to limit their size to only a certain percentage of the market such as 10% that they are allowed to be the size of so that oligopolies cannot form.

[Asteroid-Man]

Well depending who you ask, the Iraq War was started either because Bush intentionally misled the country into war for profit and / or imperialism. Or because he got faulty intelligence, and jumped the gun like a moron.

Obviously no one wants to make that mistake again.

I'm actually surprised that Iran has been fairly peaceful with Arab Spring happening next door.
A lot of the reason as to why the Arab Spring began leads back to the rigged election in Iran (2009) - after over a year it died out because of a lack of international support and a lack of news coverage. If the USA and the UK and Israel REALLY cared about making a change in Iran, they would have endorsed the students, but then the Iranian people would have elected a democratic government and nationalised the oil like they almost did in the 1920s, and the USA doesn't want that.

[Axl Van Sixx]

A lot of the reason as to why the Arab Spring began leads back to the rigged election in Iran (2009) - after over a year it died out because of a lack of international support and a lack of news coverage. If the USA and the UK and Israel REALLY cared about making a change in Iran, they would have endorsed the students, but then the Iranian people would have elected a democratic government and nationalised the oil like they almost did in the 1920s, and the USA doesn't want that.

Yep.

[hippie_hunter]

A lot of the reason as to why the Arab Spring began leads back to the rigged election in Iran (2009) - after over a year it died out because of a lack of international support and a lack of news coverage. If the USA and the UK and Israel REALLY cared about making a change in Iran, they would have endorsed the students, but then the Iranian people would have elected a democratic government and nationalised the oil like they almost did in the 1920s, and the USA doesn't want that.

Last time I checked, Iran had already nationalized it's oil industry back in 1979 with the National Iranian Oil Company and the entire industry is controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum.

You're like.....30 years late on that theory.

[hippie_hunter]

The only way to prevent such large corporate greed and control over the economy is to limit their size to only a certain percentage of the market such as 10% that they are allowed to be the size of so that oligopolies cannot form.

That would never....ever work. I'm going to use the smartphone market as the best example:

1. There is no guarantee that there will be enough companies that will allow a government to limit the market share of a company. Right now, there are essentially four major companies that are in the smartphone market: Apple and the iPhone, Google and Android, Microsoft and Windows Phone, and Research in Motion and Blackberry. I doubt that the government is going to convince many more companies to come in and join the smartphone race. It's a very tough market to get into, just look at how hard it is for Microsoft and Research in Motion right now in the mobile markets. It would also cost billions of dollars for cash rich companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft) to pay for the research and acquisitions needed to get into the market.

2. Some companies just flat out deserve to fail. Research in Motion and their Blackberry platform is the best example of this. By sticking with their outdated and antiquated (technologically speaking) system, Research in Motion allowed themselves to get out-innovated by Google and Apple.

3. By limiting the size of their marketshare, companies like Google and Apple will have no incentive to continually innovate and improve their products.

4. You can't go off and tell consumers what brands they want to buy. You know why Android and the iPhone dominate the market? Because Google and Apple put out the best smartphone products. Consumers want the best at the most affordable prices and what you have is essentially the government telling consumers that they can't buy the brand that they want if a certain marketshare quota has been met.

5. The economic laws of supply and demand will be thrown into complete and utter chaos.

[8wid]

^You not damage competition or the law of supply and demand. Just force the large corporations that control the market to break up and the staff go on to form new corporations to invest in. By increasing the size of the competitive, base the competition and demand for a better product increases as does the quality of the product. If the new larger number of corporations want to produce a viable product, they will form better partnerships with each other and pull new resources from a variety of locations. More ideas than before will be produced. There will be more affordable and quality products that have adapted to the changes in the market that should be better than before. I'm not saying the government should be telling consumers a certain brand because a quota has been met, only the size of the corporation cannot dominate a certain percentage of the market. This lowers the barriers to entry for other businesses and encourages greater competition. Incentive to dominate the global market and only worry about profit would be limited as their need to compete and research more would decrease sole control.

[AntMan]

subscribed

[Destructus86]

wow...do they WANT to start a war? (I know I know...stupid question)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57378108/iran-claims-new-advanced-nuclear-centrifuges/

[8wid]

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on Iran's nuclear progress (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17047451)

As crazy as Ahmedinejad is about many things I have to agree whole heartidly with the sincerity of this statement. The only reason the West so violently opposes Iran's development of nuclear power plants and accusses them of secretly being a nuclear weapons program is because they want to seize the natural resources of Iran for their own business interests through regime change.

[Destructus86]

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on Iran's nuclear progress (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17047451)

As crazy as Ahmedinejad is about many things I have to agree whole heartidly with the sincerity of this statement. The only reason the West so violently opposes Iran's development of nuclear power plants and accusses them of secretly being a nuclear weapons program is because they want to seize the natural resources of Iran for their own business interests through regime change.

