Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Oh NO! Obama's sanctions are working in Iran

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 6, 2012, 8:07 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

and Israel just changed its pitch & now wants continued & more sanctions


come on willard - what lie are you going to use to twist the success into a failure

307 Comments

307 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 10 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Like the last round of sanctions?

Oh, you know.............how jacked up does someone have to be to intentionally screw people in the hope that they will overthrow their government? How ludicrous is it to willfully screw people in the hopes that any little group will open up to the west and allow them to aid and abet to overthrow the government?

This isn't "Iran" as if it was merely a set of boundaries or "Iran" as a source of profit. There are real live human beings that live there. They have parents and children and siblings. Using them as pawns for a bunch of shit doesn't change the fact that it is a bunch of shit.

[-] 6 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Exactly:)

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

GYPSY!!!! It is great to see you!!

[-] 5 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thanks! It's good to be back - great to see you and Shadz are still hanging in there. You've been great! Always!

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You've said it quite well. I'm glad to see this as I was mistaken in viewing you as an "Obama shill." I imagine that like me you are voting against the Reps but not with your eyes closed to the very wrong practices of the current administration. Again- Well done! Well said!

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Good Post

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Oh wait....you mean like many, MANY people believe that OWS is being used in the hopes that they will overthrow the US Government? I agree, it is a bunch of shit.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Wrong answer, Cornflake. Try again.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Is Betsy trying to say the 1% is screwing over the 99% in hopes that the 99% will make an attempt to make the government better for the 99% ???

Wait what?

And lol at Cornflake

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am pretty sure that I am a cereal killer and I got it from a movie but I can't remember which one. In my head it sounds like a cartoon character from a spoof on a spagghetti western--like how they used to say Pilgrim. Like most things, it is much funnier in my head.

It isn't about what the Betsy character said. The point was to come back to the thread. I did.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

When I was younger I used to regularly devastate the cream of wheat and oatmeal populations.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

lol. I just blame it all on Captain Crunch.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes quite the trouble maker the Cap'n. {:-]) - though the dentists secretly love him.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

You are cuckoo for cocoa puffs, girl.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Why? Because you said so Fruit Loops?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Hey, Trix are for kids.

Because you take something so irrelevent to this argument and bring it in here, simply, so that I will pay attention to you. So, ya! 'Cuz I said so. You want to discuss the above either locate a prior thread (there are many) or start another thread.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Hey, just responded to your response, which you seem to think is perfectly relevant here.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It is. Knock it off before I stop reading your commentary below.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You gave up on the cereal names too early Banana Nut Crunch

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Sanctions were not necessary to begin with. Period.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Why not? Why did we and our allies impose them?

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Iran opened a trading bourse in euros and other currency denominations, to sell their oil to China and Russia., cutting the US out of profitting from trade in Iranian oil.

It was the same reason the British Petroleum/Churchill mob used to convince Eisenhower to help in the ouster of Mossedegh, way back in '53/'54.

[-] 4 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Before Iraq war, Sadom was planning to demand Euros.

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Yes, and after getting screwed by goldy sucks, Libya was about to issue gold-based currency, and get rid of the international banksters.

The more people that are made aware of these facts, the clearer the big picture becomes.

While the MSM continues to portray all of these incidences as the work of a benign father-figure, watching out for the women and children in countries run by despots and tyrants, the oligarchs will get away with it.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

You made some good points . Did not know of Libya gold-currency plan. The Banksters/WallSt hate the gold thing. 'Financial Products' have wrecked the world.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I guess if you had the ability to print your own money, out of thin air, you'd protect that ability any way you could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuFwX4-G-iM

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Hell, we don't even bother to print the money here in the US. We just call it quantitative easing and move it digitally.

Think the Fed will protect that ability any way they can?

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Good point Builder.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

I think we should return to the gold standard as do many people I know.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Agree.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ghadaffi wanted gold backed dinars and was close to rolling them out...and had enough gold to pull it off too.

[-] 4 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Was just talking about that with Sparky & Builder.

We were wondering----Where is the 144 tons of gold now?

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Prob sitting in the bank of london, who knows....what a scam...

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Agree

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The government doesn't lie about war. It never has. US and NATO liberated the people of Libya.... Just like when they liberated Iraq.

Drone strikes are peace!

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

A few here think that bombing 6 nations in 4 years is "winding down" the aggression.

I love how everyone is calling for blood about the current situation in Libya, like they forgot that we bombed the fucking shit out of them.

When the media is able to frame the debate into what term did the president use to describe the events, instead of "why did it happen"....then you know the country is in deep shit.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The country is in deep shit when the difference is a dude that wants to bomb 4... maybe 5 countries in 2013 and a dude that wants to bomb 6 countries in 2013.

"Both sides" are voting for war.

[-] 3 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Kadaffi had a plan to introduce the gold dinar; a single African currency made from gold - a true sharing of the wealth.

They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars, replacing the dollar.

“If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-truth-of-intervention-in-libya-gaddafi-plan-to-introduce-the-gold-dinar-a-single-african-currency-made-from-gold-a-true-sharing-of-the-wealth/#b0AEvwWk8Py8B0mF.99

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Hi Sparky,

Good post.

Currency backed by something real, rather than fake financial products and fake currency, threatens the power of the elite.

Question----Where is Libya's gold now, since overthrow?

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Good question. I dunno, but they were reported to have 144 tons of the stuff. That seems like more than enough motive for the Greedy Bastards to occupy their country. It sure wasn't for humanitarian reasons! It's just part of "The Plan":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Right, not for humanitarian reasons. Regarding the girl that got shot in the head in Pakistan-----our government 'couldn't care less' about her.

Regarding the gold, the greedy ones would kill for it.

Can't lode video (old rural phone line), but thank you.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

You got it right - Search you tube for Wesley Clark 7countries - 5 years when you can or you can go to :

http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/

cheers

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Good article Sparky. It says so much.

[-] 0 points by freakyfriday (179) 2 years ago

That girl was shot in the head in Pakistan by the Taliban for publicly demanding a right to an education. Muslims are mysongists. How's that arab spring looking today?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So pressure to abandon nuclear weapons development is not part of this.?

And have we prevented Iran from selling it's oil with non US currency?. NO!

Didn't we want to prevent Iran from selling oil to Europe & US? We had no real hope of stopping China & Russia trade right?

And don't you think we should do everything we could to stop yet one more extremist theocracy? Certainly the Iranian people are against the extremist religious wackos, and most do not want to pursue nuclear weapons.

You support the Ayatollahs overthe Iranian people?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No. No, V. This is not good enough justification. It is not.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So you do not support the exclusionary, religious extremist, theocratic Ayatollahs over the Iranian people right?

I assume like me you do not support the right wing effort (here & in Isreal) to invade Iran. But it sounds likeyou do not support these diplomatic efforts either.

So what are you proposing we do? Nothing.?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That is not the "right" effort. You have no right to interfere in another nation-state. Do not tell me that supporting a known terrorist group=the people. That isn't diplomacy. They are only "the people" until you get what you want.

So, why don't you shoot straight and say what you want. What is your cut?

[-] 0 points by WeThePeop (-259) 2 years ago

We need to get out and stay out of the Middle East's affairs. We have our own resources here in the US and do not need theirs

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I meant the right wing effort to invade.

All countries have a right and an obligation to intercede when people are being oppressed. When a theocratic extremist govt takes over a country and the people suffer and seek change, we should all be outraged and help the innocent citizens.

It is not "Americas" right! It is the planetary communities obligation to spread moderate tranquility all overthe planet.

Iranian religious wacko govt is amongst that extremist group. The people (not talkin about MEK) have risen up and been brutally crushed. They want freedom from these religious wackos. All nations are obligated to help the Iranian people.

The right wing would have us invade (but that would be an effort to control the oil) I support pressuring the govt to moderate with sanctions.

Let the people choose a new govt and sell their oil where they want. We must accelerate alt energy and avoid any new oil wars (it is the right wing here that is against alt energy right?)

I am shooting straight. No reason for personal attacks. My cut is seeing more people free from the yoke of oppressive religious wackos.

I hear all you criticism. I guess we don't agree. What are you suggesting be done for the Iranian people?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Let the people choose a new govt and sell their oil where they want.

Mossadegh-1953. That little coup led to the destruction of their Constitution. This led to the "Revolution". Heaven forbid that they nationalize their oil.

Stop the proxy wars and accept their nuclear deal because the more that you demonize Iran here the less opportunity that they have to make necessary changes within their own country. Then you wind up with things like this

and around it goes.

[-] 3 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

how are you doing?? back at it beating on these poor silly men here - nice to see! i assume you know this quote - Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. - i sent this to vq he is a interesting case -

not sure you are correct as to the subject of international law. “If we judge [the war of aggression by the US against Iraq] by the standards laid down by the Nuremberg Tribunal that judged the Nazis after World War II, it is the supreme international crime.” Michael Mandel - i doubt that you can find a real act of humanitarian intervention - here is noam on the subject - Humanitarian Intervention Noam Chomsky Boston Review, December, 1993 - January, 1994 The first question that comes to mind about "humanitarian intervention" is whether the category exists. Are states moral agents? Or were Machiavelli, Adam Smith, and a host of others correct in concluding that they commonly act in the interests of domestic power - in Smith's day, the "merchants and manufacturers" who were "by far the principal architects" of policy and whose interests were "most peculiarly attended to," whatever the effects on others; in ours, corporate and financial power centers, increasingly transnational in scale? A second obvious question has to do with those who are to be in charge: what do their institutions and record lead us to expect?

There is ample documentary material supporting the belief that states are moral agents, in fact uniformly so. Without having read the texts, I presume that when the invasion of Afghanistan began to go sour, pre-Gorbachev Pravda portrayed it as having begun with "blundering efforts to do good" though most people now recognize it to have been a "disastrous mistake" because Russia "could not impose a solution except at a price too costly to itself;" it was an "error" based on misunderstanding and naiveté, yet another example of "our excess of righteousness and disinterested benevolence." The quoted phrases are those used to describe Kennedy's invasion of South Vietnam, later expanded to all of Indochina, at the dissident extreme, well after the Tet offensive convinced US business leaders that the enterprise should be liquidated (Anthony Lewis, John King Fairbank). There is no need to sample the harsher parts of the spectrum.

Furthermore, these examples generalize, though it is true that only in cultures with a deeply totalitarian strain do we find such notions as "anti-Soviet" or "anti-American," applied to the miscreants who see something other than righteousness and benevolence in the actions of their noble leaders; imagine the reaction to a book on "anti-Italianism" in Milan or Rome, or any society with a functioning democratic culture.

The pattern is familiar since biblical days. But the conventional pronouncements plainly do not suffice to refute skepticism about the morality of states. It is necessary to review the record, which reveals, unequivocally, that the category of "humanitarian intervention" is vanishingly small.

