War! The fear mongering is here, again!

Forums: Politics, Iran, Foreign Policy, Obama Wars, Send In The Drones
Email this Topic • Print this Page

So I think the neoconservative found their new target--Iran. As if it not enough that they kill over a million innocent Iraq people, and cause the country to be a living hell now.

Here is the news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5HRO9VfX4&feature=player_embedded

Note that the top two comments are:

1. "Israel is the head of the snake, America is the fangs.".

and

2. "Iran has invaded no country since 1945. The US has aggressively invaded 75. Who should the world be more afraid of? A country that has nuclear weapons, a history of aggressive invasions or a country that has no nuclear weapons and no history of aggression.
You decide."

In my view( and it is share by many), sanctions are an act of war. Ultimately, who are we harming with these sanctions, but the Iranian people. Iranian people are just like average Americans, or average people all over the world. They have families that are just trying to get by. Normal people are going to suffering, because the neocons in the US want to extend their empire even more. If actual physical war does happen( Which most likely will now) , I wonder how many life have to be sacrificed. I have pure hatred for the chaos, casualty, and disruption caused by war. It is not hard to find actual pictures over the internet of war. Images of face completely blow up. Why can 't the US just kill off Iranian scientists, and politicians like they used to?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 18 • Views: 26,024 • Replies: 464

@TuringEquivalent,

Iran is an intolerable threat, with its nuclear development program.
We need to take out that threat.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Do you realize how much you sound like Achmadinejad when you talk like that?

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

This is news to you?

1 Reply

By the way, during the war crimes trials after the Second World War, the defense teams for Japanese officers accused of war crimes used the excuse that sanctions are an act of war, and that therefore, the Japanese did not start the war with the United States. Reasonable people can disagree.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Wasent their a little war fought between Iraq and Iran after 1945. Not that I agree with taking out Iran. We should forgo war as a diplomatic exchange and quit getting involved in every war on the earth.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

What has that to do with anything that i've written here?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Do you realize how much you sound like Achmadinejad when you talk like that?

No matter WHAT I sound like,
we cannot tolerate a nuclear armed Iran.

That woud be begging for a nuclear 9/11.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

but other countries should accept a nuclear armed America?

1 Reply

Hey . . . you can trust us . . . we're nice guys . . . no, no, really we are . . .

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

A few thoughts:
- Neocons have always had Iran in their sights but much to the apparent frustration of Israel, they are not getting any traction with this one.
- I don't see how sanctions are acts of war. If I don't like you, I don't have to purchase your products. Are you saying the US must purchase Iranians products or it is an act of war? Seems like a long stretch.
- Iran is complicit in the current state of affairs regarding the US. If Iran did everything else the same but ignored the US (at least publicly), the US would ignore Iran. The US ignores lots of countries all the time. By continuously using the US as a foil to quell domestic unrest, they keep feeding the very small group in the US that has some axe to grind with Iran. Prior to the current hardliners coming into office, events in Iran were mainly the concern of a small group at the State Department working towards normalizing relations.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

No matter WHAT I sound like,
we cannot tolerate a nuclear armed Iran.

That woud be begging for a nuclear 9/11.

This position is completely opposite to the position you take on every other issue. You have stated in the past that even convicted criminals should be allowed to have guns for self defense. Isn't that just begging for another murder? You claim the right for yourself to deny Iran weapons of self defense but rail against those who claim a right to restrict personal arms. You insist that the right to self defense completely trumps all other considerations but denounce Iran for seeking the only thing that could ensure their self defense. How can you reconcile these contridictions?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This is news to you?

Not really news. Been going on for awhile, but the sanctions will most likely lead to war. I expect Iran will make trouble in the coming 6 mouths, and the Americans will be forced to take action, while making Iran look like the aggressor just like the Japanese. This time, the US is forcing the Iran to declare war, first. Unlike the last war, where we invade Iraq. All this for what? All this bullshit will only lead to senseless slaughtering of innocent life.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

A few thoughts:
- Neocons have always had Iran in their sights but much to the apparent frustration of Israel, they are not getting any traction with this one.
- I don't see how sanctions are acts of war. If I don't like you, I don't have to purchase your products. Are you saying the US must purchase Iranians products or it is an act of war? Seems like a long stretch.
- Iran is complicit in the current state of affairs regarding the US. If Iran did everything else the same but ignored the US (at least publicly), the US would ignore Iran. The US ignores lots of countries all the time. By continuously using the US as a foil to quell domestic unrest, they keep feeding the very small group in the US that has some axe to grind with Iran. Prior to the current hardliners coming into office, events in Iran were mainly the concern of a small group at the State Department working towards normalizing relations.

