Reply
Wed 10 Oct, 2007 11:54 pm
Other then allegedly supplying insurgents with weapons, why? Why attack Iran? Whats the real reason? What does the US have to gain? These are the things I cant figure out. Anyone got any ideas?
and since that rules oil out of the picture, i'd have to suggest that we make something up...
They are going to attack you know. I suppose oil could be part of the reason but again why? They wont be able to keep the oil for them selves will they? They dont have Iraq's oil. I heard it suggested that oil was the main reason for attacking Iraq but I'm not convinced of that either. Attacking Iran could quite possibly usher in WWIII. I think maybe Israel will attack and the US will come to their aid. Im not for or against any country at this point. I need more details. I dont believe a thing the media tells us here in the US regarding the reasons. They smell like a steaming pile of lies similar to those used to attack Iraq. You know, weapons of mass deception. Thats a whole other issue though. Heh, that subject probably belongs in a conspiracy theory forum.
wwiii. yeah, okay, maybe... but it's still funny because people don't give a damn about that. what? well, remember kim jong? we didn't care because no one told us to care. there was a guy that actually had nuclear weapons, said he was tired of being kicked around by the u.s., and we did what? jack and - etc. no one cares about who has nukes, if we did we'd stop handing them out in bulk to allies like party favors.
but iran, you know, it would be nice to see what part of the world is actually serious about the middle east, because very few countries have political leaders with the nuts to say: "you know what george? you're a goddamned nutcase." there really needs to be a coalition of the sane, but there only seems to be the willing and the carefully choosing of their words. why is everyone kissing our ass, the bush administration is completely insane, and the only people that can talk about it are comedians. the mainstream media can't, the political leaders around the world can't, what the hell were you thinking, tony blair? did you need the money?
we don't care who has nukes, do you get it? rich people have swiss banks and swiss bunkers, and we're the ones that get blown up if anyone gets blown up. we're expendable. george bush doesn't care about you. dick cheney would detonate your grandmother if there was 50 cents in it.
but there's no profit in strapping her to a dynamite jacket and sending her over to iran to fight the muslims, halliburton can't corner the market in that kind of munitions. they make the big fancy stuff, and the money in oil, which runs the bigger, badder toys. if your grandmother can drive a tank, we've got a place for her. and we have to use the big toys somewhere. does kim jong have oil?
screw kim jong, iran has... nukes! yeah, that's the ticket. and we're practically at the door anyway, who wants to go to korea? we're already building infrastructure in iraq, let's face it- war makes perfect sense when and only when you look at it like any other business. where is old cheney anyway? probably in his bunker somewhere, bravely plotting a course that will save us all from the baddies. god bless you dick cheney, you're our only hope! well, him and henry kissenger.
You are right. The leaders of this county are lunatics. I saw an interview of a man that was a big wig in the CIA but moved on to other things. That man was an absolutely wicked evil human being. He said,among other things, that the US should continue to carry out attacks where ever they wanted regardless of civilian casualties.
Any back to the main subject. Basically in a nut shell, what you are saying is that its all about power and greed right? I absolutely agree. Im sill clueless as to how they are going to be able to get their hands into the Iranian oil fields. My guess is that they plan to set up a new government there just like in Iraq. Then through corrupt contracts they will be able to take their share of the oil money. What do you think? Do you know if they are doing that in Iraq or is all the money they are making coming from crooked deals like haliberten? Which if that is the case then the US is not getting any money. Its going to the politicians right?
xingu wrote:Why attack Iran?
O I L
And how would a fiasco similar to the one in Iraq, get us oil. On the contrary it will make the situation worse. As long as oil is the commodity that greases the wheels of progress. OPEC will have the world by the short hairs
au1929 wrote:xingu wrote:Why attack Iran?
O I L
And how would a fiasco similar to the one in Iraq, get us oil. On the contrary it will make the situation worse. As long as oil is the commodity that greases the wheels of progress. OPEC will have the world by the short hairs
Yes it would make the situation worse. So why does Cheney and others want to attack Iran? Do they like what's happening. Apparently so.
Their excuse is terrorism but the excuse to attack Iraq was terrorism as well.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Why attack Iran you ask. Because the deluded idiot in the white house believes
that he has been given the mission by God to bring democracy to the heathen.
So there in lies the fly in the ointment of the oil theory. Again, how can they get the cash if OPEC is going to grab the oil? You think OPEC is in on the deal?
I don't believe North Korea is ideologically as dangerous as Iran. China doesn't want North Korea to run amok. That keeps North Korea just having military parades; nothing else. However, Iran, based on their religion, has some sort of apocalypse theology. Their missiles, in the future, could likely reach Europe. To prevent a Europe developing an arms race to thwart a nuclear armed Iran, either we and/or Israel might do the preventive maintenance. If it's one thing the world doesn't need is a militarized Europe, ala WWII.