One might take the heroic stand that in the special case of the United States, facts are irrelevant. Thus the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government at Harvard instructs us that the United States must maintain its "international primacy" for the benefit of the world, because its "national identity is defined by a set of universal political and economic values," namely "liberty, democracy, equality, private property, and markets" (Samuel Huntington). Since this is a matter of definition, so the Science of Government teaches, it would be an error of logic to bring up the factual record. What may have happened in history is merely "the abuse of reality," an elder statesman of the "realist" school explained 30 years ago; "reality itself" is the unachieved "national purpose" revealed by "the evidence of history as our minds reflect it," and that shows that the "transcendent purpose" of the United States is "the establishment of equality in freedom in America," and indeed throughout the world, since "the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become world-wide" (Hans Morgenthau). - should i send more?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I love you, Flip. Not once in my arguments have I ever stated that it was an effort of humanitarian intervention. Simply that these are the facts and the repercussions and there is no denying it. Do not allow these things to go down, a repeat, on our watch. Not without a fight. It is 2012, you (general) do not have the luxury of ignorance any more. Bring it.

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

well i am a bit in love myself - but how are you doing?? and don't let these turkeys get you down!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"i call bullshit"?

Clearly you disagree with my opinion. Please try not to take it personally.

I don't want any one hurt. Not by Sanctions, but more so not from another invasion. I can't say lift the sanctions because I know we will be facing an invasion. And of course I do not see it as genocide.

Peace.

Good luck in all you good efforts.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yep. Bullshit

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"exemption"? What does that mean. I ain't even used the word. LOL.

And there ain't nothin' "factually wrong" with my arguments. You think 'cause it passes through your word hole it's true?

I ain't 'caused no devastation. The right wing did when they invaded, Iraq 2x, Afghan as well. To blame me for that instead of the real criminals Just proves my point that you have given the right wing a pass.

It is ludicrous and unstable to blame me for the devastation and then absolve the right wing war mongers who ARE responsible.

Peace, Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Your arguments were shown to be factually wrong. Your exemption comes from ability to divorce yourself from the devestation that comes with sanctions. And that's it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"at this very moment"? Whaaaaat? you mean when you accuse me of deflecting?

Why do you think I need to deflect? from what? I've repeatedly answered your attacks on the sanctions that are in place to resist the right wing war mongers. I don't need to deflect. I am right. I do not assume the Iranian govt will allow the sanctions to create the conditions for starvation.

You ain't never mentioned the right wing war mongers but in responding to me.

Who are they.? What are they doing today (not 15 years ago) that requires us to resist.? The great risk/threat of war is coming from the right wing war mongers. You don't even know who they are. So you lash out at the only guy resisting them.

Please we don't need to go on like this. We disagree. No matter.

I am against war in Iran, and support all efforts to resist. You are against the sanctions.

Peace, Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yep, in your argument for sanctions and exemption.

So, when you can address the prior arguments where you were factually wrong and recognize the devestation that you have completely absolved yourself from then we can move on. Or not. No matter.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You ain't mentioned the right wing war mongers at all! You are only attacking the one guy who has resisted the right wing war mongers pressure.

We ain't at war with Iran, and the right wing war mongers are piling on about how weak the sanctions strategy is.

Let's see you specify the people doing that. Otherwise it seems more like just another anti Obama partisan campaign attack.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am attacking the right wing war mongers right at this very moment.

Let's see you stop deflecting and start developing an adequate argument with what you have.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You showed evidence of what happened when sanctions were used against Iraq. I disagree with the 500K number of children who died from the sanctions, I disagree that Saddam Hussien was not responsible for his own people.

I don't know if you are right wing. I don't care.

My question (which you still are avoiding) is If you are concerned about war with Iran why aren't you complaining about the right wing war mongers who are making great efforts to do that?

And why are you only attacking the one guy who has thus far successfully resisted that right wing pressure.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I told you. I am attacking the right wing war mongers at this moment. I am not avoiding anything.

At some point V, you will have to face up the fact that the consequences extend far beyond November 6. Your job will be done, of course. The rest of us can return to discussing the issues.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

MEK was only just taken off the terrorist list as a bone to the right wing. To suggest that we will now embark on some effort to use them in an effort to destabilize Iran is a stretch. You base that fantasy on our past history. I submit that was right wing strategy/tactic. This Admin is making great efforts to resist the pressure of the right wing to invade.

You offer an article more than a decade old to address the current neocon pressure to invade Iran.?

Why? What about what is happening now! If you are concerned for the possible invasion of Iran why have been silent on the current right wing effort to pressure that very act?

Your criticism is limited to the guy who has resisted the right wing war mongers efforts to invade Iran. Are you just an anti Obama partisan? 'sok. You're allowed. It would explain a lot. But I didn't think you were.

Why do the right wing war mongers get a pass from you?

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Scared? A bone? It isn't a stretch by any means. At best you are being naive and at worst willfuly lying.

I gave you a look at exactly what happens with sanctions and how they are used. My prior postings through out my time on this forum demonstrate my ability to speak out on the right wing and Iran specifically. My criticism stretches beyond the current president. I have demonstrated that on this thread and others. But, hey you give it your best shot to show that I am right wing. We'll see just how far that shit flies.

You find yourself in a position that you cannot defend. That's unfortunate.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

OOOO - don't go there - don't go there - U have the wrong perception of this individual if you are gonna go there!!!

Why do the right wing war mongers get a pass from you?

My advice - take some time and read some of GF's past posts.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

MEK will not invade Iran for us. They do not have the resources. The Iranian army is huge. They may annoy the Iranian military but I don't think much will come of it.

That is a fantasy. Sorry.

You haven't commented on the right wing war monger pressure to invade.? Do you recognize that reality? Do you acknowledge our success at resisting that pressure thus far?

Why have you avoided this reality?

Peace.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It doesn't have to be an invasion such as you would see from a larger nation-state. Funding and arms can be provided. Further, it can be used as a propaganda tool to open the door for an "invasion" or NATO. Why have you avoided this reality?

I am commenting on the right wing war monger pressure at this very moment.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't know what you mean.

I support the sanctions as part of the resistance of right wing pressure to invade. But I certainly don't like the hardship they create. They represent the alternative to right wing invasion.

You haven't commented on the right wing war monger pressure to invade.? Do you recognize that reality? Do you acknowledge our success at resisting that pressure thus far?

Why have you avoided this reality?

Peace.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

MKO? Is it necessary to invade if you pay someone else to do it?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No need to retreat into middle school responses.

We disagree. No big deal. My goal is resisting the right wing war mongers pressure to invade.

I'm not sure what you want other than to end the sanctions and defend the religious wackos (or Saddam Hussein) in Iran.

You haven't commented on the right wing war monger pressure to invade.? Do you recognize that reality? Do you acknowledge our success at resisting that pressure thus far?

Why have you avoided this reality?

Peace.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

What happened there? Figure out that you were factually wrong all over the place? The middle school response is on your end and your continued denial of the devestating consequences. Further, it is your attempts to justify a repeat simply in the name of an election.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

My arguments were not factually wrong, In your dreams perhaps. but not in reality.

I created no devastation. The right wing war mongers you absolved, and ignore created the devastation. I have fought against the actions that devastated these countries from the beginning. It wasn't the sanctions it was the decade of war. What are you joking?

You are truly in the bag for the right wing war mongers if you think that sanctions created devastation and you stay silent on the real perpetrators of devastation.

LMFAO

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Good luck with that.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

NICE - it IS an issue of GROWTH - Individual - Societal.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The mistakes the US made more than half a century ago have been at the center of many problems we have in Iran.

In any event Iranian oil was lost to us a long time ago. China & Russia benefit from that. Our right wing would invade and attempt to take that oil from China & Russia and we would be embroiled in a huge WWIII.

That is what I would like to avoid. The sanctions are the alternative to invasion for oil. We should still stand up for the people and with moderates against religious extremists regardless of oil.

Iraq.: If the right wing was still in charge here they would never have let Russia sell arms to Iraq, They would never have allowed China to buy Iraqi oil. They would never have let Iran increase their influence in Iraq.

That is happening because Pres Obama does not want a WWIII over oil in Iraq/Iran.

We are not repeating the foreign policy mistakes we have made in the past. This Admin is trying to cut oil imports from the ME (And has) and increase alt energy (And has).

That is the solution to avoid the coming resource wars. But we must also still stand up against brutal extremists and with moderates.

What is your proposal?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The mistakes that the US continues to make, not just in the past.

China, Russia and for a time Europe as well. Benefits abound

You seem to think that this is much kinder approach but in reality the end goal is still the same. The welfare of the people is at once the responsibility of Iran but then becomes the basis of your argument for "helping" the same people? I think not.

Take care with that WWIII terminology. People pretend that it is in the future simply because it is not taking place on our soil. Those resource wars exist now. They are not in the future. MKO.

Iran had always been willing to allow Iraq determine it's future and, in fact, had let them know the mistakes that they had made (religion). They stated that they would not stand idly by should the US continue to exert undue influence into the affairs to Iraq. The occupation.

Again, accept what Iran is willing to do and back off.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL - YES - What really needs to happen is for every member of government that is out of line to be BITCH SLAPPED BY THE PUBLIC.

Thank God for the birth of OWS and all of the pro-people movements around the world. BITCH SLAPPING IS NEEDED IN ALL TOO MANY GOVERNMENTS and BUSINESSES.


[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (8829) 2 minutes ago

Thanks!

This is what they have to work with. So, unless you are planning to bitch slap everyone else with sanctions unless they comply then it is useless to single out Iran. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yep!!!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you. For being here and being involved in such an active educational and outreaching way.


Thank all of you.


[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (8829) 0 minutes ago

That's sweet. Thanks, DKA. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

In compliment to your comments - from Move to Amend :

Ring bells on Armistice Day!

On November 11, 1918 the guns of the "War to end wars" finally fell silent after more than 29,000,000 soldiers had been killed or wounded. Bells rang out across the world to celebrate the silence, and in 1938, Congress declared Armistice Day, November 11, a national holiday, "to be dedicated to the cause of world peace."

Congress changed the holiday to "Veterans Day" in 1954, to include World War II. In 2008, the Veterans For Peace (VFP) convention voted to return to the original name of the holiday, "Armistice Day."

VFP Chapter 27 in Minneapolis for many years has asked churches to ring their bells 11 times at 11am, on November 11, as it was done at the end of World War I.

This year Veterans for Peace is partnering with Move to Amend to expand Armistice Day observances. MTA works to end corporate personhood and "money is speech" in elections through constitutional amendment. These goals are key if we are to "abolish war as an instrument of national policy."

We say YA BASTA! Enough already!

To organize a vigil or bell ringing ceremony to reclaim Armistice Day as a day "dedicated to the cause of world peace," contact Larry Johnson, member of VFP Chapter 27 and a supporter of MTA at larryjvfp@gmail.com or 612-747-3904. Use this flyer to announce your local action.

Ever Onward! David Cobb (Move to Amend) & Mike Ferner (Veterans For Peace)

MOVE TO AMEND PO Box 610, Eureka CA 95502 | (707) 269-0984 | www.MoveToAmend.org

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

Donate

Facebook

Twitter

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That's sweet. Thanks, DKA.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Keep-on Keeping-on GF. {:-])

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It's the right wing mainly who ridicule the sanctions as weak, who would abandon sanctions (as they did in iraq) and invade, slaughtering a million+ (as they did in Iraq)

THAT is low grade genocide. Sanctions can be lifted if the religious extremist wackos in Iran wanted.