Really? I thought it was because the leader of Iran is a lunatic with dreams of genocide? silly me....sorry.

[Asteroid-Man]

Last time I checked, Iran had already nationalized it's oil industry back in 1979 with the National Iranian Oil Company and the entire industry is controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum.

You're like.....30 years late on that theory.
Actually you're mistaken. One of the primary reasons that the United States DID support the revolution in '79 was to renew their oil contracts (not government to government, but the businesses from respective countries who were funding their respective governing bodies). It was all under the tables, but those contracts are still in place.

The only time Iran came close to nationalising its oil was with Mossadeq - which led to a coup backed by the United States and the United Kingdom.

EDIT: My mistake, I meant 50's. Further evidence of this being the case is that the price of oil has been more or less stable since the United States regained control of the oil supply in the west (post opec). Consider the prices of oil during the opec situation to now (taking inflation into account) - it's pretty damn stable.

[Paradoxium]

We should add a poll:

We will go to war with Iran, in a year or two?

Yes

No

[Asteroid-Man]

Ask and ye shall receive, apparently.

[8wid]

I voted definently not because a war in Iran would not be sustainable in the current economic condition nor would it be feasible to militarily occupy a civilian population that size nor the nation's natural resources. After the war in Iraq the international community is not on our side, nor is the American public stupid enough to legimately fall for it again without rioting and possibly is so educated now compard to the last few centuries of wars not to be tricked into anymore major wars like we have been with the exception of World War II.

[enterthemadness]

I voted definently not because a war in Iran would not be sustainable in the current economic condition nor would it be feasible to militarily occupy a civilian population that size nor the nation's natural resources. After the war in Iraq the international community is not on our side, nor is the American public stupid enough to legimately fall for it again without rioting and possibly is so educated now compard to the last few centuries of wars not to be tricked into anymore major wars like we have been with the exception of World War II.

Oh please, Washington doesn't care what we think...a war will most likely happen.

[8wid]

^That may the one good thing out of a war there. Combined with skyrocketing fuel prices, costs of invasion and occupation, too a hyperinflation of the world's leading currency will send the American and global economy into collapse. The US wouldn't recover for years and the break down of civil order in many already oppressed places will occur and rioting greater than the scale of the 1960s will follow including in Washington. A war in Iran is a suicide mission for Wall Street greed and its influence on Pennslyvania Ave. Big business influence in the world would never recover after the collapse of the world economy starts a massive economic depression. Americans will wondering how things got so bad and when they finally figure how unhealthy the corporate influence was over so many decades the culture will grow in apathy to them and that will continue for years.

[enterthemadness]

^That may the one good thing out of a war there. Combined with skyrocketing fuel prices, costs of invasion and occupation, too a hyperinflation of the world's leading currency will send the American and global economy into collapse. The US wouldn't recover for years and the break down of civil order in many already oppressed places will occur and rioting greater than the scale of the 1960s will follow including in Washington. A war in Iran is a suicide mission for Wall Street greed and its influence on Pennslyvania Ave. Big business influence in the world would never recover after the collapse of the world economy starts a massive economic depression. Americans will wondering how things got so bad and when they finally figure how unhealthy the corporate influence was over so many decades the culture will grow in apathy to them and that will continue for years.

Or well....couldn't the govt introduce a new currency if war or recession caused the dollar to bite the dust? Technically speaking, our dollar is worthless already. Lost well over 90% of value since 1913.

[8wid]

U.S., Iran, Israel should cool the rhetoric (http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/16/opinion/menashri-iran-israel/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

[DBryan]

How the UK and American media state the exact opposite of the facts in order to drum up propaganda for war with Iran.

qg09rW9TogI

[Hobgoblin]

Washington, EU Pressure SWIFT to Expel Iran from the Banking Organization

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73034.html

[8wid]

Or well....couldn't the govt introduce a new currency if war or recession caused the dollar to bite the dust? Technically speaking, our dollar is worthless already. Lost well over 90% of value since 1913.

Thing is even if the US did reset the value of the currency who would trust them with controlling the global currency after having to nearly go bankrupt just to take steps to avert their debt. I could see a dumping of the Euro and Dollar as the global currency of choice in exchange for something that a BRICK nation would put out. Probably not China because their currency is too weakened by taking so much US debt.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpv3XE_gG8E&feature=plcp&context=C3b00740UDOEgsToPDskJUL_kqS122bV9pMUPRhGGK )MSM Hyping Iran Threat, Warmongering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpv3XE_gG8E&feature=plcp&context=C3b00740UDOEgsToPDskJUL_kqS122bV9pMUPRhGGK )

[enterthemadness]

Whoa at link, 8wid. Also, youngturks are on tv now, right?

[DBryan]

Sky News lying about Iran.