It all comes down to making sure the U.S. was the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons.
If Iran was de-nuclearized, it would be an object lesson to any other regime that wanted to change from knickers to long pants, so to speak.
Why attack Iran?
Because they are supplying the enemies of America in Iraq with the means to kill American soldiers and marines.
Because they clearly have intentions of expanding their power within the region, whether through direct control or through the establishment of client states.
Because they are clearly bent on developing a nuclear arsenal.
Because they have no love for America, and evil intentions toward Israel.
Because if they controlled the region they would control a major portion of what is the economic life blood of the world - oil.
Because it makes sense to attack one's known enemies before they hurt one or one's interests.
I don't think there is more than a 10% chance that the Bush Administration will order a pre-emptive attack on Iran.
I think there is an 90% chance that Israel will launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran.
The rest of the world will rant and rave (and behind closed doors say a prayer of thanks for Israel), but America will stand by Israel and it will all eventually blow over.
Radical (and not so radical) muslims will continue to hate Israel and America and some terrorist attacks that would have happened anyway will be blamed on The War Against Iran.
The not so obvious aspect of this scenario is that it is just as likely to happen with a Democrat in the White House as with a Republican.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Why attack Iran?
Because they are supplying the enemies of America in Iraq with the means to kill American soldiers and marines.
Because they clearly have intentions of expanding their power within the region, whether through direct control or through the establishment of client states.
Because they are clearly bent on developing a nuclear arsenal.
Because they have no love for America, and evil intentions toward Israel.
Because if they controlled the region they would control a major portion of what is the economic life blood of the world - oil.
Because it makes sense to attack one's known enemies before they hurt one or one's interests.
I don't think there is more than a 10% chance that the Bush Administration will order a pre-emptive attack on Iran.
I think there is an 90% chance that Israel will launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran.
The rest of the world will rant and rave (and behind closed doors say a prayer of thanks for Israel), but America will stand by Israel and it will all eventually blow over.
Radical (and not so radical) muslims will continue to hate Israel and America and some terrorist attacks that would have happened anyway will be blamed on The War Against Iran.
The not so obvious aspect of this scenario is that it is just as likely to happen with a Democrat in the White House as with a Republican.
I believe you covered all bases cogently. Do you eat a lot of fish (brain food)?
ironious wrote:So there in lies the fly in the ointment of the oil theory. Again, how can they get the cash if OPEC is going to grab the oil? You think OPEC is in on the deal?
Who controls the petroleum produced by Iran is less important than that the Persians do not continue to control it. The Persians have suggested that petroleum be priced in euros rather than American dollars, and they price the petroleum which comes from Iran in euros rather than dollars. That is the threat which they pose to the Shrub and his cronies. I find it interesting that this administration began to get huffy about the Persians and began to threaten the invasion of Iran at the same time as the Persians began to call for pricing oil in euros.
That was not merely coincidence, you know.
you would think bush would bring the troops home and sink every dime of the american budget into alternative fuels.
Then he could nuke the entire Middle East, cum his pants, and no one would care or hold him accountable, not to infer he is held accountable or displays any now.
Are we picking another fight?
Quote:U.S. Secretary of State of Condoleezza Rice said she's concerned about Russia's increasing arms sales to Iran, Syria, Venezuela and other U.S. adversaries.
Rice raised the subject directly in talks last weekend with Russian leaders, she told ABC News in an interview from Moscow published Monday.
"The Russians, of course, say that there's nothing illegal about these arms sales," Rice said. "I (told them) not everything that is legal in the narrowest sense is good for the international system."
Russia's arms sales have increased dramatically under Russian President Vladimir Putin along with defense spending, Rice told ABC News.
"I think the rapid growth in Russian military spending definitely bears watching," Rice said, noting she was concerned about Russia once again flying bombers to the edge of U.S. and NATO airspace off Alaska, Britain and Guam, as was common during the Cold War. (c) UPI
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212109184.shtml
So selling arms to our enemies is not good for the international system. So who gave us the authority to run the world?
Quote:Iranian threat "overly exaggerated" - Margelov
MOSCOW. Oct 15 (Interfax) - Military methods are unacceptable in tackling the Iranian problem, Mikhail Margelov, the head of the Federation Council's International Affairs Committee, has said.