Libya was a cave in to the powers that be who still have immense power. But we worked with a real popular uprising against a real brutal dictator as well.

An unfortunate compromise but we limited our military action and got out. Now we have to let moderates create a real democracy.

The plan is to get the oil. If so we would have invaded. I think this Pres (not theright wing) is ok letting the Chinese have the oil. Our Pres would rather expand Alt energy and avoid the oil wars.

It is up to us to protest against all resource wars. Support any one resisting the right wing agenda to get control of all the oil.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

V, our foreign policy has not changed in over 80 years. Here, let me be more clear as I edited my prior post. The low grade genocide started with the use of DU, the sanctions did not allow for anything that would have provided basic medical care into Iraq. Albright thought this was worth it. She knew precisely.

You are still attempting to acquire the oil. The goal is the same. Using MKO and mutterings of democracy and fucking the people for the people does not some how make this more honorable. It becomes a proxy war.

The Chinese were going to get their oil whether there was this prez or another. Libya was about oil under the guise of "democracy".

Sanctions are not necessary. It is up to us to recognize and acknowledge what is happening now. Protest the sanctions.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

GR8 comment GF.

If one is to look at the agreement honestly - then one must see that all members of the treaty are in violation of the treaty. As no member should currently be using uranium as a power generation source - as it is not the cleanest nor the safest technology currently available for a nuclear reactor.


[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (8824) 27 minutes ago

Article IV

Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world. NPT Treaty

^^^ Support that! That is what they are pursuing. This is the treaty that they signed.

Hahahahaha! V? Iran borders Iraq. They both have Shiites. Hence, the hoopla over the Crescent. It isn't about Iran determining Iraq's future it is about keeping the US out of Iran. You have no right to be there. NONE. Get it yet? MKO.

The sanctions in Iraq were a FAIL. Big FAIL. They are inhumane and you are now down to going around in circles in attempt to defend this administration. You support the low grade genocide of the people in the ME. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Thanks!

This is what they have to work with. So, unless you are planning to bitch slap everyone else with sanctions unless they comply then it is useless to single out Iran.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Iranians should do whatever they want. If they want to see the sanctions as an extension of our efforts to get their oil. That is there choice.

I'm telling you it is part of our effort to resist the right wing pressure to invade!

They don't have to believe that. I do know that many Iranians want democracy, freedom, less religious extremism. I certainly support that.

If we are all lucky we will continue successfully resist the right wing pressure to invade. We will convince an end to nuclear activity everywhere and live happily ever after.

Or we fail and we invade, slaughter another million+ human beings and get control of the oil.

But I assure we ain't gonna just "let Iran do what they want and back off"

Peace

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I call bullshit.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Saddam Hussein slaughtered tens of thousands, Kurds and others. You give him a pass on that.

100k children died in the 13 years of sanctions. that is 7600 per year of a population of 33 million. Seems to me Saddam probably withheld medicine from the groups he didn't like (Kurds, shiites).

Medicine was not covered! Your article indicated Saddam could have ended the sanctions, he chose not to. He is responsible for the deaths.

But no matter we did end the sanctions like you wanted. Of course that was the only thing keeping the right wing from invading, Thats not what you wanted was it.?

You ain't complained about that though. how come?. no children killed with the right wing invasion of Iraq?

Sanctions against Iran is part of our successful effort to resist the right wing pressure to invade. The Ayatollahs should think about their children if they care.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Saddam Hussein slaughtered tens of thousands, Kurds and others. You give him a pass on that.

So, just so that we are clear: General Schwarzkopf, after saying, “You fly, you die, “ then grants the request from the Iraqi General Sultan Hashim Ahmad’s to not only fly the helicopters but to allow them to be armed. Yes? Armed with US weapons. Yes? So, when the Kurdish uprising in the north and the Shiite uprising in the south were ongoing, the No Fly Rule could have been reinstated. Yes? Could US troops have intervened? Yes. They were ordered not to. They were ordered to sit by and they watched. Yes? The moral of the story is this: The US did not give a shit.

100k children died in the 13 years of sanctions. that is 7600 per year of a population of 33 million. Seems to me Saddam probably withheld medicine from the groups he didn't like (Kurds, shiites).

Medicine was not covered! Your article indicated Saddam could have ended the sanctions, he chose not to. He is responsible for the deaths.

That isn't how it worked. See here and then you can go here for a partial list of items that were banned. Note that bags are on there. If you remember in the article that I posted last they needed bags.

But no matter we did end the sanctions like you wanted. Of course that was the only thing keeping the right wing from invading, Thats not what you wanted was it.?

Is that right? I don't think so

"You can see evidence of the impact of the embargo anywhere you look. Every sector of Iraq lacks parts and supplies that are kept out of the country under what are known as "dual use" restrictions. A UN committee in New York makes decisions on what Iraq can and cannot import and controls all of the income from Iraq’s permitted oil sales, which is paid into an escrow account at the Bank of Paris in New York.

The sanctions committee, dominated by U.S. and British representatives, routinely denies approval for items it claims could have a military application. Among the items that have been kept out of Iraq under these restrictions are ambulances, pencils, fertilizer, pesticides, chlorinators and water pumps.4

The U.S. regularly uses its veto power to block essential items. British journalist John Pilger recently confronted Peter van Walsum, the chair of the sanctions committee, about how its decisions are made:

Pilger: How much power does the United States exercise over your committee?

van Walsum: We operate by consensus.

Pilger: And what if the Americans object?

van Walsum: We don’t operate.5"

You should probably review your time-line

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I say our mistakes from 1953 are unrelated.

Iranian oil is why the right wing wants to invade. Resisting that pressure is why we are using sanctions.

That;s it in a nutshell.

Protest resource wars, Protest for alternative energy, Support all who resist the right wing pressure to war

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Right. So, those Iranians who do view this as related and, in fact, an extension of this period must now cease and desist.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I support sanctions as part of the resistance of the right wing pressure to invade.

The iraqi sanctions never included medicine & humanitarian food.The 500K number of children dead as a result is not accurate. The estimates have varied between under 100K to 500K,

In the end Saddam Hussein was responsible for his own people. He slaughtered thousands of Kurds and other groups. why wouldn't he let those same groups of Iraqis die and blame the UN sanctions.

I don't buy that propaganda.

Protest against right wing pressure to invade, Protest for alternative energy, Support all efforts to resist right wing pressure to engage in resource wars.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Kurds. Using the MKO and our weapons. Really?

Again. Saddam's cousin was drilling for oil sideways. That is what started this. Now see this

In the end it was low grade genocide.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I support this admin successful efforts to resist the pressure of the right wing to invade Iran. Supporting sanctions is part of that successful resistance. They ain't inhuman, or genocidal. They are better than invading like the right wing wants.

I do not support the Iranian extremist religious govt. I do not support nuclear weapons (ours or theirs) I do not support nuclear power (ours or theirs)

I believe our plan is to begin the process of eliminating all nuclear weapons and pressure all mideast countries (isreal incl) to abandon nuclear weapons & energy.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The plan is acquiring the oil. :/

Like Libya.

The sanctions in Iraq are known as low grade genocide. Sanctions help no one. This is why so many people are against them. The sanctions are not OK for Iran. Edited for the following: the low grade genocide started with the DU but the sanctions were designed to not allow medication or basic medical care to be used.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I agree resource wars are going on now and have been. I mentioned the "coming resource wars" because there are more far worse resource wars coming in the future. So I'm not sure what you mean :they are not in the future" They will be in the future and will be worse, unless we resist the right wing pressure to invade countries like Iran. That is when the current resource wars will become WWIII.

The mistakes the west continues to make are apparent in our resource wars in Iraq & Afghan. We are correcting those mistakes by ending those wars and not attempting to control all the resources and politics.

I do think the sanctions are a kinder approach than invasion. Of course. Just look at Iraq. And of course we have chosen to use sanctions in order to help, and support the Iranian people not hurt them.

Iran willing to allow Iraq to determine there future.? I don't think so. There is a deep religious factionalism at work between these 2 countries.

So iran is the protecter of Iraq? Wow. You present a pretty good case in favor of Iran. I can't do that because they are run by extremist religious wackos.

Do I understand you correctly that you support a course of action where we "accept what Iran is willing to do and back off"? Is that right?

You support the religious wacko extremists leaders over there? I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Article IV

  1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

  2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world. NPT Treaty

^^^ Support that! That is what they are pursuing. This is the treaty that they signed.

Hahahahaha! V? Iran borders Iraq. They both have Shiites. Hence, the hoopla over the Crescent. It isn't about Iran determining Iraq's future it is about keeping the US out of Iran. You have no right to be there. NONE. Get it yet? MKO.

The sanctions in Iraq were a FAIL. Big FAIL. They are inhumane and you are now down to going around in circles in attempt to defend this administration. You support the low grade genocide of the people in the ME.

[-] 2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Not to get them to give us there oil, but to msybe get the religiouswackos to moderate/allow a real democracy."

You realize the we're actually achieving the opposite by throwing sanctions at them right? Imagine if China imposed sanctions on us...our economy was tanking...inflation was through the roof...the people everywhere were hurting...what does that give the government the opportunity to do here? Create a boogy man out of china and say they are the root to all the problems...bringing us together as a nation and government to hate china with a passion. We're not helping the people of Iran hate their government....we're bringing the two together...and making them hate us.

"Our mistakes over half a century ago is not related."

Incredibly naive comment..for according to your arugment we're trying to free the iranian people..they were free. Our mistakes over the last half century have everything to do with the problems we're facing today. That's the right wings job VQ...to sit there and take a snapshot of everything going on and not consider history in context at all to learn from our mistakes....their solution is usually bomb the $hit out of them...even if logically looking back on history it doesn't make any sense.

You know what disappoints me the most out of you...i know you know that what we're doing to Iran is wrong...but you're willing to go along with it because your boy is in office...and you don't want people questioning what he's doing.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I support the sanctions against Iran because they are part of the successful resistance to right wing war mongers pressure to invade.

Peace

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Sanctions are the alternative to invasion?? It's either sanctions or war?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I didn't say our mistakes over the last century or not relevant. I said our mistakes over half century ago are not related. That's you twisting my words.

I realize history matters. My position on this thread considers that. My goal is to resist the right wing pressure to invade. I support the sanctions because it is part of our effort to resist the right wing effort to invade.

I would support anyone who resists the right wing pressure to invade, but my support is not for this Pres but for the successful effort to resist the right wing effort to invade!!!!!

I recognize the risk that the people will turn against us and towards the Ayatollahs. but I know that invading would do that much faster and more efficiently.

Protest against right wing pressure for more resource wars. Protest for more Alt energy. Support anyone resisting right wing efforts to invade.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Our mistakes over half a century ago is not related.

Certainly the attention in Iran is about oil. But the right wing wants to invade and we are resisting by using sanctions. So I support that.

Our allies should be pressured to change but since there is no right wing pressure to invade we don't have to placate the right with sanctions.

There time will come. So I say let Iran do what it wants with it's oil. But I do not want an invasion, so I support sanctions. Not to get them to give us there oil, but to msybe get the religiouswackos to moderate/allow a real democracy.