0a8MdKnm3fw

[craigdbfan]

U.S. to Israel: Don't attack Iran (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/02/us-to-israel-dont-attack-iran/1#.T0JL_8xNlK4)

The United States is urging Israel to forgo a military strike against Iran over its nuclear program, and give international sanctions more time to work.

"We think that it's not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran," said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking Sunday on CNN. "I mean, that's been our counsel to our allies, the Israelis, well-known, well-documented."
Dempsey also said that U.S. officials believe that Iran has not decided whether "to weaponize their nuclear capability."

Because of that uncertainty, Dempsey said, "I think it would be premature to exclusively decide that the time for a military option was upon us."

[8wid]

More war mongering on the part of CNN again...

Nuclear officials meet Iranian leaders as war talk looms (http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/20/world/meast/iran-nuclear/index.html?npt=NP1)

[Hobgoblin]

One in Three Chance of $5 Gas This Summer if War with Iran
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/20/markets/oil_gas_iran/index.htm?hpt=hp_c1


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Oil prices rose Monday after Iran cut exports to Britain and France, raising worries that higher gas prices may follow suit.

Iran's oil ministry said Sunday that it would stop exporting oil to French and British companies. The announcement came just days after Iran threatened to cut supplies to some European Union countries in retaliation for sanctions put in place by the EU and United States.



U.S. crude for April delivery jumped nearly 2% to $105.08 per barrel. Brent crude, Europe's benchmark, rose about 0.5% to $120.18 per barrel.

Prices for Brent haven't been above $120 for more than a year, and that could prove worrisome for U.S. drivers since many U.S. refineries use imported oil to produce gas, especially on the East Coast.

Prices are already up nearly 9% from the start of the year. According to motorist group AAA, the national average price of $3.56 a gallon marks the 13th consecutive increase.
Gas prices may hit $5

The price of unleaded gasoline in the U.S. will likely hit a nationwide average of $4 by this summer, said Dan Dicker, oil trader and author of "Oil's Endless Bid." The last time prices topped $4 was 2008 and Dicker said there's a one in three chance that gas could reach $5 a gallon.

If gas prices do head to those lofty levels, that could put a crimp in the economic recovery as consumers will likely cut down on spending if they have to pay more to fill up their cars.


Just last month, higher gas prices were to blame for an uptick in inflation. And it's not just consumers who will suffer. Companies facing higher shipping costs may reel in their hiring plans, slowing job growth and putting a crimp into the overall economic recovery.

"This price juggernaut has taken on a life of its own since the Iran/Israeli threat flinging began and [the] boycott/sanctions war continues to ratchet upwards, and it's been made worse by the big run in stocks since the start of the year," said Dicker.

Capital Economics analyst Julian Jessop said the stock market rebound has contributed at least $5 worth of gains to the price of oil.

Israel has contributed to the market mayhem by openly considering an attack on Tehran's nuclear infrastructure.

Iran exports 2.2 million barrels of oil per day, a sliver of the 89 million barrels that is consumed worldwide on a daily basis. Less than one-fifth of Iran's exports are sent to Europe.

The move by Iran is "essentially an empty gesture, as the UK and France buy hardly any oil," said Jessop in a client note.
Check gas prices in your state

But it doesn't take much to trigger a fluctuation in prices, and even a bit player like Iran can wreck havoc on international markets.

"The supply is tethered so tightly to demand, that if you do lose even a small percentage of supply, it could have a big effect on the price," said Dicker.

-- CNNWires staff contributed to this report To top of page
First Published: February 20, 2012: 10:00 AM ET

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

I propose we send in propagandists to manipulate the disenfranchised youth into revolution. That way we can secure our hold on Iran and its oil without any threat to our military.

[mikey1974]

well,Iran didn't do itself,or the world,any favors with the recent visit by the IAEA...they had a perfect opportunity to show the inspector's that their program is strictly for non-military purposes,to literally take the teeth out of the countries saying they're developing nuclear weapons,and make any potential attack by Israel into a moment to make Israel the bad guys of the international community - instead they blocked access to some sites and scientists,and further aroused suspicions by being unable to explain there whereabouts of a small amount of enriched uranium that went missing,not enough to actually make a bomb,but enough to use in weapons research....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-24/iran-dismissed-weapons-concerns-tripled-uranium-production-iaea-says.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/25/us-nuclear-iran-uranium-idUSTRE81O08V20120225

even Putin opened his mouth,and said that Russia is against Iran developing Nuclear Weapons,and it would lead to greater risks in international stability....

[Hobgoblin]

Yeah, its almost like Iran is actually trying to hide something. :dry:

[mikey1974]

Yeah, its almost like Iran is actually trying to hide something. :dry:

now how can that be!? they're ONLY enriching uranium for medical and power purposes!! :doh:

[8wid]

I have the same reasoning the Iran would in response to the issue of letting in UN inspectors to see my nuclear program... "who do you (America) think you are demanding such an action when you've lied about these types of allegations before and not taken any responsibiolity for the many proven mistakes that have been made."

What right does the United States or Britain have to demand inspection of its nuclear weapons program when they don't question that of Israel or let Iran inspect their own, why should Iran have to give into to what they want when there is no evidence of a nuclear weapon being developed. Nor is the West the most polite countries either in investigating the issue without demonizing their chosen leaders nor without the war rhetoric each time. It's not that hard to imagine why Iran would not trust the United States or other Western nations to inspect them.

[DBryan]

I'm disappointed that people are falling for this propaganda so easily. It's basically a re-do of "Iraq has WMDs and has ties to Al Queda".

[Hobgoblin]

I honestly dont know if Iran is using its plants for military or peaceful purposes. None of us do. In that case, we need to treat the possibility of a nuclear Iran seriously but not jump to conclusions. Not taking Iran's threats against Israel seriously or jumping into military action too quickly is equally foolish.

[Midnyte_Sun]

There is no question in my mind they want to build nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the best deterrent for military occupation by Western forces. Just look at Pakistan. The whole country is on the brink of anarchy, and the Americans are spending billions to stabilize it.

If Iran has nukes, it is a game changer in the Middle East. Iran will have more pull in the region, it will decrease its dependence on oil as energy, provide clean energy to its growing cities and in essence, spread its geo-political might to areas that America currently is losing: Central Asia and the Middle East. This all works to the benefit of China and Russia too.

[Thundercrack85]

No, Russia would not be onboard with that. Because if Iran has nuclear weapons, its neighbors will want them. And then Russia will have to deal with a nuclear arms race in its backyard. Russia is starting to come out against Iran. China has enough on its plate without Iran.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Its neighbors being who? The former CAR's? Eastern Bloc? None of those former republics can not function without Russian aid. If anything, Russia would and could change regimes in those nations without a fight. Besides, most of those nations already have Russian-friendly dictators.

[Thundercrack85]

No, Iran's neighbors. Like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. If Iran starts stockpiling nukes, they'll inevitably come into conflict.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Iran would never nuke Saudi Arabia, nor would the Saudis nuke Iran. Nobody wants to invade Iraq, in fact they are cozy with the Iranians so that won't happen either. Syria might need it to protect itself from regime change, but Lebanon has no need for them with the powerful support from Syria and Iran.

The only country that would need them is Israel, but any powerful nuclear attack on Israel means collateral damage on Jerusalem or the Palestinians, so that is also a non-issue. Iran would never nuke Israel, it would be a similar build up scenario like the war between India and Pakistan.

The only wildcard is if the Iranian regime shares nuclear weapon technology to rogue elements like Hezbollah, or the Taliban, but that again, would be counter intuitive as any nuclear strike would be followed by a similar if not grossly exaggerated response by Israel on Hezbollah. Also, the Taliban are mortal enemies of the Islamic regime in Iran, and they would never share nuclear secrets with a hardline and hostile Sunni government in Afghanistan.

So in essence, I believe nuclear weapons will be used as a deterrent against regime change and that is the main concern for the West as they don't want the Islamic republic of Iran in gaining more power.

[Thundercrack85]

That's not how proliferation works. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, and it becomes increasingly hostile towards other countries (all of this appears to be happening right now) then the other countries will want their own as a deterrent. Proliferation breeds proliferation.

Civil wars and revolutions in many of these countries are not unlikely. The last thing this part of the world needs is nuclear proliferation.

Most countries don't want nuclear weapons to use them offensively, they want them as a deterrent or so they can act militarily with virtual impunity.

[8wid]

The idea that IF Iran got nuclear weapons, other countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia getting them would build them too and start an arms race is as absurd as the fear once N. Korea got nukes, South Korea and Japan would build them too as a deterant. It's all merely unbased speculation and hype.

The only real reason the American public fears Iran is because the corporate media sources most of the trust and watch say it it is. Most Americans work during the week days to come home to corporate news sources telling them about the latest threatening remarks Iran has made to the West, supposed terror involvement in Iraq, Israel, the United States, or Afghanistan. Too a story about the latest hardware Iran bought from Russia is next without stating the purpose it was bought for or where it is going. The newspaper through the AP recirculates what they say to increase their readers. On Saturday or on their day off during the weekdays, most readers will being reading books about future speculation, television shows that deal with the theme, reruns of old specials on the History, Discovery, or National Geographic Channels dealing with the topic or pseudo science, especially Bible prophecy. Saturday often brings the video games sponsoring it or ads by the US military on during violent these times to get these impressionable minds into the idea too. By Sunday, most Americans will have at some point gone to church or talked to someone who went and been warned about the End Times coming, the dangers some vague source in Israel said or was quoted from a cable network by the preacher warned about Iran's nuclear program, usually FOX, and they will think about it and believe it more. Some will often give them a DVD or a book they bought promoting this idea and the need to protect Israel from a nuclear holocaust by Iran. Most of the few televangelist shows available on TV will deal with end times topics the entire broadcast and sell products endorsing the idea too.

