http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t3

Just crossed over this. Someone might get bit in the ass over this....

And we scratch our heads wondering why the middle east hates us so much...

It's impressive how relentless the propaganda about the "Iranian bomb" is considering there's about as much evidence to justify it as there was for Iraq; the western MSM has no memory and is an enemy of peace. Now it seems the West is trying to strangle Iran economically until they cannot stand it and lash out, like the US did to Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, so that they can have their war without starting it themselves.

Very true, Rild, it's amazing how much people have forgotten that this was the exact same process of propaganda and fear mongering that led the public into accepting the Iraq war, play by play. My fellow Americans fucking suck...

I'm pretty sure America is not the only country that is worried about a nuclear Iran, that's why just about every other major power has taken a stance on it and multilateral efforts to curb the nuclear possibility are being thought up all the time. As far as the U.S. sanctioning them that's fine by me, Iran has declared that their interests run very counter to ours very loudly and they probably pay for terrorist strikes on Israel and other places. I'm no insider, maybe Iran doesn't fund terrorism, maybe they aren't building a bomb and maybe if they are it isn't as bad as everyone fears it will be. Everything I've seen indicates that a nuclear Iran would be a problem but yeah everything I know is what the media has told me. If they want to really go to war with America that's probably not a good plan, I think that their current President is just a firebrand though and doesn't speak for the whole country.

So yeah hopefully we don't end up in another war, especially since I thought China said they would support Iran so this war would likely escalate far past anything we've seen in Iraq or Afghanistan. And Sunlight, you suck, quit talking shit on America all the damn time. If a war goes down we're not going to be the ones that start it.

Yeah, the IAEA has stated their concerns about an Iranian weapons program. IAEA is a UN, not US organistation. It's a multinational concern.

I don't talk shit about America, reality just has a left wing bias.

Our intelligence agencies have found that Iran is not currently seeking a nuclear weapon, that they are not a military threat to the US or Israel, and that their military strategies are defensive in nature. That they are so defensive is not surprising when the US has huge armies posted on both their western and eastern borders, when the Israeli prime minister is working to engineer a preemptive attack on Iran against the advice of his own military and intelligence agencies. Iran's psyops activities in Iraq and Lebanon could be considered offensive if you disregarded the context in which they are taking place. The US and the West in general are against Iran because the Iranian people overthrew the western appointed government and replaced it with one of their own choosing.

I agree with Johnny_soleil and he said all the things I wanted to say but I can add some arguments. The Iran menace is a construct of western propoganda, it's deeply affected by the old ideologies of the ''white men burden'' and the fact that the western world is still looking at the rest of the ''not civilised enough'' countries in a paternal way.
I don't think John is talking shit about his country, he's only expressing his opinion (which is not the same as CNN!!!). I'll be really pissed if our prime minister supports the US in their future actions against Iran, I won't be surprised though.

Also, must I recall that America did in fact in the past began its own wars (Vietnam, Irak...)

The only thing more disturbing than the prospect of another war in the middle east is that (as evidenced here) so many people think it's all baseless propaganda targeting a country that will leave us alone if we leave it alone. It tells me the antiwar movement is still clueless about why nobody listened to them in the months before March 2003: because you're all fucking idiots beating whatever the latest, most hip paranoid fantasy is. This country is only going to continue to get involved in pointless counter-productive wars as long as there is no serious, believable non-interventionist movement.

Chris Hedges:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgAYYYRp9ao
On the one hand the Americans want to control Afghanistan, but increases tension against Iran. Then there is the problem of Pakistan as well as Iraq; both countries are on the brink of falling apart. Instead of throwing oil into the fire, they should try to fix the mess they have created in the last decade.

Nobody is saying that the Iranian government is composed of saints, however, the only paranoid delusion at work is the idea that they pose a genuinely serious threat to us. We do pose such a threat to them, however, so the most important thing is to prevent ourselves from doing something stupid. The stakes are higher.

I do agree that the anti-war movement is weak and has a lot of uncritically-thinking new-left types in their ranks. It's not all their fault, though. Serious minded anti-war agitators have a way of ending up on the terror watch list or mysteriously dying, much like environmental protestors.

Over twenty years ago a severely disadvantaged Iran fought off an invading force and even managed to take neighbouring territory. Human wave attacks by volunteers clearing mine fields so the main army could advance.