That's what I think.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Our mistakes over half a century ago is not related.

Who says?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They are run by religious extremist wackos. They oppress women and large religious groups. They support other extremist religious groups that have perpetrated violence as well.

Support them if you like. I cannot. I support the moderate Iranian people who want a democracy.

Long live the green revolution!

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Do you know how many other countries are 100x worse with the subjugation of their people? You and i both know this has nothing to do with that. Pretty sure many countries in africa would consider their situation a little more dire than Irans with repsect to its people.

How about Bahrain? Oh yeah i forgot....countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain that are our "allies" are allowed to subjugate their people:

http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2011/03/17/7978/bahrain-govt-forces-killing-civilians-to-crush-protest-movement/

To suggest this is to free the Iranian people from their rulers is ridiculous. They had a democraticlaly elected government up until 1953...when we overthrew it because we weren't making enough money on their oil and because their "leader" wanted to share the riches for the people of Iran..and not foreigners. Don't give me that $hit that its about the people.

It's about oil...money....and power in the region.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 2 years ago

when the good people of iran were crying out for help while protesting and being murdered by the iranian govt, obama ignored them. on the flip side, obama & co. helped put the totalitarian muslim brotherhood in place in egypt and libya.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That is what we have been presented with.

What other option would you support?

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Nothing....have they attacked anyone? Is there any evidence they are pursuing nuclear weapons based on intelligence reports? No.

Iran is questionably one of the most docile countries in the world...they haven't attacked anyone in over 200 years.

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

not sure you are correct as to the subject of international law. “If we judge [the war of aggression by the US against Iraq] by the standards laid down by the Nuremberg Tribunal that judged the Nazis after World War II, it is the supreme international crime.” Michael Mandel - i doubt that you can find a real act of humanitarian intervention - here is noam on the subject - Humanitarian Intervention Noam Chomsky Boston Review, December, 1993 - January, 1994 The first question that comes to mind about "humanitarian intervention" is whether the category exists. Are states moral agents? Or were Machiavelli, Adam Smith, and a host of others correct in concluding that they commonly act in the interests of domestic power - in Smith's day, the "merchants and manufacturers" who were "by far the principal architects" of policy and whose interests were "most peculiarly attended to," whatever the effects on others; in ours, corporate and financial power centers, increasingly transnational in scale? A second obvious question has to do with those who are to be in charge: what do their institutions and record lead us to expect?

There is ample documentary material supporting the belief that states are moral agents, in fact uniformly so. Without having read the texts, I presume that when the invasion of Afghanistan began to go sour, pre-Gorbachev Pravda portrayed it as having begun with "blundering efforts to do good" though most people now recognize it to have been a "disastrous mistake" because Russia "could not impose a solution except at a price too costly to itself;" it was an "error" based on misunderstanding and naiveté, yet another example of "our excess of righteousness and disinterested benevolence." The quoted phrases are those used to describe Kennedy's invasion of South Vietnam, later expanded to all of Indochina, at the dissident extreme, well after the Tet offensive convinced US business leaders that the enterprise should be liquidated (Anthony Lewis, John King Fairbank). There is no need to sample the harsher parts of the spectrum.

Furthermore, these examples generalize, though it is true that only in cultures with a deeply totalitarian strain do we find such notions as "anti-Soviet" or "anti-American," applied to the miscreants who see something other than righteousness and benevolence in the actions of their noble leaders; imagine the reaction to a book on "anti-Italianism" in Milan or Rome, or any society with a functioning democratic culture.

The pattern is familiar since biblical days. But the conventional pronouncements plainly do not suffice to refute skepticism about the morality of states. It is necessary to review the record, which reveals, unequivocally, that the category of "humanitarian intervention" is vanishingly small.

One might take the heroic stand that in the special case of the United States, facts are irrelevant. Thus the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government at Harvard instructs us that the United States must maintain its "international primacy" for the benefit of the world, because its "national identity is defined by a set of universal political and economic values," namely "liberty, democracy, equality, private property, and markets" (Samuel Huntington). Since this is a matter of definition, so the Science of Government teaches, it would be an error of logic to bring up the factual record. What may have happened in history is merely "the abuse of reality," an elder statesman of the "realist" school explained 30 years ago; "reality itself" is the unachieved "national purpose" revealed by "the evidence of history as our minds reflect it," and that shows that the "transcendent purpose" of the United States is "the establishment of equality in freedom in America," and indeed throughout the world, since "the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become world-wide" (Hans Morgenthau). - should i send more?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So your text indicates that humanitarian intervention is vanishingly small? Ok. Lets enlarge it.

I support using my military to help all oppressed people against ALL brutal dictators.

Please don't send more text. Just tell me do you agree or not?

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"I support using my military to help all oppressed people against ALL brutal dictators."

How do you suggest doing that without someone else calling it an "invasion"????

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I ain't speakin for anyone.

It IS the right wing that is the fear mongering party. Theright wing repubs ARE the war mongerers.

But I have only said I support using the military to help oppressed people against brutal dictators.

I didn't say the peoples opinion shouldn't be considered. Sure it should. I didn't say left wackos are ok. I didn't say I support invasion. I don't.

Thats you twisting my meaning cause you can't stomach the idea of helping people.

LMFAO

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Where did you get that quote from.? give me the comment number/link.

Otherwise I don't understand it.

I am against your right wing wackos pressure to invade Iran.

I support using military to support innocent people struggling against brutal dictators.

No contradiction.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

From YOU-six posts above.

If the "right wing wackos" do it=invasion If the left wing wackos do it=humanitarian effort to help the people.

Shouldn't the people of the country involved be asked how THEY would view a US Military presence in their country? Or do you speak for them as well?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If it is the right thing to do, why should we care what the fuck people call it?

What do you mean we should help people after checking the polls?

LMFAO!

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"I would support anyone who resists the right wing pressure to invade, but my support is not for this Pres but for the successful effort to resist the right wing effort to invade!!!!!"

Because you were against invasion before you were FOR it. :-)

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

no i do not agree - i live in a real world - you dream

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Since you can ridicule my not working :

"going to work - do you know what that is?" http://occupywallst.org/forum/oh-no-obamas-sanctions-are-working-in-iran/#comment-859239

It is appropriate to ridicule your working!! You can dish it out but you can't take it I guess. Put your big boy pants on and stop distracting from the real issues.

My personal life is not the issue. Whether you care enough about others to commit to helping the oppressed people of the world.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Work?. Did it for 25 years. Smart enough to retire @42 years old.

Sucka!!!

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

oh, and by the way i love what i do - i will retire for good when i die - you might be the sucka

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

if you think it is because you are smart then you really are dumber than i thought - and i thought you were really dumb

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No! no! YOU are the problem!

I ain't thrown any tantrums.

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

you just did - going to work - do you know what that is?

[-] 0 points by mayda (57) 2 years ago

hoist by your own petard - look it up - i will repost your feelings about those who must work for a living every day - time for a new identity??? you are really so stupid - how could you say such shit on an ows site - wow - mitt has not made such a gaff - richie rich boy - frugal my ass. laughing at workers - calling them suckers - wow - new name - i vote for "dumbassfor obama" or maybe "lazyboyfor obama" or how about "iamsosmartidon'thavetoworkwhyareyousostupidthatyouareworking" - maybe that will be my next post - what should vq call himself next

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"nonsense"? "knock on doors"? "aliens"? Chinese leaders"?

Insults & meaningless distractions. Just because you can't see the possibilities doesn't mean they don't exist..

We must visualize the change we want. I see a US military cut in half. I see much of the remainder used (with international agreement) to protect and help all oppressed people, all destitute people, all victims of natural disasters, all victims of climate change related disasters, and against brutal dictators.

Not only are you too blind to see these goals you are ridiculing and working against them.

"if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem"

"if you ain't behind me, then you're in my fuckin way"

"you can't change the world, but you can change the world in you"

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

i am in your way and if i had more time in would be in it more! are the martians landing - will obama use his great military to help suffering people around the world - just about the same probability. do you understand the words i just wrote - do you understand the concept? doubtful but try. sure - knocking on doors is a silly idea - especially when you can sit at home and type away at your computer and think that you are actually doing something - you are a very sad case - you - yes you personally are the trouble with the country. yea i said it - you are the problem - now throw a little hissy fit (one thing you are very good at- we are all good at something) - go on throw your little (tiny actually) tantrum - call me what you like then go out and do something! anything but get out of the house

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We must force the change in our govt that would create the change in our military use.

We all must care enough about innocent people struggling against brutal dictators.

Doesn't have to be bombing brown people by white people as you over dramatically twist it.

We MUST help all oppressed people.

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

yes and when martians invade from space we should put our troops under chinese leadership - almost as likely as your scenario. from your comment before it would seem that you are old enough to know a bit about how the world works - if so maybe you could stop this nonsense (and it is nonsense - too much of it for a site that hopes to change the world) and find something constructive to do. go knock on doors and help your boy get elected - pass out leaflets or show the movie "inside job" at your house and invite friends - you have them right?

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

when you find a government that might use it's military in a humanitarion way let me know and we can discuss it like adults. until then i will oppose the bombing and killing of brown people (even if it is by a brown president) by white people in the name of democracy and justice. oh, i forgot freedom. gotta go to work - again! you stay home and be nice to mommy

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"you may call me a dreamer,

But I'm not the only one.

I hope someday you'll join us.

And the world will live as one"

JL

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

wel being a dreamer is not the worst thing to be and it is good to admit it. it's just that during difficult times most people would probably rather have pragmatic solutions than dreams - as the mayor said "hows that hope and change thing working out for you?"

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm laughin at you because you refuse to help the oppressed people of the world against brutal dictators.

[-] 0 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

nice try - we will see how others see your laughing - every few days i will post that thing up

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nothing wrong with working hard to retire early. Who ain't workin to retire.?

I ain't rich. I live very frugally so I don't have to be a wage slave to the 1% plutocrats.

We should all have the same opportunity.

[-] 2 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

read the post and see how you come off - sucka - laughing at those who work for a living - very sad but i knew you were a little shit from the start. you don't have to work cause your samrt - that means those who work are not so smart as you - you have been REVEALED

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I know it was smart, 'cause it took 10 years of planning, sacrifice, savings, investment & work.

Sucka!. Enjoy work.!

HA!

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

showing your true colors?? dumping on those who work for a living? while you are smarter than they are and live off your riches - nice - a real ows guy through and through. you sound like a 1% type - and just so you cannot edit out your comments i will post them for all to see - thanks - a gift from the gods!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't need to justify myself to you.

I've been outside protesting since the mid '70's.

You got nothing but schoolyard bullying tactics. Silly name calling, ridiculous distractions.

All in the name of not protecting/helping your fellow world citizen in need.

Think beyond yourself. We are so fortunate. We need to be doing more for the people of the world. So many of them suffer because of our actions.

Stop being selfish, greedy, careless. it's poor form, bad karms. & "instant Karmas gonna get you" JL.

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

you are the problem - come to terms with it. you cannot even respond to a simple point - come on now - throw another little tantrum

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I didn't state US military, or this Admin, Or in Syria, or bombing specifically, Or colors (race). That's just your poor comprehension skills.

