help - search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!
fmforums > discussion forums > politics
ezra_z
Because oh my god they might attack someone somewhere with a nuke they don't have!

This is what I believe is the truth:
Former Assisstant US Treasury sec and editor of WSJ; Paul Craig Roberts:

QUOTE
Only the blind do not see that the US government is preparing to attack Iran. According to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, “Active war preparations directed against Iran (with the involvement of Israel and NATO) were initiated in May 2003.”

Washington has deployed missiles directed at Iran in its oil emirate puppet states, Oman and the UAE, and little doubt in the other US puppet states in the Middle East. Washington has beefed up Saudi Arabia’s jet fighter force. Most recently, Washington has deployed 9,000 US troops to Israel to participate in “war games” designed to test the US/Israeli air defense system. As Iran represents no threat unless attacked, Washington’s war preparations signal Washington’s intention to attack Iran.

Another signal that Washington has a new war on its agenda is the raised level of Washington’s rhetoric and demonization of Iran. Judging by polls Washington’s propaganda that Iran is threatening the US by developing a nuclear weapon has met with success. Half of the American public support a military attack on Iran in order to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capability. Those of us who are trying to awaken our fellow citizens start from a deficit that the minds of half of the US population are under Big Brother’s control.

As the International Atomic Energy Agency’s reports from its inspectors on the ground in Iran have made clear for years, there is no evidence that Iran has diverted any enriched uranium from its nuclear energy program. The shrill hype coming from Washington and from the neoconservative media is groundless. It is the same level of lie as Washington’s claim that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Every US soldier who died in that war died in behalf of a lie.

It could not be more obvious that Washington’s war preparations against Iran have nothing to do with deterring Iran from a nuclear weapon. So, what are the war preparations about?

In my judgment, the US government’s war preparations are driven by three factors.
One is the neoconservative ideology, adopted by the US government, that calls for the US to use its superior military and economic position to achieve world hegemony. This goal appeals to American hubris and to the power and profit that it serves.

A second factor is Israel’s desire to eliminate all support for the Palestinians and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Israel’s goal is to seize all of Palestine and the water resources of southern Lebanon. Eliminating Iran removes all obstacles to Israel’s expansion.

A third factor is to deter or slow China’s rise as a military and economic power by controlling China’s access to energy. It was China’s oil investments in eastern Libya that led to the sudden move against Libya by the US and its NATO puppets, and it is China’s oil investments elsewhere in Africa that resulted in the Bush regime’s creation of the United States Africa Command, designed to counter China’s economic influence with US military influence. China has significant energy investments in Iran, and a substantial percentage of China’s oil imports are from Iran. Depriving China of independent access to oil is Washington’s way of restraining and boxing in China.

What we are witnessing is a replay of Washington’s policy toward Japan in the 1930s that provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan’s bank balances in the West were seized, and Japan’s access to oil and raw materials was restricted. The purpose was to prevent or to slow Japan’s rise. The result was war.

Despite the hubris in which it wallows, Washington understands the vulnerability of its Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and would not risk losing a fleet and 20,000 US naval personnel unless it was to gain an excuse for a nuclear attack on Iran. A nuclear attack on Iran would alert both China and Russia that they could suffer the same fate. The consequence would be that the world would face a higher risk of nuclear armageddon than existed in the mutually assured destruction of the US-Soviet standoff.

Washington is getting all of us in over our heads. Washington has declared the “Asia-Pacific” and the South China Sea to be areas of “America’s national interest.” What sense does this make? It makes the same sense as if China declared the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean Sea to be areas of China’s national interest.

Washington has deployed 2,500 Marines, promising more to come, to Australia in order to do what? Protect Australia from China or occupy Australia? Encircle China with 2,500 Marines? It would not mean anything to China if Washington deployed 25,000 Marines in Australia.

When you get right down to it, Washington’s tough talk is nothing but a silly pointless provocation of Washington’s largest creditor. What if Washington’s idiocy causes China to worry that Washington and its UK and European puppets will seize its bank balances and refuse to honor China’s holdings of $1 trillion in US Treasury bonds? Will China pull its balances from the weak US, UK, and European banks? Will China decide to strike first, not with nuclear weapons, but by selling its $1 trillion in Treasury bonds all at once?

It would be cheaper than war.

The Federal Reserve would have to quickly print another $1 trillion dollars with which to buy the bonds, or US interest rates would shoot up. What would China do with the $1 trillion in newly printed paper? In my opinion, China would dump it all at once in the currency market, because the Federal Reserve cannot print euros, UK pounds, Japanese yen, Swiss francs, Russian rubles, and Chinese yuan with which to buy up its newly printed currency.