+1.
Seems like war is inminent.

funny, I though that rallying cry was "Bush lied......" so now will it be "Obama lied?"

Those are only puppets in the same hands.

true, but I doubt the bleeding hearts see it that way

I never agree with John Sunlight except here and now. He's absolutely correct in every way. I don't really have much to add to it other than to say that Iran's people are willing to believe or consider crazy conspiracy theories about America readily because they've been on the receiving end of bullshit diplomacy in the hardest, worst way possible. This is about self preservation, and the discussion on the part of the US and Israel's collective governments and outside interests is about trying to ward off inevitability and positive, actual change in the region at their own benefit.



This. Having feelings about the political process in this country is a waste of time.

My previous account was banned for these topics but here are my two cents:

The yankees want the petrol and the jews want one enemy less for their fake murderer state.

Now all the northamerican media, occupied by zionist interests, is working to present Iran as an evil state with "nuclear weapons". (Ironically, the jews can have dozens of nuclear weapons in Israel, but the bad goyim none.)

The campaign of lobbies starts so as all the former: Bin Laden in Afganistan (while he was in Pakistan with the obvious knowledge of secret services) and the chemical weapons of Iraq (clear bullshit).

Fuck North America! Hail Iran!

And apparently the good people at the Pentagon are trying to figure out military plans to drop on Syria now.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/0 ... ?hpt=hp_t2

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/0 ... ?hpt=hp_t2

I don't claim to be talking for Sunlight, but here it goes. I'll quit talking shit about America when American stops being a loose cannon installing puppet democracies, forcing its perverted fascist agenda and GMOs onto other peoples, and allowing the corporate takeover of the world. Actually, even if they stopped all of that shit he'd still have to shit talk America for a legacy of oppression, colonization, and crimes against humanity.

How fucking thick are you to think WE wouldn't start the "next" war? Forgot about Iraq? And that's just the super obvious one! This nation has seen something like 24 years of peace since its inception. AND THOSE WEREN'T EVEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

Some relevant info

US Paints False Picture of Afghan War: US Army Officer
Obama's Drone Program Includes Targeting Rescuers and Funerals
[url=http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/07-5]Monsanto, Agent Orange Creator, Returns To Vietnam
Monsanto ready to sell GM crops and weed-killing chemicals in Vietnam; Many outraged[/url]

Have you been living under a rock? If you were a true American, I wouldn't have to point out the falsity of this statement to you. You'd know how much we as a people love war and fucking up second and third world countries at will. Control and power, my fellow misguided American, is our purpose. Get with the program!

On a serious note, I hope you're not serious.

I doubt America wants a war with Iran as much as Israel does. However, Israel is emboldened by the support that America and Canada (Harper has stated that he will support Israel at any cost... does this mean a human cost as well?) has given to the country and countries with a false distinction of aggregate power can make very rash decisions. If anything, the Obama regime is trying to curtail some of the brashness of Israel by trying to neutralize the situation with sanctions (sanctions are still considered a use of force) but the right wing radicalization of the Knesset and the IDF is already bent on doing some sort of strike on Iran, especially in a middle east in disarray, and the radicalization of its adversaries in Palestine and Iran do not help.

That being said, I cannot I say I can join some of the posters in brushing off the threat of a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran will very much be a game changer in the regional politics and by extension, the international politics. I also feel that very few countries can produce leaders like Kennedy or Khrushchev who were able to balance national interest and the possibility of life's destruction so well. I sincerely have reservations over the ability of Israel and Iran to properly handle a situation or regional bipolarity produced from nuclear arsenal.



I must get around to discussing your perception of the new left but that's another discussion.

O.k. well I can't really defend the Iraq war, not gonna try. Is that really what you all think America does is start wars? And Moravian, I'm totally serious. With China backing Iran potentially, if we're gonna fight them we are going to have to do it outside the arena of conventional warfare with Iran itself, kinda how we fought the Soviet Union (and China) in all kinds of places except the Soviet Union, and without our militaries actually coming face-to-face during the Cold War. As for Pissy saying we're facilitating the corporate takeover of the world, that rings closer to true, but I still believe we do many more good things internationally than bad. We do try to control up-and-coming governments and I wish we didn't but as far as on the surface, we are supposed to be supporting democratic governments, though it often ends up being more dictatorships like in Egypt. I think capitalist motivations are more to blame than "fucking up second and third world countries at will." If you think that's the driving motivation for America then you're further removed from reality than I am. Most Americans I know wish we would have never even entered Iraq, and Afghanistan is turning out to be a bad idea too. If isolationism really is the answer then I guess I would prefer that to this extended mess we have going on all over the globe. So yeah I guess I'm still pretty idealistic about America, sue me.