Iran, like much of the world, need to earn American dollars to buy goods and service in the world market. So, it is an act of war if you don 't allow them to earn dollars. Unless Iran make all its food, or is self-sustaining. I highly doubt.

Are you defending the neocons, engineer? I hate this type of "distribute the blame" argument. The standard is "Sure, we enslave blacks, but so did Arabs".

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

No matter WHAT I sound like,
we cannot tolerate a nuclear armed Iran.

That woud be begging for a nuclear 9/11.

This position is completely opposite to the position you take on every other issue. You have stated in the past that even convicted criminals should be allowed to have guns for self defense. Isn't that just begging for another murder? You claim the right for yourself to deny Iran weapons of self defense but rail against those who claim a right to restrict personal arms. You insist that the right to self defense completely trumps all other considerations but denounce Iran for seeking the only thing that could ensure their self defense. How can you reconcile these contridictions?

This is the product of American education/media. Rome need to keep the populace stupid, while importing the best brains into silicon valley.

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

No, I am saying the Iran could earn plenty of American dollars or at least plenty of Euros, quietly pursue nuclear weapons and worship however they wanted if they didn't scream "Great Satan" and use anti-US rhetoric at every turn to surpress domestic unrest. The reality is that the US and Iran have plenty in common and there is a significant faction in the US that would move towards detente even though that process would be very protracted. The faction in the US who wants confrontation with Iran is very small, but that is who the Iranian government chooses to engage with.

1 Reply

The crux of the conflict between the US and Iran is Israel's oppression of the Palestinian peoples, and the US' abetment thereof. If Israel were to give the Palestinians their due, Iran would no longer have a pretext for continuing their belligerence against Israel. It seems, though, that Israel won't redress their tort against the Palestinians to the latter's satisfaction and the conflict will eventually devolve into an armed conflict with nuclear weapons likely being involved.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

No, I am saying the Iran could earn plenty of American dollars or at least plenty of Euros, quietly pursue nuclear weapons and worship however they wanted if they didn't scream "Great Satan" and use anti-US rhetoric at every turn to surpress domestic unrest. The reality is that the US and Iran have plenty in common and there is a significant faction in the US that would move towards detente even though that process would be very protracted. The faction in the US who wants confrontation with Iran is very small, but that is who the Iranian government chooses to engage with.

You have a point about Iran giving reasons for the US to hate her. This is history now. It is vital for Iran to earn dollar. If they can 't, just like a defeated wild animal, the animal will fight back.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The crux of the conflict between the US and Iran is Israel's oppression of the Palestinian peoples, and the US' abetment thereof. If Israel were to give the Palestinians their due, Iran would no longer have a pretext for continuing their belligerence against Israel. It seems, though, that Israel won't redress their tort against the Palestinians to the latter's satisfaction and the conflict will eventually devolve into an armed conflict with nuclear weapons likely being involved.

I don 't think it is that simple. I don 't think US "enemies" are really that interested in the welfare of the Palestinian people. Some countries are more "prideful".

1 Reply

There's a dynamic here of which, apparently, no one else is aware. Iran has a beef with the Israelis which has nothing to do with the Palestinians. In 1952, the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, had nationalized the Persian petroleum industry. That industry had been controlled by the Brits since 1913, and MI6, their foreign intelligence service, went hat in hand to the CIA in late 1952 asking for support to overthrow Mossadegh. Kermit Roosevelt, son of Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., the late president, went to Teheran to oversee the operation. Mossadegh was ousted in a coup, lead by a Persian general selected by Central Intelligence on the advice of MI6.

In 1957, at the behest of Central Intelligence, Israeli Mossad--the intelligence and covert operations arm of the Israeli government--set up and trained the Persian SAVAK, the Shah's secret police and domestic intelligence service. As relations between the United States and Iran cooled, Mossad took a larger role in providing the U.S. with intelligence from Iran, and in the operations of SAVAK. The French newpaper le Figaro and CIA source documents both show a stepped up Mossad participation in SAVAK training and operations, including the kidnapping, torture and murder of dissidents opposed to the Shah's regime.

Many of the dissidents who escaped are now the mullahs and imams who rule Iran's religio-coporate state. The Palestinians are just an excuse--Iran has a huge and understandable (even if one finds it deplorable) grudge against Israel.

0 Replies

War! The fear mongering is here, again!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know