"Neither the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nor anyone else has any convincing evidence suggesting that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. In the absence of any evidence that the threat coming from Iran is real, the use of force would violate all of the relevant international conventions and entail catastrophic consequences for the region," Margelov said on Monday during talks with a delegation of the Assembly of the Western European Union, led by Jean-Pierre Masseret.
"Russia will not support such a scenario," Margelov said.
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11887047
Is there evidence or not?
Is the Bush administration's evidence on Iran as credible as Iraq's WMD; you remember, the stuff that allowed us to invade Iraq?
xingu wrote:Are we picking another fight?
Quote:U.S. Secretary of State of Condoleezza Rice said she's concerned about Russia's increasing arms sales to Iran, Syria, Venezuela and other U.S. adversaries.
Rice raised the subject directly in talks last weekend with Russian leaders, she told ABC News in an interview from Moscow published Monday.
"The Russians, of course, say that there's nothing illegal about these arms sales," Rice said. "I (told them) not everything that is legal in the narrowest sense is good for the international system."
Russia's arms sales have increased dramatically under Russian President Vladimir Putin along with defense spending, Rice told ABC News.
"I think the rapid growth in Russian military spending definitely bears watching," Rice said, noting she was concerned about Russia once again flying bombers to the edge of U.S. and NATO airspace off Alaska, Britain and Guam, as was common during the Cold War. (c) UPI
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212109184.shtml
So selling arms to our enemies is not good for the international system. So who gave us the authority to run the world?
The authority was given to us from Area 51. The visitors from another galaxy gave us the charge. If you don't like that answer then one can say it was given by God. Either way, we have the authority.
From Juan Cole;
The Bush administration announced wideranging new sanctions on Iran on Thursday, which target three Iranian banks, nine companies associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, and several individuals, as well as the IRGC (roughly analogous to the National Guard in the US, i.e. a populist adjunct to the formal Iranian army).
These unilateral sanctions clearly reflect frustration on the part of Bush/Cheney that they have not been able to convince the UN Security Council to apply international sanctions. (Iran has not been demonstrated to be doing anything that is illegal in international law.)
The sanctions may work but may not. The Dutch Shell corporation is thinking seriously of bucking the US and helping develop Iranian oil and gas production. China is negotiating a big deal with Iran. The world is energy hungry. Iran has energy. The US is a debtor nation, and has gone even more deeply into debt under Bush. It may just not be able to stand in the way of the development of Iranians energy.
The hypocrisy of the Bush case is obvious when it complains about Iran supporting Hizbullah and Hamas. The Kurds based in American Iraq have done much worse things to Turkey in the past month than Hizbullah did to Israel in June of 2006. Yet when Israel launched a brutal and wideranging war on all of Lebanon, destroying precious infrastructure and dumping enormous amounts of oil into the Mediterranean, damaging Beirut airport, destroying essential bridges in Christian areas, and then releasing a million cluster bomblets on civilian areas in the last 3 days of the war-- when Israel did all that, Bush and Cheney applauded and argued against a 'premature' cease-fire! Yet they are trying to convince Turkey just to put up stoically with the PKK terrorists who have killed dozens of Turkish troops recently and kidnapped 8 (again, more than the number of Iraeli troops that were kidnapped). Bush's coddling of the PKK in Iraq is not different from Iran's support for Hizbullah, except that the PKK is a more dangerous and brutal organization than Hizbullah.
Among the more fantastic charges that Bush made against Iran was that its government was actively arming and helping the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban are extremist Sunnis who hate, and have killed large numbers of Shiites. Shiite Iran is unlikely to support them. The neo-Taliban are a threat to the Karzai government, which represents the Northern Alliance (Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks) along with non-Taliban Pushtuns. The Hazara are Shiite clients of Iran, and both the Tajiks and the Uzbeks are close to Tehran. The neo-Taliban are being supported by Pakistan, which resents the Northern Alliance, not by Iran, which favors it.
That Iran is trying to destabilize the Shiite government in Baghdad is absurd. The Bush administration charge that Iran is the source of explosively formed projectiles is based on very little evidence and flies in the face of common sense; in fact these bombs are probably made in Iraq itself or perhaps come from Hizbullah in Lebanon.
The charges are frankly ridiculous, and certainly are so if proportionality is taken into account. That is, if one bomb was sold by an Iranian arms dealer to the Taliban for profit, a hundred bombs were given to the Taliban by Pakistan for tactical reasons. Likewise, the Shiite militias in Iraq have killed very few American troops when the US troops have left the Shiites alone; most attacks on the US come from Sunni Arabs.
The Senate Kyl-Lieberman resolution helped legitimize this new Bush policy, which is why the senators should not have voted for it. It took us one more step down the road to war with Iran.
Stalin, Mao And
Ahmadinejad?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace