🇮🇷 The Iran Thread II

[8wid]

Iran nuclear crisis: Sanctions 'beginning to bite'

 

[8wid]

Iran nuclear crisis: EU moves towards crude oil ban

 

[8wid]

Iran death sentence for 'CIA spy' Amir Mirzai Hekmati

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Look at CNN 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.

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.

 

[Thundercrack85]

And why are they placing economic sanctions?

 

[Crazy Quilt]

Look at CNN 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.

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.

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.

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...?

 

[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.

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

The CIA is at it again

 

[chamber-music]

More likely Mossad than the CIA