Only a few corporations control most of the television networks, magazines, and major newspapers in the United States. Video games draw from major events, often with a corporate owner not on the label like Disney or Fox and make games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Tom Clancy's End War and more to satisfy their fans, promote the dangers of war in the Middle East while too desensitizing them to violence.

It's already common sense that the highly-religious, millionaire, corporate investing members of Congress manipulate war for profit and have many deals with special interests from a variety of backgrounds. Religious leaders have similar relationships, but especially in the Republican Party. The entire system promotes a pro-war agenda because it stands from gaining profit, increased viewership, and political control from a war in Iran or the fear there is going to be one and they have mined the controlled routines of Americans for decades with it.

[Thundercrack85]

Japan and South Korea have nukes by proxy. They are protected by American nuclear fleets stationed there. Though actually, Japan will likely rearm itself in the near future, especially with China's ongoing naval build up.

Though do you really want to use North Korea as an example? Is anyone who isn't on the Kim family payroll happy with the fact that they have nuclear weapons? What do you think will ultimately happen to those weapons?

[Midnyte_Sun]

That's not how proliferation works. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, and it becomes increasingly hostile towards other countries (all of this appears to be happening right now) then the other countries will want their own as a deterrent. Proliferation breeds proliferation.

Civil wars and revolutions in many of these countries are not unlikely. The last thing this part of the world needs is nuclear proliferation.

Most countries don't want nuclear weapons to use them offensively, they want them as a deterrent or so they can act militarily with virtual impunity.

Yeah but proliferation doesn't necessarily mean active use of nuclear arms. India and Pakistan are the best example of two mortal enemies with radical political parties that have not and most likely will not use them on each other.

It does elevate the risk, but like Israel, Iran will likely use it as a deterrent against invasion. But at the same time, if Israel chooses to attack prematurely, it will ignite a war in the middle east and make it highly unstable for itself when Lebanon, Syria, even Shia elements in Pakistan and Afghanistan will raise arms against it. It is not a good scenario if they start a war.

[Hobgoblin]

Assassinated Iranian Scientist's Wife Admits Nuke Program for Israel
http://news.yahoo.com/wife-admits-iranian-nuclear-scientist-ultimate-goal-annihilation-174209842.html

[Thundercrack85]

Yeah but proliferation doesn't necessarily mean active use of nuclear arms. India and Pakistan are the best example of two mortal enemies with radical political parties that have not and most likely will not use them on each other.

It does elevate the risk, but like Israel, Iran will likely use it as a deterrent against invasion. But at the same time, if Israel chooses to attack prematurely, it will ignite a war in the middle east and make it highly unstable for itself when Lebanon, Syria, even Shia elements in Pakistan and Afghanistan will raise arms against it. It is not a good scenario if they start a war.

But no one would suggest that it's a good idea. Especially given the deteriorating situation in that country.

[WildcatNC]

I'm disappointed that people are falling for this propaganda so easily. It's basically a re-do of "Iraq has WMDs and has ties to Al Queda".

This.


Of course Iran wants nukes. Every country in that unstable region that doesn't already have them wants them. Its a game changer on the world stage. You get to sit at the big kids table and get treated with respect. You would be crazy NOT to want them.

There is no evidence they have them though and they have nowhere near an adequate delivery system. This is all just a re-hash of the war propaganda, ala Iraq. How people do not see this amazes me.

Its not our business to police the world anyway. This place is right in the backyard of Russia, China, India, etc. Hell, Europe is closer to them AND in more danger from them than we are. Let some of them take care of it AND pay for it (money and lives).

I suspect we are taking care of business for Israel or the Saudi's rather than our actual security anyway.

[Hobgoblin]

I suspect we are taking care of business for Israel or the Saudi's rather than our actual security anyway.

Yes, I believe that is the point of alliances. One side looks out for the other.

[WildcatNC]

Yes, I believe that is the point of alliances. One side looks out for the other.

The point of alliances isn't systematically spending all of our money and lives to eliminate their enemies and threats, on a preemptive basis no less. Its criminal behavior and we sure as hell wouldn't tolerate it in our hemisphere, ask Cuba.

Its just wrong and a criminal foreign policy IMO. This very attitude and policy is what has created the whole mess over there for the last century or so, same as in South America.

[AntMan]

The U.S cannot sustain a war with Iran. The idea we are considering this is stupid.

[Hobgoblin]

The point of alliances isn't systematically spending all of our money and lives to eliminate their enemies and threats, on a preemptive basis no less. Its criminal behavior and we sure as hell wouldn't tolerate it in our hemisphere, ask Cuba.

Its just wrong and a criminal foreign policy IMO. This very attitude and policy is what has created the whole mess over there for the last century or so, same as in South America.

So you are fine with the chance that a long time ally could get vaporized?