I asked a very basic question. So if we strip away the non sense you inaccurately attached it sounds like maybe you would support helping oppressed people militarily. If it was a righteous use!

That wasn't so hard was it?

And my sainted mother died at 55 years old 14 years ago so please leave her out of it. In fact once again I implore you to keep the personal attacks out of our exchanges. Kinda immature no?

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

no and no and no - when you find a government that might use it's military in a humanitarion way let me know and we can discuss it like adults. until then i will oppose the bombing and killing of brown people (even if it is by a brown president) by white people in the name of democracy and justice. oh, i forgot freedom.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Why are you against using the military to help oppressed people overthrow brutal dictators?

Do you support brutal dictators? Or do you hate oppressed people?

[-] 2 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

how is your reading comprehension - i know your thinking skills are not great but we can't all be smart. hopefully you are good with your hands

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 2 years ago

VQkag2 You should consider closing up shop. Your comments make no sense at all

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I have made no assertian regarding what we have done! That is you just distracting from the question I pose.

I know we have not used our military responsibly. My questions refers to the future.

Why are you against using the military to help oppressed people overthrow brutal dictators?

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

yes and you are stil BORING

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And yet Mr Wilson here you are again and again riveted to your screen reading my comments and responding.

Why are you against using the military to help oppressed people overthrow brutal dictators?

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

how did you know my name! if you read some real history you would know that overthrowing brutal dictators is not what we or any country does - you must have forgotten to read this or maybe you fell asleep and were dreaming that you read it - try again then get back to me - dennis - Humanitarian Intervention Noam Chomsky Boston Review, December, 1993 - January, 1994 The first question that comes to mind about "humanitarian intervention" is whether the category exists. Are states moral agents? Or were Machiavelli, Adam Smith, and a host of others correct in concluding that they commonly act in the interests of domestic power - in Smith's day, the "merchants and manufacturers" who were "by far the principal architects" of policy and whose interests were "most peculiarly attended to," whatever the effects on others; in ours, corporate and financial power centers, increasingly transnational in scale? A second obvious question has to do with those who are to be in charge: what do their institutions and record lead us to expect?

There is ample documentary material supporting the belief that states are moral agents, in fact uniformly so. Without having read the texts, I presume that when the invasion of Afghanistan began to go sour, pre-Gorbachev Pravda portrayed it as having begun with "blundering efforts to do good" though most people now recognize it to have been a "disastrous mistake" because Russia "could not impose a solution except at a price too costly to itself;" it was an "error" based on misunderstanding and naiveté, yet another example of "our excess of righteousness and disinterested benevolence." The quoted phrases are those used to describe Kennedy's invasion of South Vietnam, later expanded to all of Indochina, at the dissident extreme, well after the Tet offensive convinced US business leaders that the enterprise should be liquidated (Anthony Lewis, John King Fairbank). There is no need to sample the harsher parts of the spectrum.

Furthermore, these examples generalize, though it is true that only in cultures with a deeply totalitarian strain do we find such notions as "anti-Soviet" or "anti-American," applied to the miscreants who see something other than righteousness and benevolence in the actions of their noble leaders; imagine the reaction to a book on "anti-Italianism" in Milan or Rome, or any society with a functioning democratic culture.

The pattern is familiar since biblical days. But the conventional pronouncements plainly do not suffice to refute skepticism about the morality of states. It is necessary to review the record, which reveals, unequivocally, that the category of "humanitarian intervention" is vanishingly small.

One might take the heroic stand that in the special case of the United States, facts are irrelevant. Thus the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government at Harvard instructs us that the United States must maintain its "international primacy" for the benefit of the world, because its "national identity is defined by a set of universal political and economic values," namely "liberty, democracy, equality, private property, and markets" (Samuel Huntington). Since this is a matter of definition, so the Science of Government teaches, it would be an error of logic to bring up the factual record. What may have happened in history is merely "the abuse of reality," an elder statesman of the "realist" school explained 30 years ago; "reality itself" is the unachieved "national purpose" revealed by "the evidence of history as our minds reflect it," and that shows that the "transcendent purpose" of the United States is "the establishment of equality in freedom in America," and indeed throughout the world, since "the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become world-wide" (Hans Morgenthau). - should i send more?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"boring"? "dream posting"? Aaaaah ha ha ha!

You are so motherfuckin funny!!

You should have your own show.

I guess you support war mongering conservatives and are against peace loving progressives??

So are your positions so impotent you can't discuss this in a civil, respectful way, without the personal attacks?

I guess then you lose!!

Loser!!!!

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

yes you are right on all counts - that is what is meant by - you are so boring

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Dreaming of course. But more importantly WORKING for change.

replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives, & protest all war & rights violations.

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

you are so boring - are you awake now or is this dream posting

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Hope, & change always works well.

We have one problem with the Obama recovery. It has been slowed by traitorous republican obstruction.

So I HOPE we CHANGE the congressional makeup enough to pass the stimulus repubs watered down, the jobs bills repubs buried, the public health care option repubs killed, stronger fin reform thatrepubs weakened, and rehire all the public workers repubs fired during the economic employment crises.

[-] 1 points by flip (7527) 2 years ago

keep dreaming

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 2 years ago

Obama's "Hope & Change" slogan has been changed to "Poverty & Despair"

[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 2 years ago

The only solution it to shut the door on the Middle East and start drilling more in the US

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Alternate energy is the only solution. We must stop buying/burning oil, gas, coal.

If we drill more in the US we will destroy our environment. unacceptable.

[-] 0 points by WeThePeop (-259) 2 years ago

This is not going to happen overnight and will never happen in our lifetime. I myself do not see electric jets, bulldozers, cranes, semis etc in the distant future. The World will always be dependent on fossil fuels. If you want to go after the big polluters then go after the farmers.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No! I know that in the next 10-20 years we will stop burning all fossil fuel.

And we must. So get used to the idea. Embrace the wind/sun. And stop being an advocate for the big oil/coal criminals who are profiting off the destruction of your planet.

Instead stand with the people your login suggests.

Peace

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

We will stop buring oil, because its running out.

Nuclear is next on their list. You wont get away from nuclear if you dont switch out the already-corrupted two parties that write our policies.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

I think we need toget rid of the plants based on40 year olddesigns and be smart about the placement of plants but nuclear and solar are the future. I have been very impressed with a thorium plant. There are also fusion test plants that look interesting.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ok I support your plan! Let's do it!

Who are we gonna vote for? It's all well and good to point and say everyone sucks.

We gotta have a positive choice to vote FOR!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You have a better plan?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Yes, vote out the two party system, put some real people in there, dismantle all the people at the EPA and Dept of Energy, and reappoint real people there too.

.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nuclear will go as more explosions/meltdowns occur. I have no fear that way.

No matter what parties exist.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Thats a wonderful plan.

[-] 0 points by WeThePeop (-259) 2 years ago

In 10-29 years we still will not be able to function without fossil fuels. I did mention about the farmers being big polluters and you did not respond to that, why?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I support eliminating the chemical fertilizer pollution you describe. This is more water pollution and food pollution than air pollution.

Big agriculture, big Chem should be our targets there.

Is that who you are against? I support protesting those 1% corps.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ok I'll bite, How are farmers big polluters?

[-] 0 points by WeThePeop (-259) 2 years ago

They put chemicals on their crops, the residue travel through ditches and then it goes into the lakes

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

The line that Iran is getting "the bomb" has been on the table since the revolution. It's the same war-drumming that led to the illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and how'd that work out for y'all?

As for "one more extremist theocracy" what has ever been done about North Korea? Oh, that's right, they don't have any resources worth invading for.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thats right N Korea has no resources and of course China is there protector so that is an issue.

Irans oil is the reason the right wing wants to invade. Terrorism/nuclear weapons accusations true or not are part of that resource grab.

The sanctions are part of the thus far successful resistance of the right wing pressure to invade Iran.

My objection of the Iranian govt is to their extremist religious govt and oppression and anti women acts the perpetrate.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

To my mind, the extremists are the western war-mongers, who have stopped caring about their own nation and its people, while pretending to care about people from another nation.

Your faith in the corporate-owned media to deliver facts, is amazing, considering the mounting evidence here, that they are tools of the oligarchs.

Here's what the situation for women in Iran really is.

{quote} March 4, 2007, saw western media build humungous anti-Iranian hype around Iranian security forces arresting around 32 women’s rights activists protesting in Teheran against the arrest, almost one year ago, of other women activists speaking out against polygamy and related issues. M. S. H Shakib, Cultural Counsellor, government of Iran, belligerently narrated to B&E, “In Iran, most of the women go out to work; the ones who don’t are generally not educated enough to find a job.” But despite the western hype, it remains a factual reality that women in Iran, under Shah’s regime in the 1970s and even under the current theocratic dispensation, have enjoyed more freedom than the womenfolk in other Islamic countries and even developed nations. The women literacy rates in Iran stand at 79%; and promisingly, they comprise 38% of the work-force in the public sector, comparable to even some developed nation in the west.

Interestingly, women occupy 4.1% of seats in the parliament. The west conveniently forgets that women in the 6th Majlis had created history by managing to get a bill on Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) passed (CEDAW was adopted in 1979 by the UN and almost 90% of UN members are party to it). How many nations can claim to have adopted such a bill? Of much interest is the clearly ironical fact that March 4, 2007, also saw the most hypocritical United States government peacefully declining visas for an Iranian women delegation that wished to attend the 51st conference of the UN Commission on Status of Women in New York. We’re left wondering why did this news not find its rightful place amongst the various ostensibly women-loving sycophantic western media? Or perhaps, it’s no wonder... {end quote}

http://www.businessandeconomy.org/22032007/storyd.asp?sid=1377&pageno=1

Why would the US deny these women diplomats from Iran a visa? Because allowing them to come to the US, would lend the lie to all the propaganda you are lapping up about it.

Where is your anger at the ridiculously low wages in the US, for men and women? Where is your anger at the banks getting bailed out, while people are left homeless, and houses get bulldozed to prevent squatters?

Falling for this crap about Iran might seem like a just cause to you, but it's simple war-drumming by the oligarchs to continue their war of empire, at the cost of losing America. Get onto it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You present a good case for the way the religious extremists treat women in Iran.

I'm gonna go with the opinions of the Iranian women I have heard.

I have great outrage over low wages in America, bank bailouts and all the stuff you listed.

But that doesn't change my objection to the oppression of women and non shiites in Iran.

Sorry. We disagree. I'm against the extremist theocracy in Iran, And I guess you support them. Whatever.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Because they want to Iraq Iran...

Iraq has WMD's!!! they said

Iran wants to have WMD's!!! they say

It's all part of the Neocon war agenda.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Didn't we just succeed at resisting the neocons pressure to invade Iran.?

Where ya' been? Neocons made a massive effort all summer.

So when are we invading Trev?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Obviously you haven't read the NDAA for 2013

Where have you been? We're practicing war games in the straight of hormuz and practically have Iran surrounded.

I'm predicting, the US, NATO, or Israel, will be bombing Iran in late summer 2013.

As long as people oppose the idea of starting another war based on WMD lies, maybe we can stop this from happening all over again.