Ten posts and someone has already proven my point about the antiwar movement.








I'm sorry, but this is too rich to ignore. Even if you ignore the very plain and obvious fact that our relationship with Iran for the last thirty years has been completely different from our relationship with Iraq, we are in an entirely different situation than we were in 2003. We went to war in 2003 with thousands of troops in another popular war; we are presently involved in one highly unpopular war (Afghanistan), and just ended two other highly unpopular wars (Libya and Iraq). Domestically politics come into play, as our president is counting on the first troops from Afghanistan coming home just in time for election precisely because he thinks his base won't vote for him otherwise (ensuring his loss in November). You might think that bringing the troops home means we have more available for fighting other wars, but we are about to embark on the process of reducing the amount of Army troops by 15% and the amount of Marines by 10%---hardly something a nation would do if it's planning on a new ground war. And as I mentioned in another thread not too long ago, going to war against Iran almost certainly means going to war against China (for the same reason we would come to Saudi Arabia's aid if they were attacked). You think Obama or any of his potential challengers next November is going to start a war with Iran if it means going to war with our largest foreign creditor? Not to mention the prospect of a war with the largest land army in the world.


Oh yeah, and the national debt has roughly doubled since 2003.


As for Iran-Iraq comparisons, they're all laughable. Completely laughable. Iraq had never attacked us directly or indirectly; Iran has been consistently attacking us indirectly (through their astroturf terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah) for thirty years. They are responsible for the bombings of U.S. embassies; the bombings of Marine outposts; and the training, funding, and arming of Iraqi militias to attack U.S. forces in Iraq (similar to what we did to the Soviets in the 80's). And we've been actively sabotaging them as well, as I'm sure you already know. We've been in a cold war with them for three decades. Any comparison between the Iraq war and a possible Iran war is by definition an ignorant one. Iraq was a preventive war against a non-aggressor; a war with Iran could either be preemptive or preventive, but against an obvious aggressor. Barring a preventive nuclear strike by the U.S., almost any U.S. military action against Iran would be a thousandfold more justifiable than the travesty that Iraq was.


I'll allow that Iranian-American relations make it more likely that we'll be willing to start a war with them than the likelihood of us warring with Saddam was in 2002-2003, but for the reasons I listed in the first paragraph (and others not listed) I still do not see the U.S. initiating a war with Iran regardless. If Iran doesn't strike first, Israel will, not us. And as much as people like to believe that we're completely in bed with them, anyone who can read between the lines and watches the news knows that Obama has been telling Netanyahu not to attack. In case you hadn't noticed, our defense secretary basically gave Iran advanced warning last week to bolster their air defenses. We do not want them attacking Iran, because after Iran retaliates with rocket fire from Gaza and Lebanon, our embassies are next.



As for the general tenor of your post, regarding U.S, foreign policy in general, you (and others here) are right: we ought to be retracting our claws from around the world, and especially from the near east. This is a sensible long term solution, and eventually it will negate foreign perceptions of us. But what apparently none of you understand is that unlike other nations, Iran is not just going to play nice if we leave. The Iranian government is not rational. Their highest elected official thinks a squad of Zionist commandos planted a tactical nuke at the base of the World Trade Center and then flew planes into it, just to be sure. Their highest unelected official denies the Holocaust (the single most documented event in world history) ever happened. We are not talking about a nation led by a Khrushchev or a Gorbachev, or even a coldly dispassionate rationalist like Saddam; we are talking about a nation led by a Castro. Castro openly told former defense secretary Robert McNamara that he asked the Soviets for permission to nuke us, in full knowledge that him and his country would be dead twenty minutes later. That's the kind of nutjob regime we are dealing with in Iran.

Is the consensus here that Iran isn't a threat at all, and that if we just pulled out of the world then everyone would play nice with us?

I don't think we should be going around trying to change people's cultures against their will, it just breeds resentment. What works for us in government, works for us because of our unique circumstances. I'm not saying that they should have tyrants, but they don't have to be just like us.