[WildcatNC]

The U.S cannot sustain a war with Iran. The idea we are considering this is stupid.

Haven't you ever played Risk? The US certainly is. They never intended on leaving the middle east anyway. Its been a priority since the 70's. They are going to stay there and keep border hopping and give us whatever lies and propaganda they can to convince people its a good idea. Hell , we can even put sanctions on someone, interfere with their internal politics to piss them off, then when they get angry about it we can cry that they are "a danger to the US and want to bomb us". Then call anyone a "terrorist sympathizer" that calls us out on it.

Its not hard to see how we operate.

[WildcatNC]

So you are fine with the chance that a long time ally could get vaporized?

I assume your talking about Israel.

Its fear mongering, plain and simple. Israel doesn't need us to handle its affairs and THEY have said as much. What happened the last time the middle east jumped on Israel? Regardless of what Iran builds its not going to outgun Israel, we have made sure of that. If Russia and China don't want nukes going off on their borders then they should step up and take action.

This notion of preemptive wars is empire building nonsense. This whole idea of alliances, did we learn nothing from WWI? (thats rhetorical, we obviously didn't) Its one thing to have allies, its another to get drug into policing their neighborhood for them with our money and lives.

[Hobgoblin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we allies with Iran until the 1979 Islamic Revolution when hostages were taken? Since that point, its been tit for tat between us. We support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, they become a state sponsor of terrorism. They attack synagogues around the world, we lump them with the Axis of Evil. They say Israel needs to be wiped off the map, we say no options are off the table to end their nuke program. We slap sanctions on them, they threaten to close the Straights.

My point is, neither side is innocent. But all I keep hearing is "This is Iraq all over again," and "This is all propaganda!" and "Iran has no desire to attack other countries!" I was no fan of the Iraq War at all and I dont like the idea of an Iran War but for crying out loud, Iran is not a poor misunderstood victim. You're fooling your self if you believe that.

[Hobgoblin]

I did some digging and found this video. I'm willing to take a second look at my stance.

Akfs-E9dLEo

[WildcatNC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we allies with Iran until the 1979 Islamic Revolution when hostages were taken? Since that point, its been tit for tat between us. We support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, they become a state sponsor of terrorism. They attack synagogues around the world, we lump them with the Axis of Evil. They say Israel needs to be wiped off the map, we say no options are off the table to end their nuke program. We slap sanctions on them, they threaten to close the Straights.

My point is, neither side is innocent. But all I keep hearing is "This is Iraq all over again," and "This is all propaganda!" and "Iran has no desire to attack other countries!" I was no fan of the Iraq War at all and I dont like the idea of an Iran War but for crying out loud, Iran is not a poor misunderstood victim. You're fooling your self if you believe that.


Oh i'm not saying that at all. It is a bad regime no doubt. I'm more countering this notion that we are innocent and just being the hero. We constantly throw gasoline on a fire and cry when we get burned. I'm saying we need to mind our own damn business and let the other superpowers take care of rogue states in their hemisphere and on their borders. We have been meddling over there, from propping up regimes, arming rebels, training and arming terrorists, economic warfare, etc. Then we cry foul when there is blowback and claim we are "defending ourselves" or "spreading democracy" and invade them. Should we just go invade every country we think isn't nice enough? When you set a precedent of policing the world, where do you draw the line?

If we want others to respect our sovereignty then we must respect theirs. Its not ok for other countries to meddle in our hemisphere but we certainly can in theirs?

Its all hypocritical criminal nonsense imo. Its empire building disguised as "spreading democracy" (which we don't even practice). Our foreign policy operates much like organized crime.

[WildcatNC]

I did some digging and found this video. I'm willing to take a second look at my stance.

Akfs-E9dLEo

Good find. That's what I was referring to in the sense that they can (and want to) take care of themselves. We aren't eager to give up our power and influence over them though.

I think we publicly are being captain save-a-hoe for Israel, but I think the ones we are really in bed with are the Saudi's. We are so intertwined financially at the top levels that we would attack anyone they really wanted us to.

Keep looking into it. I think you will find out what I have. None of us know it all and i'm still learning as well.

The important thing is to not be an ideologue and seek out the truth.

[Hobgoblin]

Fair enough. I think we have a better understanding of each other now. *salutes*

[Hobgoblin]

Here is another question I'm going to throw out to everyone:

Let's say Iran does develop a bomb and manages to destroy Israel. What, if anything, should the U.S. do?

[WildcatNC]

Here is another question I'm going to throw out to everyone:

Let's say Iran does develop a bomb and manages to destroy Israel. What, if anything, should the U.S. do?

In the hypothetical that Iran were to somehow accomplish that, they would also be wiped from the map. Israel has some of the best equipment we can provide, including nukes (though i'm not sure if they "officially" admit to having them, i'll have to check).

It would be mutual annihilation IMO, we wouldn't have to do anything. It probably WOULD set off whole other s***storms over there though.