The sanctions are bullshit too. No more warmongering please.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I support the thus far successful effort to resist the right wing war mongers pressure to invade Iran.

NDAA: This pres has not used that repub created policy, law!!!! Only repubs have used it. This Pres has recently removed almost a 3rd of the remaining repub created cases in Gitmo. I support those efforts.

You predictions are meaningless.

We must support the successful resistance of the right wing war mongers pressure to invade Iran. Protest against war, Against drone bombings, against NDAA.

AND

Replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'll remind you in December when Obama signs the NDAA of 2013 and bans gay marriage from military ceremonies because he refuses to veto.

He's going to sign the "repub created policy"

I guarantee he will sign that bill just like he did last year and signed for indefinite detention laws of American citizens and then appealed to continue after an injunction was filed. Just like when he voted for the Patriot act.

It's like Joe Biden calling out Paul Ryan saying "You voted to put these wars on credit " which is 100% true.... But so did Joe.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Is Pres Obama gonna use the indef det authority or continue doing the right thing?

When will Pres Obama complete ending all the indef det cases leftover by Bush.?

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Doing the right thing would have been letting that judge rule as he did and not appeal it.

This is how we know you dont support Occupy or its believes, because of your blind loyalty to one person. Take your shit somewhere else.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think the "NAZI" accusations are against the forum rules. They're certainly way off base.

My support of OWS is my business.

I agree on the appeal approach, and also would have liked a veto.

However that didn't happen.!!

So, please answer the question.

Is Pres Obama gonna use the indef det authority or continue doing the right thing?

When will Pres Obama complete ending all the indef det cases leftover by Bush.?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Bradley Manning still has not had a trial. He was indefinitely detained and is an American. He also pointed out massive fraud and murder but this administration refuses to give him a pardon. He was supposed to get a trial by law within 120 days. That obviously has not happened.

So if you ask if he's going to end indefinite detention... I tell you he is not. He literally just appealed to continue using it after a judge tried to block the provisions.

You asked "When will Pres Obama complete ending all the indef det cases leftover by Bush.?"

That's a good question. Shouldn't he have done that by now? LOL you just proved my point.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Bradley Manning is an unfortunate case. I like whistle blowers in general. Apparently there are some military rules against the action he took.

I believe Bradley Manning is gonna need a pardon because he is clearly guilty, although I think he is a hero. He may yet get a pardon but that could never happen before the election in this right wing wacko country.

I think we are left with the reality that Manning will probably be put to death. He is a great hero we should all look up to. He has made the ultimate sacrifice (his life) for his country.

Pres Obama has not used indef detention (Manning don't count), and he is eliminating the repub left over indef det cases. Pres Obama is taking longer than I want to clean up your repubs mess but he IS ending it.

It would be faster if the Repubs would get out of the way.

Free Bradley Manning!

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Apparently there are some military rules against the action he took."

Presto- there you have it! Why bother even with a trial?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Manning does count.

My repub mess? You are a fucking moron.

All you do is go around calling people republicans.

Earth to VQ, republicans don't agree with Trevor.

Trevor wants to end the wars years ago and stop bombing foreign countries. Trevor wants minimum wage increase. Trevor wants a monetary policy that funds infrastructure and job creations instead of giving unlimited resources to banks. Trevor is not a republican. Trevor is not a democrat. Trevor wants medicare for all. Trevor does not give a fuck about 2 corporate whores making profits for Raytheon, KBR, and Goldman Sachs.

I keep forgetting I need to stop chatting with you on this forum because of how fucking blind you are.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your constant personal attacks show you to be uninterested in solutions.

You appear to come here simply to put people down to lift yourself up.

You keep misplacing your criticism with one pol/party & I will keep reminding you that you serve repubs when you engage in that simplistic partisanship.

I have heard you discuss (in simplistic way) other issues which appear progressive, but your criticisms are still one sided and appear partisan. You have gotten only slightly better with perfunctory mention of repub responsibility but I still ain't convinced.

And of course you certainly continue with the very conservative type personal attacks. So......

Whatever. What I think about you is irrelevant.

[-] 1 points by bestevidence (170) 2 years ago

Because Iran is trying to assert its independence from the West. Because it is trying to break free of the petrodollar regime which is what allows americans to be so arrogant as to tell everyone else how they should live and back this advice up with threats.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Aaaah. The Iranians are good and we are bad.

Got it.

[-] 2 points by bestevidence (170) 2 years ago

get it. the us is messing around with too many other countries and it will backfire once more.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Let's hope not.

The US should stop "messing around" with countries and help poor countries deal with hunger & climate change!

We should fight for the oppressed people around the world. Use our military to protect innocent civilians from brutal leaders.

Right?

[-] 0 points by bestevidence (170) 2 years ago

Wrong. You may think you are Captain America. I hope it's your kids and grandchildren that get to answer the call and not mine.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please leave my personal life out of this discussion.

You don't have to agree that we should help all oppressed people but you don't have wish my children ill will.

If you can't be an adult just refrain from responding

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Someone's children and grandchildren will have to go. Why not yours? You want someone to do it right? Warmongers threaten other people's lives. I'm telling you, Mr. Warmonger that it ought to be you and yours who pay the price and not me and mine. Sorry but all this shit about killing people and starving them into submission gets pretty emotional and personal. I'm not some suit on PBS who couldn't imagine my kids having to pay for my policies. Are you?

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Yes. Was a time when the ruler of the people fronted for them in times of battle.

Looking forward to the day when that is how things work again.

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I hate an ignorant smug American exceptionalist. Don't you?

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

A mindset nurtured by the 1%.

Would help if people saw through that.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The US govt can end the sanctions immediately and save the people.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Or we (along with our allies) can keep the pressure on those religious extremist wackos until they behave like responsible world citizens.

We don't have to buy their oil do we.? It ain't a law is it? Why should we buy the oil of some religious extremist wacko theocracy.

The Ayatollahs are responsible for their own people. If there is problem with the sanctions creating health or other hardship on the Iranian people them the Ayatollahs MUST act to have the sanctions lifted.!

It's on them. Not us.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Who is MKO, V? It is on us.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

MKO? unfamiliar with that reference. Please educate me.

What is on us?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization

You do not win the ability to to claim that we don't have to buy the oil of some religious extremist wacko theocracy while we have marines at the oil wells in Saudi Arabia.

You do not win the ability to pretend that we are not responsible for the people that live in Iran as a way to justify the sanctions. We have a long history here. You are beginning to sound like Madeline Albright.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am well aware of our long history. We just took MEK off of the terrorist watch list. Are you against that?

I don't have "to win" anything. I get an opinion regardless if we agree or not. I like Madeline Albright & I agree with sanctions over invasion everytime. EVERYTIME!!! I do not buy the right wing criticism of sanctions because I know they do so because they want to invade! We can not stop boycott/sanctions because the Iranian religious leaders choose misery for their people, over moderation.

We don't have to buy oil from extremists. We must stand against extremists.We must support moderates.

We support Saudi Arabia and that is a serious problem, but they are not the same as Iran.

We must pressure Saudi Arabia to change their treatment of women, and create a real representative (maybe direct?) democracy. And end the .kingdom. But in the measure of extremists Iran stands alone at the top and we MUST stand against extremism, and with moderates.

Best thing we can do is stop buying all there oil! What is you MPG.? Accellerate alt energy and stop buying/burning oil. Remove their leverage/power and they WILL moderate.

Or we could step back and let those religious extremist wackos grow and destroy their peoples lives. The religious extremists are the biggest threat to the Iranian people and all people all over the planet.

I want all countries to stand against that. I want my country to be 1st in line against them. Even with the contradictions our oil consumption creates.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yes, I am against that. We know why MKO was taken off the terrorist watch list. This is not a new game. It is an old game. It has been played countless times across the ME and in South America. You can lie to the people of the US for only so long. You may cover this up for maybe the next 20 years. You can sit on the sidelines at that time and blink innocently and pretend that you didn't know. That isn't what the track record shows.

Yes, the same Maderline Albright that when confronted with the news that we had 4,000 Iraqi children dying a month said it was worth it. Simply because Saddam's cousin was drilling sideways. That is a fact. Oil lines were blown up and NO ONE knows who did it. The Iraqi's payed for it. They payed twice. But, as long as the oil was flowing it didn't matter. How can you live with that? How do you sleep at night?

We can not stop boycott/sanctions because the Iranian religious leaders choose misery for their people, over moderation

It's oil. Underneath every little cry for democracy and concern for the people are access to the world's precious resources. V? You know this. You are entirely too smart to pretend that you don't.

No, Saudi Arabia matched the US to fund the Peshawar Seven dollar for dollar. Most of whom were extremists. The textbooks that were used in Afghanistan came from the US and used AK-47's and dead Soviet soldiers to learn how to count. Zbigniew Brzezinski thought it was worth it. The Arc of Crisis. They used religion to create a jihad. This spawned the Taliban and al Qaeda . Exported to about 24 countries, no? Yeah, the Saudi's are in a mo' betta' group.

Every so many years a group in the US says that they want to take out Saudi Arabia and Iran and anyone else that is in their way and get it over with. Attempting to interfere by using known terrorist groups and then installing a puppet government that is Western friendly is the exact same thing. It just comes with a pretty bow, big doe eyes and sharpened teeth.

While there are those Iranians that are not happy with the government (power has actually swung to the military), those same people will not stand for interference from the west. This will not be as easy and they will not forgive or forget. You will not be welcomed.

Our foreign policy does not change very much, no matter who is president. Our domestic policy has a noticeable swing.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Iranian power still resides with the Ayatollahs. I disagree that the military have taken control. They have some control and maybe more than they have but not more than the extreme religious wackos.

I know that the Obama admin has spent 3 1/2 years resisting the right wing pressure to take MEK off of the terrorist list. The last year the Obama admin has resisted massive right wing pressure to invade and as a result caved in on this issue.

No grand scheme/conspiracy to engage in the kind of right wing collusion/support with terrorist like Taliban of '80's in Afghan.

Madeline Albright has backed away from the statement that it was worth it and specified we never embargoed medical supplies. Saddam is responsible for the deaths and misery of his people. The sanctions of the '90's were an effort to avoid the right wing pressure to invade.

Remember? Soon as the right wing got into power they invaded and proceeded to slaughter more than a million Iraqis. That is what I do not want in Iran. That is what the right wing wants and is trying to do when they say the sanctions ain't working. Sanctions are the better alternative to invasion. Don't you see that? It's the right wing that ridicules and calls us weak when we maintain sanctions.

The Saudi ruling family gives much money to religious extremists, no doubt. It is still very different than Iran. I do not support the Saudi govt nor their policies. We should put pressure on them and Bahrain, and any other govt oppressing their people.

I like my govt standing up for the freedom of all people. I want to eliminate oil as a part of foreign policy. I support alt energy, and the right wing has obstructed and delayed that.

I don't need Iranians to welcome Americans. I just want to see all extremist religious wackos overthrown. I also support all the Arab spring brutal puppet dictators (that the US previously supported) being overthrown.

That is the people of the middle east making change and the US standing back and not interfering. I support that.