Secondly, I don't agree with removing our presence in the world. Like it or not, we're the biggest power in the world, and so long as that's in effect, then we can't just go back to minding our own business entirely. We're just too entwined. It's like a rope. If you pull a strand out, then the rest of it unravels.

I don't think too many people actually argue in favor of complete removal; that's more of a deliberate attempt by interventionists to skew public perception against what's more appropriately termed non-interventionism rather than isolationism. You can remove the hand of U.S. coercion but still have influence on the world stage through economics (free trade). Incidentally, this is generally a more effective way of promoting democracy anyway, as it ensures trust and doesn't blow anybody up.


Someone that advocates total removal of U.S. influence from the globe is both an isolationist and a de-facto proponent of autarky.

I agree with that, but we have bases around the world for a reason. The bases we put in Europe after WWII helped us prevent WWIII in the cold war, same with Japan (not to mention that they don't have a sufficient military of their own to defend themselves, of their own decision), the bases in Korea are a lot of the reason North Korea doesn't snap and try to overrun the south again.

If we were to scale back, where would we start?

You WERE in bed with Israel. And you still are, considering your support of the Israel's thousand murders in Gaza between 2007-2009. The discussions between USA and Israel foreign policies are the same as the ones of personal issues between a couple, giving advice each other but still thinking as a couple... And do you seriously think that middle-east easily forgets about the decades of financial and military help that the USA gave Israel? And the key help in United Nations? That's why your embassies will be included in a hipothetical retalation against Israel, not beacuse of 'evilness' of the sand-niggers like some of your fellows would say.


This statement supports all the cliches that work for the discourse promoting war: iranians being "irrational" and/or "agressive", the classic adjetive of "nutjob" previously applied to the afghanistan government (which arguably was the most accurate considering their fanatism, but with the holy USA sponsorship the drug bussiness and the prostitution exploded), then Saddam Hussein, then Khadaffi...
They are "agressive" they preach, but better not mention the decades of USA's work trying to destroy them economically and isolate them politically; the active USA support for Irak in their war, etc... still they are just irrational nutjobs for disliking AMMERICA...

Syria is fighting Islamic extremism that want to turn Syria into a theocracy that persecutes Christians. Iran is quite zealously religious but they do not kill non-Muslims in their country. They are both respectable nation that raised a middle finger to the NWO. If Iran is nuclear in the future so what? I am more trusting of Iran having nukes then I am of yankee imperialist America and the Zionist regime. It is hardly a secret that the Zionist regime has hundreds of nukes. The yankee imperialists and Zionazis killed Saddam and Gadaffi because they did not bend over for American imperialism. They want to do the same to Assad and Ahmadineyad.

Earthcubed, brother - you're tossing out the entire history of why Iran/US relations prior to the 1980s here in order to make a point about Iran being an "aggressor". The US is the country who planned a coup that deposed a democratically elected leader in Iran to install the Shah, and it is to the Shah's actions and frankly lousy rule that led to the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeni in the late 1970s and the strong anti-American sentiment that went with it. The US isn't simply some innocent actor who only rolls into the Middle East to establish peace. Those who choose to ignore that history are doomed to repeat it.

As for the dude's post above me...



This is complete and utter nonsense totally disconnected to reality. If the Syrian government falls, Hezbollah is in big big trouble.

I have a great idea we had a shot with Iran when the people protested and we did jack. So let's just back off and not worry about it. As for Syria what did they even do?

.....and if you had read my post, you would see that I alluded to this. Not just our meddling in the region, but the coup in particular (though I'll admit the wording was vague). No offense, but I probably know a little bit more about the Iran coup than you do. Between college papers dealing with the subject and speaking to middle eastern history/anthropology professors who've studied the subject (and been to the region), I think I know something about it.

At the end of the day, however, it is not really relevant to the point I was making, which is that Iran's leaders are not rational. In general, I support U.S. withdrawal from the world in all but trade. The regimes of most countries might slowly come to play nice with us if we did to them, and in any event the citizens they rule over would---guaranteeing peace with those countries when their citizens run the mob out. But though I cannot speak for Iranians in general, the government that oversees them is....not sane. Their highest leaders think all of the survivors of the Holocaust are lying, and the paper trail does not exist. That is just one example. And unlike other less than sane regimes, they have a proven track record of targeting Americans overseas (and a few alleged attempts at home as well). Everything from bombing embassies to bombing military outposts in other countries (as in, NOT in Iran). Not to mention their connections to militant groups with nothing to lose.