[NY1981]

Even if it hasn't been official or confirmed, Israel has nukes. Would be mutual assured destruction if something like that ever happened and a lot of fallout both literally and figuratively. Israel has had their finger on the trigger towards Iran for quite some time now and wouldn't hesitate to wipe them out as well.

[WildcatNC]

Even if it hasn't been official or confirmed, Israel has nukes. Would be mutual assured destruction if something like that ever happened and a lot of fallout both literally and figuratively. Israel has had their finger on the trigger towards Iran for quite some time now and wouldn't hesitate to wipe them out as well.

Agreed.

I looked into it real quick and Israel definitely has nukes. They CANT admit it or we would have to stop giving them aid due to Nuclear Anti-proliferation treaties.

Israel is much more of a danger to Iran than vice versa IMO. Iran would get the worse end of any war against Israel, as would ANY other middle eastern nation. We have armed and trained them well over the years. They are geared for defense mostly though, not offense. Israel couldn't take punishment as well as Iran though and would have to rely on the Arrow missile defense system to protect them. Iran could withstand a few nukes even. Israel has much less surface to cover with missiles.

[8wid]

Message Behind 'Bomb Iran' Billboard (http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2012/02/26/dnt-bomb-iran-billboard.ksl.html)

[WildcatNC]

Message Behind 'Bomb Iran' Billboard (http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2012/02/26/dnt-bomb-iran-billboard.ksl.html)

That guys on top of things. Glad to see it.

[DBryan]

Here is another question I'm going to throw out to everyone:

Let's say Iran does develop a bomb and manages to destroy Israel. What, if anything, should the U.S. do?

Depends.

If its in response from an attack from Israel? Then USA should do nothing.

[Hobgoblin]

Depends.

If its in response from an attack from Israel? Then USA should do nothing.

And if Iran attacks first?

[Midnyte_Sun]

They're not going to nuke each other.

[Hobgoblin]

They're not going to nuke each other.

That's why this is a hypothetical.

[Midnyte_Sun]

My bad, I'll play along lol.

"Let's say Iran does develop a bomb and manages to destroy Israel. What, if anything, should the U.S. do?"

Gather their allies in the region, topple the government of Iran, destroy their entire army and navy. It's highly doubtful nuking Iran in retaliation would make the situation any better, or end any war.

[DACrowe]

I do not want an Iran War. It would cost far too much in human life as well as treasure we don't have and the results will be negligible....you can't force them to not build a nuke without a decade-long regime change.

The only reason I'm posting here is too many seem to think the Iranian government is fine and dandy. The same government that guns down its own citizens who protest fraudulent elections, calls Israel a cancer soon to be removed, supplied Hezbollah in their 2006 war with Israel and has helped kill hundreds of Americans in Iraq. They are not an innocent victim attacked by the much "dreaded" MSM.

Also, a little nugget to chew on: Let's say Iran gets nuclear weapons and doesn't decide to attack Israel....for now, just as many of their proponents say. But still in this region of the world, Iran is nuclear and most of the Middle East is not. Suddenly, Saudi Arabia, the "secular" and western-friendly counter to the more ideological and indoctronaire Iranian regime wants nuclear weapons. They start trying to build and hey, since they helped the ever so stable and trustworthy Pakistan with their nuclear program, perhaps Pakistan will return the favor and ship some weapons Saudi's way. Now other regional powers see the Saudis, Iranians, Pakistanis and Israelis all have nuclear weapons. Well, Egypt and Turkey aren't going to be outdone in their continued regional pissing contest, so they start building.

You think the Middle East is a headache now? Imagine a nuclear Middle East in a perpetual state of Cold War? But it's okay, because countries like Egypt have always been the model of stability. I'm not endorsing war with Iran. I'm just saying those who dismiss the idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons as moot to consider the larger picture.

[Thundercrack85]

The best we can hope for is that Iran gives up its nuclear program voluntarily like Gaddafi's Libya. But that seems increasingly less likely.

[Midnyte_Sun]

I do not want an Iran War. It would cost far too much in human life as well as treasure we don't have and the results will be negligible....you can't force them to not build a nuke without a decade-long regime change.

The only reason I'm posting here is too many seem to think the Iranian government is fine and dandy. The same government that guns down its own citizens who protest fraudulent elections, calls Israel a cancer soon to be removed, supplied Hezbollah in their 2006 war with Israel and has helped kill hundreds of Americans in Iraq. They are not an innocent victim attacked by the much "dreaded" MSM.