Oil unfortunately is still important to Americans. Our foreign policy IS still driven by that. We must push Alt energy AND support oppressed people everywhere, even if it looks like we are trying to take their oil.

I don't think sanctions means we are trying to take Iranian oil. I think invasion WOULD mean that. I don't think this admin is trying to invade, and take Iranian oil. I think Pres Obama has made great efforts to resist the right wing oil whore war mongers pressure to invade.

Successfully!

We disagree. And that is disappointing. But you have not suggested another course of action.

What do you propose?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It isn't important that the US needs the oil. It is important that we control the oil that everyone else needs.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I realize that there is a powerful 1% plutocrat, oligarch, MIC in thewest that in fact is engaged in this effort of controlling all resources.

I recognize that this Pres & all western leaders must contend with that most powerful group.

I submit our resistance of the iranian invasion is the forces of good succeeding against them. I submit the powers that be are in the process of attempting to end the sanctions so they can engineer the invasion of Iran and control of more oil.

I submit they do not want Russia in Iraq (like the article you linked) I submit the 1% plutos do not want Iran in Iraq as they are. I submit the 1% powers that be are not happy with how Egypt has gone nor how Libya has gone.

They are againstthe alt efforts and anti coal EPA efforts we have begun and have slowed those efforts.

This Admin has taken the right steps. Sanctions are the alternative to the rightwing invasion.

What do you propose?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

How could the 1 % not be happier ? Look at the date of the article.

Protecting "American interests" is the same as our international policies do not change with the presidents. I told you my solution. You just don't like it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yes Europeans were most concerned about their oil supply there. I don't doubt that was at work their. I also think that there was a movement to oust the brutal dictator Kadafi. I also believe the 1% are not happy with the influence that islamists are attempting.

All I can say is we did not perpetrate another Iraqi invasion level slaughter.

We attempted to resist and failed. The European 1%'rs drove that effort.

The powers that be are not gonna give up power immediately nor are things gonna change over noght with a click of a switch.

We must protest and replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives. We must push for real change and recognize the slow progress we are attempting.

The MIC, 1% plutos will not allow an immediate change. Only slow progress has any hope of success.

Libya was a cave in but of course the people wanted a change and Kadafi was a brutal dictator.

Your solution sounds like let the Iranians do what they want. Of course I don't like that. They are extremist religious wacko leaders in Iran.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Down with fossil fuel - the bane of all humanity - the bane of all life on earth.

[+] -5 points by WeThePeop (-259) 2 years ago

In other related news!!!!!! Gov Romney (soon to be Pres) is surging in the poles and it is driving the liberals crazy bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

In other related news: Somebody is absolutely terrified that people are discussing issues instead of allowing jack asses to define the perimeters of our conversation. Again.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

ugh! worse than I imagined you to be. you favor starving and punishing millions of people for a non existent violation by their government when indeed you live in the country most deserving of global sanctions.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I support the sanctions as part of our resistance of the right wing war mongers pressure to invade and slaughter millions.

I do not support starving people. I do not believe sanctions mean that.

that's just a little dramatic, and does not reflect my beliefs.

And why does the US deserve sanctions.?

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"And why does the US deserve sanctions.?"

For murdering civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia via drone strikes.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Good luck with that!

[-] -1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Not in this world where might makes right.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I believe "right makes might" as Lincoln originally said.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Might makes right is the way things are going. That's why you feel fully comfortable demanding that Russia for example submit to a small group of anti social scum and allow them to disrupt and insult the culture and society unmolested. Something you would not tolerate in your own home town.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aea_1343072683

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I live in NYC. We are very tolerant of abuse against the church.

I think we can create more support around the world by being righteous. not by using our military.

Help poor countries deal with hunger, healthcare, climate catastrophes. Protect innocent civilians from brutal leaders.

As far as Russia goes I think we are pretty safe just taking the opposite position of the govt over there.

You disagree?

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I disagree absolutely. Russia's big problem was giving the ikay in the UN for the rape of Libya which is coming back by the way to bite the ass of the USA. They did this under intense US pressure but they seem steadfast in not repeating the same error in Syria.

http://tinyurl.com/94aqx8s

Al-Qaeda grows every day in Libya: US security chief

(AFP) – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON — Al-Qaeda's presence in Libya is growing every day, the former commander of a special security team in Tripoli told US lawmakers Wednesday at a hearing into a militant attack on a US mission. The Al-Qaeda "presence grows every day. They are certainly more established than we are," Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, who headed up a 16-strong site security team in Tripoli. He was addressing a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee into the September 11 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, amid allegations of security failures by the US administration. The US administration has now said that the attack, in which four people died, is believed to have been carried out by elements linked to Al-Qaeda. Initially US officials said the assault was triggered by a protest against an anti-Islam film. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama told Americans the goal of defeating the Al-Qaeda network was within reach, more than a decade after the September 11 attacks. Speaking in a presidential address direct to American audiences during a surprise visit to Afghanistan, Obama said: "The goal that I set to defeat Al-Qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild is now within our reach." But there has been growing concern that Al-Qaeda is capitalizing on the chaos and upheaval in Arab and Middle East nations caused by the Arab Spring, by seeking to move into tumultuous areas. A US official has said that they are investigating whether Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb may have been behind the Benghazi attack.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57531618/rebels-ally-with-al-qaeda-group-to-take-syrian-base/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57479573-503543/is-al-qaeda-fighting-in-syria-/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Libyan "freedom fighters" Lynch black people

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/07/libya-ethnic-cleansing/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZFWHl0WH3s

One day this stuff is liable to really bite New York of all places hard on the ass. What goes around...

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

al kidda is a boogy man created to justify US violent policy

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Al Quaeda" as such is a sham but it is undeniable that Islamist extremists are and have been armed by the West from Bosnia to Libya to Afghanistan. They are not simply puppets, they have their own agendas.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So you are surprised that extremists (Al Qaeda) exist in Libya and are attempting to gain influence during a political transition?

Sounds you think we should just accept the brutal dictator (khadaffy) because he kept the extremists at bay.? I disagree, I believe the people disagreed. We must take risks for freedom, & democracy. Russia is interested in resources in Libya & Syria. They're not interested in freedom and democracy, just influence in a critical region.

We must support moderate, democratic change all over the world. We must stand against brutal dictators (like the russian supported Assad) wherever they are (even our allies like mubaruk).

And we must do this even when extremists take advantage of the inevitable transitional periods.

Be strong, look sharp, stay frosty. And do not submit to Russias support for brutal dictators. They ain't the good guys! And we gotta be the good guys.

Peace.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"We" use "al Quaeda" (extremist Islamists) and have used them often as have the Israelis. Trouble is they are much more than simply tools they have their own agendas. Now Kucinich is worried about a few thousand shoulder fired missiles gone missing in Libya. While US military aircraft can evade them and get away unfortunately airliners can't.

http://tinyurl.com/9bqwvv9

Khaddafy of course had been cooperating with the war on terror because the Islamists and he do not see eye to eye on such things as women working and going to school, chopping off the hands of poor people caught stealing bread, etc. However these were what there was available to overturn Khadaffy who had the gall to try to free Libya from dollar domination. Now a similar thing is going n in Syria (which also received Islamist prisoners for interrogation). Biden had to remind Ryan about this. In Libya it seems a decision was made that if Islamists took over it wouldn't have too much serious effect in other places but a look at a map shows Syria is very very strategically located, and while the Islamists there are all too happy to take western aid like they did in Afghanistan, once the deed is done the deal is off. Syria is said to have a stockpile of chemical weaponry as well as missiles that could knock down an Israeli airliner enroute to Moscow let's say or land one hell of a stinkbomb into Tel Aviv. Very risky stuff being done.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And your resorting to name calling just reflects the impotence of your arguments.

LOL

I win!! You lose!!

Loser!!!

Russia out of Syria!!. & take your puppet brutal dictator Assad with you!!!

[-] -1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I gave you facts maybe you find facts insulting. I find it insulting to this forum for someone like you to come with opinions but no facts.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please. Libya is done. We helped the people. Got rid of a brutal dictator.

We will do the same in Syria and at the same time kick out the russians who support the brutal dictator Assad.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ya, the average person

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Ya know what VQkag2 ? You are a moron!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wow. Lotsa horrible things going on.

Are you suggesting we should have left khadafy in place? And we should not support the people trying to oust Assad?

If not what are you proposing?

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I am exactly saying that "we" had no business butting in and provoking things in Libya. The lynchings of black skinned Libyans and of immigrant workers, the disappearance of serious weaponry, the reappearance of those epons in various hands in neighboring countries where people in Mali and Niger and being killed and where those countries' very futures as states of any sort are now in question - those catastrophes are on the hands of people like you- arrogant willfully ignorant americans who think they have a right to rule the world.

Even Biden had to reign back Ryan at the debate when it came to Syria. He knows that many of the "freedom fighters" there are extremist fanatical Islamists and that there are rockets and chemical weapons at large there. If you lived in Tel Aviv or Beirut you might be paying closer attention.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm paying attention just fine.

I like that we sided with innocent Libyan civilians in their effort to overthrow the brutal dictator Khadaffy.

I don't believe your rant on all the horrible things that have happened and I certainly don't feel responsible.

But you didn't answer the question. Should we have not helped the innocent civilians of Libya overthrow Khadaffy?

What should we have done? What should we do now?

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"We" should not have stirred up the problems in Libya. "We should not have bombed the place. "We" should not have sent in weapons that are now wreaking havoc throughout neighboring countries. You choose your own facts which it makes it difficult to engage in dialogue. Of course Libya is a mess now! Read a friggin' news report sometimes and ask yourself why now "we" are putting "boots on the ground" (publicly) in Libya if things are now so hinky fucking dory.

[-] 6 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Sanctions hurt the innocent people the most, not the despotic rulers. It's like choking the children for the crimes of the father. It is barbaric. Never worked in Cuba, they still live in poverty, it helped kill 500,000 children in Iraq, and now the people of Iran are feeling their economic air supply being cut off.

All of this in hope that the people of Iran will overthrow their leadership. What an absolutely criminal idea.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That 500K dead children in Iraq is not fair to lay at the feet of countries imposing sanctions.

The leadership of these countries (Saddam in Iraq, & Ayotollahs in Iran) are responsible for there people (children). THEY have the power to end the sanctions if their peoples health is at risk. They chose to let their people die.

THEY are responsible for these deaths not us!

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Translation: Sanctions enacted by a President who is a Democrat are beyond criticism. In this case Obama and Clinton.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I didn't mention party. Thats you twisting my words. You can't stick to the truth cause the truth doesn't fit your fantasy.

I think your repubs have tried sanctions but not seriously. Usually they only do it so they can say they tried. before they invade.

Right?

[-] 5 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Millions of Iranians are suffering hunger and other deprivations because of these sanctions that seem to be designed to forestall the launching of a military strike as desired by Israel, its US lobby and various militarists. Iran has not violated any treaty or law but the pressure to "do something" is immense anyway. I do hope that Obama wins and that after the election perhap a reality based policy can be put into place. It's really very cruel, what we are doing to the people of Iran. They just might remember this episode and feel as intensely as they still do over our overthrow of their democratically elected government back in the 50's.