There is a claim amongst the more nutty Zionists that Palestinians shouldn't have a state because there is no such thing as Palestine or Palestinians, they are all Arabs and the region was never a country. This is, historically, accurate----but you have to go back a hundred years for it to be true, and in the interim a Palestinian consciousness has evolved. Ergo, that argument is not helpful in a modern context, and does nothing to solve modern problems. This is essentially the case with the coup situation. It happened 60 years ago.

As for the doomed to repeat it part, we had a chance to repeat it in 2009 and the president opted not to do so. I don't think we will be involved in any more coup attempts in Iran for quite a long time.



And for the record, I'm not all gung ho in favor of going to war with Iran (and if we do, I hope to Christ it's only an air war). There are plenty of global repercussions not being talked about here that should give us pause (China not being the least). But I frankly quite tired of the notion that our concerns are unfounded, that they will leave us alone if we leave them alone, and that this potential pre-war situation we are in now in any remote way resembles what happened with Iraq. As you say, know your history.


And just in time to talk about global repercussions, we get this news:



This is would be such a perfect conclusion to their double-game it would almost be comic. Or perhaps it is a triple game at this point. We give them $20 billion in aid, much of which disappears with nothing public to show for it. In 2010, we discover they've roughly doubled their nuclear stockpile in ten years, despite a crippled economy not capable of paying for it. Last year, we discover they've been building a new nuclear reactor (an approximate 25% increase in their nuke-building capacity when finished). The approximate cost of these two items is, if I'm not mistaken......about $20 billion. All while arming and training the people who kill U.S. soldiers, and hiding Osama for half a decade. It would be so perfect if they turned around and used the nukes on us after we practically built them.


Oh how I hate all of this worthless foreign aid crap.

Of course it is relevant. The neurosis of the state is a side effect of said political and military action that you claim to be so knowledgeable of. Either you get the cause and effect or you don't. When I say we are doomed to repeat it, what I'm saying is that by committing to military action against Iran, we are in effect reinforcing the viewpoint that the government is portraying of the US and uniting the factions within the country again against us instead of against each other. There are severe socioeconomic divides in Iran and an increasingly stressed middle class - bombing the nation or spending millions on a coup doesn't do anything to encourage a move internally towards democracy.

Bringing up the point, actually, is irrelevant when trying to address the modern problem. We've already experienced the blowback from that incident; the state's modern neurosis is not related to it. Like I said, we could apologize for that incident until we are blue in the face, pull out every U.S. troop from every base in the region, and reopen trade and diplomatic relations with the country---it wouldn't matter. Oh, the citizens of Iran would probably like us better for it, but we learned in 2009 that they don't really control Iran's pseudo-democracy. Even if they did, the most powerful elements of Iran's government are the Guardians, the Revolutionary Guard, and the Ayatollah, none of whom are elected.


In case you haven't noticed, our president has publicly and privately attempted to engage Iran's leaders. They effectively told us "sure, right after we've completed our nuclear program." We---in conjunction with other countries---offered to provide them nuclear materiel in exchange for a dialogue. They refused the offer.

You're bringing up the bombing of Marine outposts and embassies, none of which were tied to the Iranian government since, what, the 1983 Beirut attacks? Clearly, that is much more recent than the deposing of the Shah, which happened an epic Olympic games cycle prior. You and I are not going to agree here, regardless of how many words you type.

Well, I think we can agree that a war is to be avoided at most costs. I expect we disagree on what costs.


Ultimately if came down to military action I would prefer an Israeli attack followed by U.S. withdrawal of support for Israel (both monetary and military). That should minimize any potential Chinese or Russian response against us.

I'm very, very interested in knowing what do you mean by this.
Do you actually believe that an incident like that can cause China to declare war on the USA? I feel like I must've misunderstood you, since the rest of your comments are pretty much flawless. Diplomatic "retaliation"? Sure. Some sort of direct or indirect help to Iran? Acceptable. An actual war breaking out between USA and China? Utterly insane.

P.S: I know you haven't written the word "war" explicitly in this comment, but you have in one of your previous ones.

spot on