Also, a little nugget to chew on: Let's say Iran gets nuclear weapons and doesn't decide to attack Israel....for now, just as many of their proponents say. But still in this region of the world, Iran is nuclear and most of the Middle East is not. Suddenly, Saudi Arabia, the "secular" and western-friendly counter to the more ideological and indoctronaire Iranian regime wants nuclear weapons. They start trying to build and hey, since they helped the ever so stable and trustworthy Pakistan with their nuclear program, perhaps Pakistan will return the favor and ship some weapons Saudi's way. Now other regional powers see the Saudis, Iranians, Pakistanis and Israelis all have nuclear weapons. Well, Egypt and Turkey aren't going to be outdone in their continued regional pissing contest, so they start building.

You think the Middle East is a headache now? Imagine a nuclear Middle East in a perpetual state of Cold War? But it's okay, because countries like Egypt have always been the model of stability. I'm not endorsing war with Iran. I'm just saying those who dismiss the idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons as moot to consider the larger picture.

Agreed. Although, I still don't think anybody would use them. They are the best regime change deterrents and I can see how developing nations would want them. Pakistan and India are a good example of mortal enemies that have killed a total of a million people between them and have yet to use even one nuclear weapon.

[WildcatNC]

Yep, they want us out of their business.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/israel-wont-warn-us-befor_n_1305601.html?1330398253&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D139005

[Donut]

The U.S. has no right to police the world & to needlessly risk American Lives. Only get involved if the U.S. is threatened

[8wid]

And if Iran attacks first?

If Iran attacks Israel first than it's Israel's problem. Iran firing missiles at US bases in Kuwait or Afghanistan or planning a suicide bombing in the New York Subway on the other hand is a blantant act of war that could be justified by an aerial war that eliminates the regime, no ground troops though. The occupation alone would take at least twenty-five years. An attack by Iran would see that nation as the aggressor in the eyes of the international community though.

[DACrowe]

An aerial war would not eliminate the Iranian regime, but probably embolden it by reinforcing its rhetoric of the evil west and Americans who want to destroy an Islamic "republic." I've seen statements from the Pentagon and Panetta that range US aerial assaults could delay Iran's nuclear program anywhere between 2 to 10 years. But the aftermath could cause the regime to be more determined to get one and to no longer comply with the few international regulators they currently do in the quest for nuclear power.

In short, you cannot be blazé about Iran. A war with that country would not be another Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, etc. where we intervened on the side of rebels or endangered dissidents. No, we'd likely be looking at a full-scale war. The kind that would make Iraq look reasonable. If there was solely an air war, we'd be back with at this point with an even more dangerous Iran in five years.

I don't want it. The US cannot bare the cost of this war, but Iran continues to poke the proverbial international bear for attention. I think Israel has legitimate cause to be concerned, moreso than New York commuters which is hawkish paranoia, and that is where the needle is going to move, if it does. I still hope that Iran will come back to the table as the Oil embargo has made them desperate for cash. That seems like the best, though unlikely, scenario at this point.

[Thundercrack85]

If the trade sanctions don't work, there's little anyone can do.

[8wid]

I don't want it. The US cannot bare the cost of this war, but Iran continues to poke the proverbial international bear for attention. I think Israel has legitimate cause to be concerned, moreso than New York commuters which is hawkish paranoia, and that is where the needle is going to move, if it does. I still hope that Iran will come back to the table as the Oil embargo has made them desperate for cash. That seems like the best, though unlikely, scenario at this point.

Of course the United States cannot bare the cost of this war, it's almost bankrupt after the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan. A large war between, Israel, Iran, and or the United States means SCUDS or cruise missiles being fired at Israel, oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, and others where the West draws much of its oil from. Iran's oil fields will probably meet the same fate in a last ditch fight. I'd might think they would burn their own oil fields like Iraq did in retreat during the last war. Missiles can be fired on US bases in the area including Afghanistan. This means countless thousands of civilians are killed in the Middle East, and elsewhere where retribution is taken against American, Israeli, and Jewish interests.

Whether the Straits of Hormuz or closed or not its very likely Iran would fire on oil fields in the Middle East and destroy the infrastructure that is already fragile. The global flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf would be cut off and it would take years to rebuilt all of the infrastructure. Because ethanol effects everything from the production of consumer goods to the transporation of food, imagine hyperinflation to happen on a global scale. Fragile economies already in huge debt would collapse and the entire world would be dragged down by it. Imagine another Great Depression from it. The scenario in V for Vendetta is not impossible in the long run either.

Iran War Scenario (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJzHVVGrCs0)

Although I think the realistic idea of a war with Iran is unlikely and just rhetoric used by the media to gain ratings and make money. Ever since the United States invaded Iraq, this rhetoric of an attack on Iran has been racheted up, it's gotten old and nothing has really changed since it started. The same hype existed over the war in Iraq initially going nuclear, regarding chemical weapons used against NATO troops, suicide bombings at gathering places for Americans and Israelis around the world, the war extending into Syria where they felt the WMDs might have been moved too, even to Afghanistan where Osama Bin Laden could have some weapons of his own. Alot of fear mongering and paranoia revolves around the issue, I wouldn't fear a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities too much, corporate media only uses it for manipulation.