The US dollar would take a beating. US import prices – which now include, thanks to offshoring, almost everything Americans consume – would rise. The hard-pressed 90% would take a further beating, endearing their Washington oppressors to them to an even greater extent. The rest of the world, anticipating nuclear war, would flee the dollar, as Washington would be a primary attack target.

If the missiles aren’t launched, Americans would wake up the next day a bankrupt third world country. If the missiles were launched, few Americans would wake up.

We, as Americans, need to ask ourselves what all this is about? Why is our government so provocative toward Islam, Russia, China, Iran? What purpose, whose purpose is being served? Certainly not ours.

Who benefits from our bankrupt government starting yet more wars, picking this time not on defenseless countries like Iraq and Libya, but on China and Russia? Do the idiots in Washington think the Russian government does not know why Russia is being surrounded with missile bases and radar systems? Do the Washington morons really believe that the Russian government will fall for its lie that the missiles are directed against Iran? Only American idiots who sit in front of Fox “news” could possible believe that the real issue is an Iranian nuclear weapon.

...

Where do we go from here? If not to nuclear destruction, Americans must wake up. Football games, porn, and shopping malls are one thing. Survival of human life is another. Washington, that is, “representative government,” consists only of a few powerful vested interests. These private interests, not the American people, control the US government.

That is why nothing that the US government does benefits the American people.

The current crop of presidential contenders, except for Ron Paul, represent the controlling interests. War and financial fraud are the only remaining American Values.

Will Americans again give the sheen of “democracy” to rule by a few by participating in the coming rigged elections?
Boy1der
The revolution is being televised.
Kev
Ron Paul spin
paddyirl
Iran has no military bases in Canada or Mexico whereas the US has bases littered throughout the Middle East.

Who exactly is the aggressor? Because it doesn't look like Iran.


sanitynotincluded
QUOTE
Iran represents no threat unless attacked


So their efforts to destabalise Iraq and Afghanistan and their material support of Hamas and Hezbollah are non threatening. I'm sure all those Israeli civilians will be relieved that they don't need to feel threatened by the rockets landing on them or by the prospect that they might one day have nukes on board.

QUOTE(paddyirl @ Jan 14 2012, 16:41) *

Iran has no military bases in Canada or Mexico whereas the US has bases littered throughout the Middle East.

Who exactly is the aggressor? Because it doesn't look like Iran.


What a surprise. paddygirl is on the side of the tyrants.

paddyirl
Who is the aggressor, if you think a war would be about getting rid of a tyrant you are even more stupid that I already thought you were.

Because Saudi Arabia is far more oppressive than Iran and is praised by the West.
ezra_z
QUOTE(sanitynotincluded @ Jan 18 2012, 22:58) *
So their efforts to destabalise Iraq and Afghanistan and their material support of Hamas and Hezbollah are non threatening. I'm sure all those Israeli civilians will be relieved that they don't need to feel threatened by the rockets landing on them or by the prospect that they might one day have nukes on board.


Hezbollah or Hamas are not Iran.

"So the US's efforts to bomb Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran and their material support of Israel, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi are non threatening. I'm sure all those Iranian civilians will be relieved that they don't need to feel threatened by the nuclear Aircraft carriers and the world's most powerful aggressive military landing on them or by the prospect that they might one day be invaded."

You're so stupid you can't even see the hypocrasy in your logic. But you can feel comforted that 99% of the US/EU/UK gov't are just as retarded as you.

QUOTE(sanitynotincluded @ Jan 18 2012, 22:58) *
What a surprise. paddygirl is on the side of the tyrants.


Which side is the tyrant now? Iran? US? its getting damn hard to tell with the NDAA, TSA, patriot act, wars everywhere, guantanamo bays, fundamentalist religious presidential candidates calling all of turkish government terrorists etc... Whats the damn difference

But ofcourse I'm wrong because I'm wrong and you're a genius just because.
sanitynotincluded
QUOTE(paddyirl @ Jan 18 2012, 23:13) *

Who is the aggressor, if you think a war would be about getting rid of a tyrant you are even more stupid that I already thought you were.



And if you can find anywhere I suggested it would be then you are not the moron you appear to be.
sanitynotincluded
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Jan 19 2012, 01:48) *

QUOTE(sanitynotincluded @ Jan 18 2012, 22:58) *
So their efforts to destabalise Iraq and Afghanistan and their material support of Hamas and Hezbollah are non threatening. I'm sure all those Israeli civilians will be relieved that they don't need to feel threatened by the rockets landing on them or by the prospect that they might one day have nukes on board.