[-] 5 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Mr Ben doesnt care, he is here to attack one half of the problem, and keep the propaganda going.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

He only sees blue and red. He doesn't see the people.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Or the passed legislation

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

One of two things will happen on November 6. Either Romney or Obama is going to be elected. Obama has at least demonstrated that he is not in the pocket of the israeli far right as represented by the likes of Sheldon Adelson, the thug gangster far right zionist who has Romney in his pocket,

I wish that on November 6 Occupy Wall Street could declare the revolution has been won and the criminals, the torturers, the racist scum stands trial. Knowing that isn;t going to happen I have to take the option of saying no to Adelson and Bibi the only way that makes sense on election day. Advocating that progressives abstain or vote for a "protest" candidate is to advocate for Romney and Bibi and I suspect that's why you're here.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"Not in the Pocket?" The Americans vetoed the Palestinian Statehood vote last year. Thats all we need to know about that.

The people who run Israel have more than enough people in our system, and vice versa.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I specified that in my opinion (and that of many others) Obama is not in the pocket of Netanyahoo and Sheldon Adelson. Romney is. To some tht may be hair splitting but it does seem that the right wing in Israel have lost patience with Obama who they regard as a foot dragger. Defeating them next moth makes the climate for the Palestinians a bit healthier.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Bad move by Ike but I didn't know till recently that Churchill had a hand in that. He had serious powers of persuasion. After their hostage taking I say we're even and we should work things out peacefully.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I agree that there should be a peaceful resolution to the US- Iran relationship and the whole middle east mess especially the question of Palestine. A Romney win puts all this back for decades. An Obama win might or might not permit a realistic and peaceful approach

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

My guess is that we'll bomb them before the election.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

That would be a dumb move but stranger things have happened.

[-] -2 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Tell me about it. Netanyahu was pushing for a pre-election event.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

He has several screws loose.

His own secret service says so.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and your link to this accusation is ?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

From the link:
Meir Dagan, Former Mossad Chief,
Says Attack On Iran 'Stupidest Idea' He's Ever Heard


well you fudged it partly
Ex-Mosad Dagon did not say Bibi had "several screws loose".


he criticized the IDEA of an attack - is crazy - and I agree with that


Bibi is VERY smart - and you may not like his policies -
you never heard a politician using BS to push an agenda ?
willard's $5T unpaid for tax cuts ?
ronnie's "I dont remember Iran/Contra"
tricky's "I am not a crook"

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Several links I had bookmarked have since been removed.

Those who assume the web is not being monitored and constantly edited, would be mistaken.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Maybe, but he seemed to cool down.

[-] -2 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Ohh... so he agreed to wait until after the election?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I have no clue what they have planned. I hope people don't get wacked. I also hope it doesn't cost much.

[-] -2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Bibi is NOT pushing for an attack

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

why would Israel want a war

their pandering to US war policy has made them unpopular

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yeah!!! Warmongering! Woooo!!!

Yeah! Let's get some more sanctions! Let's keep 68,000 troops in Afghanistan still! WOOOO!!! Yeah! War mongering is awesome.

Who gives a shit about what Mitt has to say? He's probably going to almost verbatim quote Obama and say "no options have been taken off the table"

More than sanctions... what about the War Games surrounding Iran?

[-] 3 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

One theory is... a little off the wall? Interesting at least

"Israel seeks war on Iran to keep lid on 9/11"

http://usahitman.com/iswoitklo9/

[-] 3 points by Renneye (4141) 2 years ago

Great links Nevada1 ! Thanks.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Your are welcome Renneye.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Now and forever, remember the U.S.S. Liberty!

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4829) 2 years ago

Agree.

[-] 3 points by Renneye (4141) 2 years ago

Good post Karlin! Thanks

[-] 3 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

Cool, maybe it does have legs... I will forever be hunting down the truth of 9/11 because it certainly isn't in the official narrtive.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"Israel seeks war on Iran to keep lid on area 51"

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Ever hear of the five dancing Israelis?

Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1#.UIAvBsjLfs0

"After being deported from the US, they admitted on [live] Israeli TV that they had been sent to New York to "document" the attacks. " http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI18Ak02.html

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ya, its crippling the entire nation and people are starving to death. You and the D/R should be very proud of your destruction as usual.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

why is Iran being sanctioned ?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Because Iraq has WMD's... I mean Iran allegedly wants to have a WMD.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

only sane countries like the US can have WMD

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Mike Gravel former Senator, says US like war hungry Drunk. Very refreshing to hear from a politician. He says leave Iran alone. He sounds like an OWS Protester when it comes to Corporations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVQm-fY4qvQ&feature=player_embedded

Micheal Scheuer, ex-CIA analyst, Washington Creates Enemies and is creating new Generation of Enemies. Israel Lobby drags US into War.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLjZoA3GaVE&feature=player_embedded

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

One day may sanctions work on you and yours but not me and mine.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Bush didn't find the Summerian & Mesopotamia Relics in Iraq, so now Iran? Okay a little bit of a reach here. Hitler scoured Africa, India, and the Middle East for ancient artifacts 800 years after the first Crusades. George W. invaded Bagdad and the National Museum was looted in 2003. Maybe the US Army was doing things and looking for things in Iraq to take back to Important People in the US.

Heinrich Schliemann was an archaeological excavator of Troy in 1871, along with the Mycenaean sites Mycenae and Tiryns. This began a big age of Archeology after the discovery of Troy, the Mask of Agamemnon, and Mycenae. And who knows what else he found.

The oldest written Language in the world seems to be from ancient summeria written in cuniform on clay tablets. European, Hebrew, and Arabic languages all trace back toward the Indus Valley and ancient mesopotania. Unfortunely the lands in Iraq and Iran have not been fully explored by anthropologist.

Since this is the oldest part of the world history that we know...4500 and 4000 BC just seems like there could be another reason besides Petroleum and Rare Earth Metals for going to war ...or starting WWIII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk_period

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Great thread. Very informative. Thanks, all.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Glad to see the establishment has even managed to make crushing the Iranian economy a divided issue.

How hard should we crush them?!! Pick a side!!!

Man is this country on the wrong track. Pretty soon Iran is going to be the least of you non-thinker's worries.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It's a good feeling knowing that we averted another right wing war.

Great post.

[-] -2 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

Well the sanctions may be unfair to the general population of Iran...but as an internaitonal community we have a responsibility to stop a over greater threat. Sancations are a good alternative to quick war. No one can say that Iran WONT make nuclear weapons and a regime such as theirs should not have that power. Also, why does no talk about the possibility of Iran selling those weapons or technology to dangerous terrorist groups? The possibility of proliferation alone is enough of a threat to cause international uproar. The world has seen this type of action many times over, especially if the regime ever fell.

The way I see it is if Iran can't cooperate with the ENTIRE world, then they are the ones bringing harm to their own citizens. Negotiations and deals have been trying to get made for YEARS and Iran shuts them down and does not allow inspections of sites. If they aren't hiding anything, then why refuse inspections? Why knowingly cause sanctions against your impoverished people if you are doing no wrong?

Also please stop comparing Iraq and Iran. Two totally different countries and problems. Iraq invaded Iran AND Kuwait, committed genocide, built chemical weapons. This is why the UN had sanctions against them.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Also, why does no talk about the possibility of Iran selling those weapons or technology to dangerous terrorist groups?

selling weapons is a US industry that barely has 40% of the total world market

we don';t need those jobs being out sourced to Iran

[-] -1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

That is a non-answer that avoids the topic I brought up.

Besides, do we sell nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology to other countries or terror organizations? Nope. Look at the specifics of the bulk of our sales. 30+ year old fighter jets, defensive anti-missile/anti-air batteries. We have policies in this country to NOT sell a majority of our good or newer weapons tech for a REASON. So we can remain #1 in military and to avoid unsavory nations and groups from acquiring it through third party means.

We also do not live in an unstable regime in an unstable region on the brink of collapse that those weapons and tech could be stolen or sold.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Iran is stable

[-] -2 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

That still does not address my remark regarding their proliferation of tech and weapons related to nuclear weapons research and development.

I expected a better debate on this forum sigh

If you are going to criticize my view and throw "facts" around, you should really give me a debate and reason why I am wrong.

Iran is not stable. It's currency tanked, it is hit by sanctions from every major power in the world, it's religious extremism is constantly called under question, citizens violently protest the regime constantly, and Israel is threatning it with war.....what is stable about Iran??

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

countries with nuclear weapons don't get attacked by other countries

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sure they do. Israel is always under attack.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

granted thought Palestine is not recognized as a country

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What about Syria?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

are they attacking Israel ?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

They have attacked Israel directly ( in the past ) and indirectly since.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the US have fought indirectly in Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We were not talking about that.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the US and weapons industry looks for reasons to fight

.

.

building bombs 'til bunkers boil

getting paid for shell filled toil

if I am to work tomorrow

lobe the load on foreign soil


yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget

World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation

  • 1,630 World Total
  • 711 United States 41%
  • 143 China 8.2%
  • 71.9 Russia 4.1%
  • 62.7 United Kingdom 3.6 %
  • 62.5 France 3.6%
  • 54.5 Japan 3.3&
  • 48.2 Saudi Arabia 2.8%
  • 46.8 India 2.5%
  • 46.7 Germany 2.8%
  • 37.0 Italy 2.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures


Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations


TOP 10 Arms Produces

Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009

  • Lockheed Martin USA 35,730 33,430 78
  • BAE Systems UK 32,880 32,540 95
  • Boeing USA 31,360 32,300 49
  • Northrop Grumman USA 28,150 27,000 81
  • General Dynamics USA 23,940 23,380 74
  • Raytheon USA 22,980 23,080 91
  • BAE Systems Inc. (BAE Systems, UK) USA 17,900 19,280 100
  • EADS Trans-European 16,360 15,930 27
  • Finmeccanica Italy 14,410 13,280 58
  • L-3 Communications USA 13,070 13,010 83
  • United Technologies USA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers


Widow Winchester's riffle wealth warped her house.

Stairs to ceilings. Windows to walls.

Always slept in a new room,

hiding from shot souls

[-] -1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

We aren't talking about the US weapons industry or them finding reasons to fight. You can post all day statistics about US weapons, that is still not what we are talking about. Unless of course you have information regarding the proliferation of nuclear or chemical weapons or technology to unstable countries or terrorist organizations, then that would apply.

We are talking about the reasons for sanctions on Iran and their weapons programs.

Your still avoiding actually responding to what I said, and not making any points.

[-] -1 points by Jencats (20) 2 years ago

I still don't see how that has anything to do with what I said. Nukes can be a good deterrant, but if anything that causes greater concern. Once Iran has nukes, the fact they have them may stop a country from preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and tech. Which is a HUGE concern.

Imagine a suicide truck filled with nuclear material? They do it with conventional weapons, why wouldn't they pay to get nukes?

Or the fact Iran could sell the tech to other even LESS stable countries and organizations. Would it really be good for Hezbollah to have nukes? Or half of the Middle East/North African countries that just went through a violent civil war. This is why the united states is concerned with Syrian chemical weapons...