Hezbollah or Hamas are not Iran.


No, that would be why it is Iran's support of them which is the issue, not Iran being them. Between you and paddygirl there are more straw men than at a wizard of oz convention.

QUOTE(ezra_z @ Jan 19 2012, 01:48) *
"So the US's efforts to bomb Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran and their material support of Israel, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi are non threatening. I'm sure all those Iranian civilians will be relieved that they don't need to feel threatened by the nuclear Aircraft carriers and the world's most powerful aggressive military landing on them or by the prospect that they might one day be invaded."


Hmmm, Iran and their buddies target civilians, the US target the people who target the civilians. The two are of course equivalent.

QUOTE(ezra_z @ Jan 19 2012, 01:48) *
You're so stupid you can't even see the hypocrasy in your logic. But you can feel comforted that 99% of the US/EU/UK gov't are just as retarded as you.


It isn't hypocracy to differentiate between those who try and kill the innocent and those who try and stop them, between those who seek armageddon and those who try and avoid it, but hey, when the sum total of your argument consists of hurling abuse at anyone who disagrees with the man who makes biden look like a foreign policy genius then I suppose that is all you have.

QUOTE(ezra_z @ Jan 19 2012, 01:48) *
QUOTE(sanitynotincluded @ Jan 18 2012, 22:58) *
What a surprise. paddygirl is on the side of the tyrants.


Which side is the tyrant now? Iran? US? its getting damn hard to tell


It really isn't difficult to tell. In Iran if you criticise the regime you are brutally suppressed, in the US you just get Eric Holder calling you a racist. The two are hardly comparable. It's hysterical bullshit like this which is why Ron aul and his supporters will never be taken seriously.
Enigmatic Paragon
QUOTE

Who exactly is the aggressor? Because it doesn't look like Iran.


... uh. Other than what has already been said, perhaps you should spend some time in Israel. You could take in the sights and sounds of terrorist bombings/intermittent rocket attacks supported by the likes of Iran, or better still, you could experience first hand what its like if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon and carries out its threat to ensure you are "wiped off the face of the map".
Of course, if you actually had to face the consequence of what you espouse, perhaps you'd reconsider your position.
Parsifal
Many within the Israeli government as well as in Washington think that Netanyahu is exaggerating the imminent threat. He's just a hothead in the eyes of many and may be either trying to goad the US into a war with Iran or playing politics with the upcoming US presidential election or both. When he became prime minister I said to myself that there is no hope for peace in the Middle East as long as he is in that office and that prophesy has turned out to be correct. As a matter of fact, things have gotten worse.

Netanyahu thinks that the point of no return with regard to Iran acquiring nuclear capability is about 6 to 12 months away. Washington thinks it is longer than that. Plus Washington believes that attacking Iran is not necessarily the best way or even the only way to stop Iran from attacking Israel.

First, the economic sanctions against Iran seem to be working with the Iranian economy and currency in shambles. The population is getting restive.

Second, there are divisions within the Iranian hierarchy that are making the government unstable.

Third, Syria is a pivotal player in the game. Iran relies on its relationship with the Syrian government for a pipeline to Hezbolla in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. If the situation in Syria turns and Iran loses its ally then its ability to strike at Israel is severely diminished.

As I understand it, Washington is counting on the first (sanctions) to end Iran's nuclear program or the third (the fall of the Syrian government) to severly cripple its ability to attack Israel.

I for one have no stomach for going to war with Iran. It will probably be worse than Iraq and Afghanistan.

Netanyahu is a madman. loon.gif
(and dangerous)
Enigmatic Paragon
QUOTE

Netanyahu thinks that the point of no return with regard to Iran acquiring nuclear capability is about 6 to 12 months away. Washington thinks it is longer than that. Plus Washington believes that attacking Iran is not necessarily the best way or even the only way to stop Iran from attacking Israel.


I mostly agree with your comments, but this part in particular bears special note. That is, the fact that there are multiple options on the table, with different opinions on which is most appropriate, and best suited to achieving the best outcome.

This requires an appreciation that the situation is particularly complex, and also understanding the motives driving each of the players in the situation. In turn, this allows for a reasoned analysis of the situation. People may still come up with different conclusions of the situation and what to do after this, but it should be reasonably clear what the line of reasoning is (regardless of whether you agree with the conclusion or not).

Unfortunately what I commonly see from spectators and 'armchair generals' is wildly informed comments that replaces nuance with jingoistic ideological slogans, and discards any notion of actual understanding of motives driving actions, in favour of a twisted caricature where the "bad" country is primarily motivated by the desire to be as evil as possible.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2013 Invision Power Services, Inc.