Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: War With Iran

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 4, 2011, 6:14 p.m. EST by patriot76 (9)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

195 Comments

195 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 11 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Re. Iran : Some hard facts may bring some 'Light' to matters, rather than all the unpleasant 'Heat' being generated by the constant war-mongering & fear and loathing :

a) Iran has The Words 2nd Largest Liquid & 3rd Largest known 'Total' Oil Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iran ,

b) Iran has The Worlds 2nd Largest known Gas Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_reserves_in_Iran

c) Further consider and cogitate upon the fact that in Feb. '08, Iran opened a Hydro-Carbon Bourse at The Kish Mercantile Exchange (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm and also http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28646.htm ) - trading in a basket of currencies, including Euros, Roubles, Yuan and Iranian Rial BUT NOT in U$ Dollar$ and thereby challenging both Reserve Currency, Dollar "HegeMoney" as well as the Monopoly of the existing Oil and Petroleum Bourses. Thus do 'a-c' here constitute the Real "Casus Belli" ?!

d) The same NeoCon, Neo-Colonial, Paleo-Imperial WARMONGERS who beat the drums for The Unconscionable, Illegal & Immoral WAR on Iraq (where The Only "WMD" = Words of Mass Deception !!) are now beating the Drums of War and this time Iran is in the Imperial crosshairs. Pls. Research PNAC (eg http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC etc.)

e) See The Film, "WHY WE FIGHT - What are the forces that shape and propel American militarism ?" : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8494.htm .

@merica : Nosce Te Ipsum ...

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

HR 4310 passed in the house. This bill prepares for war with Iran.

(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings: (1) Iran, which has long sought to foment instability and promote extremism in the Middle East, is now seeking to exploit the dramatic political transition underway in the region to undermine governments traditionally aligned with the United States and support extremist political movements in these countries. (2) At the same time, Iran may soon attain a nuclear weapons capability, a development that would threaten United States interests, destabilize the region, encourage regional nuclear proliferation, further empower and embolden Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provide it the tools to threaten its neighbors, including Israel. (3) With the assistance of Iran over the past several years, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas have increased their stockpiles of rockets, with more than 60,000 rockets now ready to be fired at Israel. Iran continues to add to its arsenal of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, which threaten Iran's neighbors, Israel, and United States Armed Forces in the region. (4) Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is among the most urgent national security challenges facing the United States. (5) Successive United States administrations have stated that an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. (6) President Obama stated on January 24, 2012, `Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.'. (7) In order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the United States, in cooperation with its allies, must utilize all elements of national power including diplomacy, robust economic sanctions, and credible, visible preparations for a military option. (8) Nevertheless, to date, diplomatic overtures, sanctions, and other non-kinetic actions toward Iran have not caused the Government of Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. (9) With the impact of additional sanctions uncertain, additional pressure on the Government of Iran could come from the credible threat of military action against Iran's nuclear program. (b) Declaration of Policy- It shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon.

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

Section 1222

SEC. 1222. UNITED STATES MILITARY PREPAREDNESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

(a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) military exercises conducted in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman emphasize the United States resolve and the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b) by enhancing the readiness of the United States military and allied forces, as well as signaling to the Government of Iran the commitment of the United States to defend its vital national security interests; and (2) the President, as Commander in Chief, should augment the presence of the United States Fifth Fleet in the Middle East and to conduct military deployments, exercises, or other visible, concrete military readiness activities to underscore the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b). (b) Plan- (1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a plan to augment the presence of the United States Fifth Fleet in the Middle East and to conduct military deployments, exercises, or other visible, concrete military readiness activities to underscore the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b). (2) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED- The plan required under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, steps necessary for the Armed Forces to support the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b), including-- (A) pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions at key forward locations in the Middle East and Indian Ocean; (B) maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region necessary to signal United States resolve and to bolster United States capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets, to protect seaborne shipping, and to deny Iranian retaliation against United States interests in the region; (C) discussing the viability of deploying at least two United States aircraft carriers, an additional large deck amphibious ship, and a Mine Countermeasures Squadron in the region on a continual basis, in support of the actions described in subparagraph (B); and (D) conducting naval fleet exercises similar to the United States Fifth Fleet's major exercise in the region in March 2007 to demonstrate ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and to counter the use of anti-ship missiles and swarming high-speed boats. (3) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS- The plan required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Glad I just got out of the army ....

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Good for you mate ... though it looks like I picked the wrong year to stop sniffing glue !!!

verum ex absurdo ...

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Good Grief ! Here we go again !! WAR & I'm so f**kin' sick of it !!!

Further to your salutary and somewhat sobering comments, please also see :

fiat lux et fiat pax ...

[+] -4 points by BoCongo (-26) 2 years ago

All your links are from a known conspiracy theory website. How does that help?

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by BoCongo (-26) 2 years ago

What? I just started using this site a few hours ago. Is this how people welcome newcomers here? I just pointed out that informationclearinghouse is a known conspiracy theory site. It's not serious news you can base your claims on. Get a grip man, insulting others like that won't get you far in life. Are you some kind of sensitive conspiracy theorist that gets mad when he is debunked?

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Tr@shy : What "Conspiracy Theory" are you talking about ?! "Known" by who ?!! What have you "debunked" exactly ?!!! - You specious, mendacious, graceless, lying, fork-tongued little prick !!!

temet nosce ...

[-] -3 points by BoCongo (-26) 2 years ago

Sorry dude, I'm not Tr@shy. My name is Bo Hamel. I study at Columbia in NYC. I am from Kinshasa, Congo.

Do you always welcome people who want to learn about Occupy with such name calling? A cunt is not only offensive to me, but also to women in general.

I'm going to send a complaint to the moderators.

[-] 2 points by superomenna1 (89) 2 years ago

US government just waiting for a false flag to act on Iran.

http://youtu.be/iHTbJvLzkzk

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Thanx for the clip, making real points - with verifiable facts for those who wish to do their own research. + Re. The "Super Secret" RQ170 'Stealth' Spy Drone recently shot down over Iran :

a) CBS : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYCUUEkys0I ,

b) Euronews : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T7Dx8ilyFw &

c) RT : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6GWzLmzr14 .

fiat pax ...

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Thanx for the correction to c) above ;-)

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

@ timir : I think that you may be interested in :

pacem in terris ...

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

Iran also has a tyrant as a leader who has stated in very public forums that he intends to annihilate Israel.

Iran is also now KNOWN to have lied all along about its nuclear program. It's program to weaponize materials should be of major significance in the minds of all who hate nuclear proliferation.

When a country has

1) vowed to destroy its neighbor 2) hidden and lied about its own nuclear weapons program 3) is run by a Muslim Fundamentalist who cares much more about what the coming Mahdi will think of his reign than he cares about his own people so that he can secure his place among the religious heros of Islam, then...

...you will certainly have a nuclear attack if you do not take action to prevent it. Anyone who thinks that Amahdinajad will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons because of sanctions should remember that they probably ALSO thought Osama bin Laden would never successfully attack New York City.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 3 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. He doesn't decide who they attack.

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

Do you know the Iranian constitution well enough to be certain of this?

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

No. There is a supreme leader. Ali Khamenei. He has the power of the armed forces and to declare war. Ahmadinejad is just a populist. He is the one that is elected by some part of the population so he says all that crazy shit to stay in power. I don't see it as that much different than all the crazy shit our politicians say and all the warmongering they do to get votes.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

And you think that Khamenei is any less extreme. His statements about seeing Israel "destroyed" "soon" are just as prevalent and strident as Ahmadinejad's. He has also talked as much about the coming Mahdi as Ahmadinejad.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

I think that Iran does not have the reputation of invading and occupying countries that the US and Israel has. I worry about my country's extremism and the political leaders of my country. Not Iran.

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

I think that Israel has no history of invading other countries, except to protect its own. it HAS taken territories that did not belong to other countries but also did not belong to it under U.N. charter. That, while wrong, is a different kind of thing. Israel has never shown any imperial interest in the Middle East, but only an interest in those lands that were historically a part of Israel. It has likely had nuclear weapons for decades and has never used them.

Unlike Israel, the U.S. has had expansionary policy in the Middle East in a very major way. The U.S. was WRONG in how it handled Iran under the Shaw. We should never back corrupt dictators just because they are on our side, but should always stand on the side of justice. That, however, does not mean I want to see a country that now loathes the U.S. get nuclear weapons, and it does not mean the U.S. is wrong under the present administration in its policies with Iran. We live in our own times, not in the past. We cannot change the wrongs of the past; but they are no excuse for letting Iran get nuclear weapons. To say that Iran does not have a reputation of invading other countries is false. It invaded Iraq.

I am not saying, however, that I think the concern with Iran is that it will use nuclear weapons to expand as an empire.That would never work. Rather, I am saying that Iran is presently run by two people who definitely would use them to destroy Israel for reasons having little to do with empire. Both the Ayatollah and the president of Iran have stated repeatedly that Israel must and will be destroyed SOON! Both have stated that the Mahdi is at hand, and religious prophecy in Iran indicates the Mahdi will come at a time of great war, so these two extremist do not fear such a war because they are not evaluating it based on rationality, but based on religious promise and faith in Allah to bring about what was prophesied. Therefore, reasoning with them is pointless.

The U.S. under the Obama administration has expressed NO interest creating regime change in Iran via war. This is only about disarming them. If IRAN choses to escalate such a conflict into a regional war, that would not surprise me, but such willingness to do such things is exactly why they cannot be allowed to get nuclear weapons ... at any price.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 3 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

I am about as worried of Iran getting nuclear weapons as I am about India or Pakistan or China or Israel or Russia or France or the US getting them. I do not believe that propaganda about Iran wanting to destroy Israel. Show me where Ali Khamenei or Ahmadinejad has said they would do this. I think my country's politicians are guilty of making graver threats to Iran's existence than they have made to Israels. I think my country and Israel have engaged in actual terrorist acts against Iran and they have not retaliated. I am much more worried about the nuclear weapons that are floating around the world after the collapse of the USSR and the ones countries like Pakistan have than Iran. I personally would rather see Israel disarmed than Iran seeing how they are so much more guilty of using weapons on unarmed populations. You talk about religious prophecy as if the jews and christians don't have some of the most fucked up religious prophecies that they wish to see unfold. Have you read revelations? I know people that think that shit is happening right now.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

It's to bad you don't believe the "propaganda" about Iran wanting to destroy Israel. I have seen quotes over the last few years directly from BOTH Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah, stating that Israel must be destroyed, and I have seen those quotes in a considerable variety of news websites, referring to completed different occasions. So, it is clear to me that, yes, Iran's leadership DOES intend to see Israel destroyed, and that is what makes their hell-bent efforts for nuclear bombs/warheads, far more concerning than any of the other nations you mention, which have never threatened the total annihilation of any other nation.

I did on another post, reference many occasions where such threats were made by Ahmadinejad, but it took me an hour to go back and find all those quotes, so I cannot do it again, as I have other writing I wish to do today.

One statement of yours I can say is categorically untrue. I know of NO nation that has ever threatened Iran's very existence, not even Israel. Israel's government has NEVER said Iran should be destroyed -- only that it will never let Iran have nuclear weapons because of Iran's threats to Israel. Israel has never once threatened the existence of another nation. Not even close.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

The US has Iran surrounded with military power and our politicians are talking about them like they are the greatest enemy since the Nazis. Fucking drumming those war drums BOOM BOOM. Iran never said Israel should be destroyed. They said they are an occupying regime. I agree. But then I think that about every country.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

I don't know if you are ignorant or just lying when you say Iran never said Israel should be destroyed. It has said it so many times in so many places reported by so many different news organizations that it is really hard for me to believe you have never read either Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollah making such brash statements. If you doubt me, do a web search for "Ahmadinejad destroy Israel," and start reading. You'll find all kinds of articles in newspapers all over the world quoting him on this. And the Ayatollah was just in the news twice last week for saying the same thing.

To help you out because you have been too lazy to do your own research before making false claims. I quickly found one site that has gathered together just SMALL number of times when Iran's leader has promised the total destruction of Israel. There are many more than reported here:

http://queenofswords.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/ahmadinejads-threats-to-destroy-israel/

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Type Ahmadinejad destroy Israel into a search and you will get warmongering propaganda that puts words into his mouth. I believe the translation of what he said was "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". That has been interpreted as he wants to bomb Israel with nuclear weapons. I don't interpret it that way. Do you know there are Persian Jews living in both Israel and Iran? Iran even has Jewish members in their parliament. Iran is one of the oldest cultures in the world and I do not believe they are trying to provoke attacks and invasions.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

By "regime," they do not mean one particular leader's administration. They mean the Jewish state. They have used this term for years with many different leaders. So, your own translation translates, "The Imam said the Jewish State occupying Jerusalem [where Israel now has its capitol] must vanish from the page of time." In other words, the Jewish State, often called the "Zionist Regime" must be so completely wiped out that it is as if it never existed -- vanishes from the pages of all time.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

It was not my translation. It was my interpretation.

You somehow managed to fit at least three fallacies in that comment.

That 'Jewish State' is one third Muslim and the Dome of the Rock is the third most holy site in the Muslim world. Anyone that thinks an Islamic country would destroy it and hundreds of thousands of Muslims is incredibly ignorant.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26693) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Revelations - Folks - just sayin.

Many interesting things happening on this small blue marble.

Sorry If I have offended anyone with this comment.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

Israel has ANNEXED the West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights. That is not part of history?

Lies, lies, and more lies. That's all we get from you liar Zionists.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

h@ml : "Iran is not the Problem" ; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5708329875314599685

fiat lux ...

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

ham@lmang : For an true insight into The Real People of Iran, please see :

Pacem In Terris ...

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

No one here is talking about the people of Iran that I have seen. I know that I am only talking about two specific people of Iran, about whom Rick Steves knows very little -- Khamenie and Ahmadinejad -- the spiritual leader and secular leader -- both of whom have said repeatedly that Israel needs to be destroyed AND that it will be SOON, and both of whom hate the U.S. as the "Great Satan" and would gladly use a nuke on it.

Some people think they wouldn't dare because we would wipe them out. They don't care. They're not basing their decisions on calculus. They're basing it on religious zeal and faith that Allah will protect his servants if they act against these entities who are evil in their eyes. The might of the U.S. means nothing against the might of Allah when you believe that God will protect you.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Yet the basis of their problem with the US is perfectly valid: our government has openly and covertly been messing with iran for decades. Part of the muslim belief system allows for killing those who pose a threat to survival. As long as we keep threatening, we provide the foundation for hostility. A failure to understand the beliefs of these people is taking us closer and closer to open hostilities. Leave them in peace, and peace will prevail. Imagine how you would feel if china had been manipulating our economy for decades, and had paid canada to go to war with us....

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

We have wronged Iran in the past by supporting the evil Shaw. No doubt about it. You should never make a pact with the devil just because he is on your side. That said, Iran has hated the U.S. since. Their hatred may be understood, but the U.S. has not acted harmfully toward Iran's since then. It has bought boatloads of Iran's oil and has made the rich. It has not tried to oust their leaders. It has probably covertly supported students who rebel against those leaders, but that is not known for sure. It is speculation.

In short, we are not going to be able to do much to stop Iran from hating the U.S., even if we continue to act fairly toward it. Israel is not going to be able to do ANYTHING to get Iran to stop hating Israel. Therefore, the nuclear threat is real and must be dealt with because its leaders openly promise Israel will be utterly destroyed. Israel has NEVER said the same thing to Iran. So, this is inexcusable hatred toward Israel.

Israel's actions toward Iran, which Iran complains of, have been limited to killing its nuclear scientists and killing its nuclear program ... in so far as we all know. So, there is no justification for Iran's leaders claiming Israel must and will be destroyed.

Finally, even where hatred and its causes can be understood, hatred is not justified. Where it exists, it must be understood for how destructive it can be. Whether it can be rationalized or explained never diminishes its very real danger to the parties that are hated.

I do not want to see Iran have nuclear weapons just because I understand that it has some historic reasons for hating the U.S. Just the opposite: that is all the more reason I want to be certain they do not ever have nuclear weapons. The leaders hate us and will gladly use such weapons on us if they can find a way to deliver them to our shores, which is far from impossible.

I understand their hatred, but I had nothing to do with it and cannot go back in time and undo its cause. I can, however, protect myself from a hatred that I personally did not help cause.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Im sorry but that is not true. We have harmed iran. Iran contra was the black op in which our government used drug trade to generate untraceable money to feed to iraq in order to support their war with iran, which included giving iraq weapons. On the open side, we have been employing economic sanctions since the late 70's. They overthrough the leader they saw as a western puppet and kicked us out...yes, they took hostages, and I dont claim to understand why they did that, but this was following years of interference in their country and their society, so Im calling that a draw. Two wrongs, one perhaps more attention getting than the other.

But since then, our government has continued to interfere with them.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

As I recall, Iran-Contra was all about feeding money to the Contras in Nicaragua, not to the Iraqi military.

--Knave Dave

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

I appreciate your comment.

[-] 2 points by superomenna1 (89) 2 years ago

Dave, if you were paying attention you would know that Ahmadinejad never said anything about destroying Israel. His words were purposed mistranslated by the media to persuade the west to side with Israel.

http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

Have you read only one story of Ahmadinejad's tirades against Israel. I have been reading him in various newspapers in the Middle East and elsewhere for years now. It doesn't make any difference which newspaper I read -- Israeli, American, British, Arabian -- they have all presented a consistent body of statements from Ahmadinejad over the years about wiping out Israel. I want to be clear here: I am not talking about reading the same speech quoted over and over in various news outlets. I am talking about several different speeches made on completely different occasions and in different years being quoted as saying in a variety of different ways that he wants to see Israel completely eliminated. I have a little difficulty, as well, seeing how it is any better to say "The zionist regime in Jerusalem must be wiped from the pages of time" versus "The Zionist regime in Jerusalem must be wiped off the map." The argument in the link above is splitting hairs over the wording. The meaning is the same. All signs of Israel must be taken away as if they never existed (in time or on the map).

--Knave Dave

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

erk

the zionist regime may have been that regime that took land some 40 years ago

[-] -1 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

That regained it from the murderers 40 years ago.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

More blah, bhah, blah, blah ... f**kin' blah from The Knave ! Does the present South Africa (and do South Africans of all hues!) Not Continue To Still Exist, just because The Unconscionable Apartheid Regime has ceased to be ?!

ad iudicium ...

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

For real insights re, 'Iran and Jews', please see :

a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7yz2vciGk ,

b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q &

c) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngttxIzXRsE !

fiat lux et fiat pax ...

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Behold the standard 'Pro-WAR with Iran', AIPAC / NeoCon agenda, 'talking points', BS and blather !

So 'David Haggith', employing some elementary research - let us see who you really are, shall we ?

a) http://home.earthlink.net/~haggith/id4.html ;

b) http://www.truechristianity.com/debates/world.htm

c) http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-1510-Prophets-of-the-Apocalypse.htm ;

d) http://blessedquietness.com/journal/prophecy/whatisgoddoingwiththejews.htm ;

e) Thus, despite the 'Washington' connection it's a fair bet to say that you probably aren't this UK educated 'David Haggith' - http://www.n3consulting.com/DJH.htm !!

~*~

Furthermore other than that self-publicising link above, you put up NO evidence for your WARmongering claptrap. Given your 'Apocalyptic and Biblical' predilections can any of us regard you as unbiased &/or rational ?

You may be a Fundamentalist / Biblical Literalist / End-Timer Evangelical or an 'Israel Firster' or a 'hedging your bets' "bi-national" but in any event, it certainly seems that you (despite showing NO knowledge of Iran or Iranians !) would like for their to be a WAR with Iran, asap ...

Ergo, Quid et Cui Bono ?

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

attack the argument not the person

I try to avoid the use of the word "you" if I can

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

@ MLH : Why ? Is the person making the argument (in this case for WAR!) irrelevant ? + I used the 2nd Person, Singular because I was directly addressing him and only indirectly, his fellow WARmmongers !!

Finally, your semantic preferences are just that ... Yours ! We are NOT in a Moot Court and neither is it a scholarly debate being conducted in learned journals. SH!T has to be far more direct on this forum !!!

ad iudicium ...

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

precisely and addressing the speaking is not addressing the subject

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

So, are you seriously saying that I haven't addressed the matter of "War With Iran", on this thread ?!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

OK. Fair enough. That's quite a resource page you've got going on there !

fiat pax et lux ...

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

It's a democrat talking just as much as it is a republican talking point. The Military Industrial Comples pro-war agenda runs deep from the neocons to the president. They just word it differently. Bill Clinton in 1998 talked about how terrible Iraq's WMD program was all the time. That's why he supported UN sanctions that killed so many people and even said a military option is possible.

President Obama stated on January 24, 2012, `Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.'.

Funny story, Romney and Obama completely agree about taking no option off the table to stop Iraq's WMD program... I mean Iran's WMD program.

Fact: Obama used Bush's Black Water in Afghanistan with huge budget contracts.

4 Star General Wesley Clark speaks out in 2007 and so far the agenda from the Bush years is still under way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha1rEhovONU

Bipartisan support passed HR 4310 in the House of Reps. Sections 1221 and 1222 prepare for war.

Read the bill - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.4310.rH:

Bombs and sanctions are counterproductive when it hurts citizens more than the tyrant dictator.

Vote out the warmongers.

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

I put my real name in the bio information from the first time I posted here because I do not hide who I am. "Knave Dave" is a name I use for fun, but it hides nothing, as clicking on it will take you to my real name where you can do all of that you just did. And I am not the U.K. educated David Haggith, though I know him well.

You are right that I have studied written on Apocalyptic literature much. I do not make anything up when I state what Ahmadinejad's open threats to Israel have been, and my writing on the subject is my basis for having learned what Ahmadinejad's religious beliefs are. He has is own end-time view that drives him.

If you do a little more thorough research of my writings online, you'll find that I have been very outspoken in writing against Fundamentalist Judaism and Fundamentalist Christianity as well, particularly the latter, as I have had more experience with it. I have pointed out how some Fundamentalist Christian churches have knowingly tried to foment war in the Middle East and how they contribute large sums of money toward the construction of Jewish temple in Jerusalem that they know would ignite world war and how both the Jews involved and those particular Christians do not care that their actions would lead to war because the Fundamentalist Jews believe such war will lead to the coming of the Messiah, and the Fundamentalist Christians believe it will lead to the SECOND coming of the Messiah. Same kind of devil-may-care attitude that Ahmadinejad has.

All of those Fundamentalist elements need to be regarded carefully.

As for the review you post of my book, you'll find a more balanced assortment of review here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039914532X/sr=8-3/qid=1156549870/ref=sr_1_3/002-0469306-0352046?ie=UTF8

--Knave Dave

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Dave : 1 4 U, 2 C in 2O|2 with : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30111.htm ; "Iran, Another False Enemy", by Stephen Merril.

Pacem In Terris ...

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

This article is such a case of inferior thinking. The author makes the fallacious claim that because the U.S. was wrong on Vietnam, it is wrong about Iran. That's as ridiculous as stating that, because the U.S. populous didn't know what it was doing when it elected George Bush, it also didn't know what it was doing when it elected George Washington. They are, after all, both George's, just as Iran and Vietnam would both be wars ... if it comes to that.

Stating that Iran's leader has never said the Iranian people are willing to die to get into a nuclear conflict shows spectacular ignorance. If Ahmadinejad cared what the people want, he would never have rigged elections to stay in power. Ahmadinejad couldn't care less what the people of Iran want, or he wouldn't be pursuing nuclear power and bringing his country in ill repute with the entire world in the first place. He wouldn't be causing heavy sanctions to be placed on them just so they can have nuclear weapons. This is an absurdly blind article because the author assumes that people like Ahmadinejad think in the same way the author does.

A thinking person will look at the war in Vietnam and in Iraq and say the U.S. was clearly wrong in what it thought. (I thought it was wrong in Iraq from the beginning and was certain they would not find WMD because it was obvious from Powell's presentation to the UN that there were none. I was too young to give any thought to Vietnam when it started, so can only say I thought the war was wrong in hindsight when I reached the age where I could think about such things.)

A thinking person looks at each war or possibility of war as its own situation, and the situation in Iran has no similarities with Vietnam. Vietnam was not being taken over by a despot who claimed he wanted to destroy other nations. It was not being ruled by someone who claimed he wanted to destroy the U.S. It was not run by a religious zealot party that puts religious thinking ahead of rational thinking. Vietnam was not run by someone who was constantly proclaiming the end of the world was nigh and that the new world would be ruled by the dominant Vietnamese religion of the day. Vietnam had not spent the last forty years hating the U.S. as arch-enemy number one.

More important than anything else in showing how absurd the comparison with Vietnam is are two searing points: 1) Vietnam was not in the process of actually creating weapons of mass destruction, which are good for only one thing -- dominating its region by military force; 2) The talk of war in Iran is limited to taking out its WMD facilities, which ARE recognized as such by the U.N. this time, unlike in Iraq, and is NOT in any way an attempt at regime change. That's an enormous difference. It COULD stir up a war with Iran, but it doesn't have to. That will depend on how Iran retaliates for having its nuclear weapon facilities destroyed. It will only be Iran that broadens the conflict into a greater war. Neither Israel or the U.S. have any interest in a wider war in the region. It's the last thing in the world they would want. The president knows the U.S. has no more financial capacity for big wars, and he's not the George Bush commando type anyway.

The rest of the world is all about Iran being the crossroads of the world. So is Israel. The argument is specious, as the president, unlike George Bush has said nothing about regime change. Sure, he'd like to see the people of Iran depose Ahmadinejad, but he is not talking about bombing Iran at all. He's talking about TRYING to avoid it, but being WILLING to bomb nuclear facilities if that is what it takes to stop Iran from what is obviously a pursuit of nuclear weapons that would be in the hands of a very radical regime.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

D@ve : You should know that on the matter of "WAR With Iran" it is you who is the de facto "'Clash of Civilisations' Desiring NeoCon 'Fundamentalist'".

When 'Mad Dog Dubya' Bush sprouted intellectually limited dogshit on any number of issues during his time in office, would it have been fair or reasonable for the rest of The World to regard that particular idiot as really and honestly speaking for 'the collective mind' of The Entire Citizenry of The U$A ?

Would a thinking person have done that ? Yet you seek to do exactly that, vis a vis Ahmedinejad and 75 million plus Iranians. Iranians the Persians of old, have written culture going back over 3500 years but you show them no respect or regard in your eagerness to go to WAR against them.

'On behalf of who?' is a question we all should ask of you, even if you haven't the wit or wisdom ; intellect or integrity, to say so explicitly !

spero meliora ...

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

No NeoCon or Fundamentalist here. You must have found the wrong Dave. Nor am I fond of George Bush. I think he is, beyond all doubt, the stupidest president we ever had. As for war-mongering, I was outspokenly against the Iraq war from the time Colin Powell first laid out the case for it, and I was aghast at the shameful case that it was. Until that point I reserved judgement, saying, "Maybe the Bush administration has a lot more information about Saddam's WMD than we know." As I sat and watched Colin Powell's presentation, I thought, "This is really pathetic. They are leaping to conclusions everywhere." From that point on, I was outspoken against the notion of going to war in Iraq. I had to agree with the Iraqi ambassador who walked out of the presentation at the end, saying that it was laughable. It was laughable, except that I knew it meant we were going to war and would bend any information we could find in order to justify it, and that was not laughable at all, but serious and sad.

As for Amahdinajad speaking for the people of Iran, where did you ever see my say such rubbish? Are you making up my beliefs for me as you go?

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

KD : An article for you, as anything more that I may say may well make you a tad cross :

Merry Xmas and a PEACEFUL 2012 to you !!

pax et lux ...

[-] 2 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

I can agree with the top of the article. Well, I don't know about Matthew Kroenig, but Bill Kroenig is an ideological idiot. Given that they have the same last name and write on the same topics and that Kroenig's "news" agency sounds like a family operation, I suspect they are related and are subject to the same genetic idiocy.

Beyond that point, the article falls apart into lunacy. It claims that one must trump up a war with iran using false alarmism. Anyone in this world who thinks that Iran is not actually trying to get nuclear weapons is willfully in denial. The case with Iran is so vastly more obvious than the odious case with Iraq where it was clear to me in the beginning that George Bush was trumping up charges.

Anyone who thinks the threat from Iran is not "dire and growing" is simpleminded ... probably by intention -- i.e., smart, but turning his brain off because there are things he doesn't WANT to see ... like war. Secondly, NO ONE is trying to convince anyone that costs of war in Iran "are not that great." The U.S. military and the president have both said it risks inflaming the entire region and that Iran does have the capacity to retaliate. No one is building the case that this would not be dangerous; that is why the U.S. is doing all it can to keep Israel from launching a war ... in order to give diplomacy (and probably much more likely) subterfuge a chance to work. The president has NEVER made any case for war in Iran, as this article implies. He has simply said that option is not off the table if all other options fail, and that we will act in whatever manner we need to in order to stop Iran short of achieving a nuclear weapon. So, he will exhaust all other options, BUT will bomb the facilities if all other options fail and Iran reaches the point where its facilities are impervious to attack. Actually, he must bomb them BEFORE they are impervious to attack, and that means he now has weeks not months.

Kroenig may say all this kind of nonsense. I haven't seen his article, and if he is anything like Bill Kroenig, I wouldn't waste my time reading it. That's irrelevant to our own discussion, while it may be relevant to this particular author talking about Kroenig. The president of the U.S. is not and has never done any of these things.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Also see :

1) Marching Towards War : "EU Reaches Agreement to Ban Imports of Iranian Oil (Reuters) ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30162.htm &

2) "Obama Seeks to Distance U.S. from Israeli Attack", by Gareth Porter ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30158.htm#idc-cover .

fiat justitia ...

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

what sway to the international weapons company have with these groups ?

[-] -2 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

The temple in Jerusalem is moot. As soon as they got their hands on it they built a mosque where the temple would have been rebuilt. Can't happen now. You're right an antisemitic rhetoric may take several tones but it's always jealousy and hatred.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

War is the only answer! F#ck Russia and China if they don't like it. Let them nuke us, we'll nuke 'em back. We're not afraid of them! Yeah! Burn baby, burn!! Hoo! Hoo! Hoo! Hoo! Hoo!

[-] 0 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

Israel knows Iran will not attack it.

Israel wants the same piece of land Iran wants: Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

If Iran gets its weapons, neither Israel nor Iran can get this land.

That would be fabulous news for Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the world.

Iran, go for it!

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

To KnaveDave :::: why millions people around the world love each other and doesn't care about Irans nuclear program, if it exist. Tell me why you worry about it too much? You will not get any profit out this war anyway. If you are jew - you can always go back to your motherland and fight with evil rabbits

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

So far as I know, I am not a Jew. Nor do I support Israel claiming land that the U.N. never gave to it; but those are entirely different issues from this.

No president of the United States has ever verbally threatened the existence of Iran as a nation, saying they should not even EXIST. No president or prime minister of Israel has EVER said Iran should not exist; nor have they ever threatened to overthrow the regime that govern's Iran.

BOTH the president and the religious leader (effectively prime minister) of Iran have said on many occasions that Israel MUST NOT exist. Both have encouraged other Arab nations to join in a fight against Israel's existence. Both want nuclear arms. Why do they want them? Is it not to carry out their promise of making sure Israel no longer EXISTS? BOTH have PROMISED that soon Israel will not EXIST, and they have made these boasts MANY times in MANY settings.

So, there is an ENORMOUS difference in how Israel acts toward Iran, whose leaders HATE Israel, and how Iran acts toward it. Israel trains terrorists to get rid of Iranian nuclear scientists. Iran trains and funds terrorists to get rid of Israeli citizens who are not threat to them. Israel's sponsored acts kill ONE person at a time and ONLY the person who is aiding Iran in getting nuclear warheads. Iran arms entire militias with the desire of seeing Israel exterminated ... such as Hezbollah.

Major, MAJOR difference.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 0 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

"...stated in very public forums that he intends to annihilate Israel."

they probably do not recognize Israel as a legitimate state which is a pity. "annihilation" suggests something different. Which nation has ever been attacked by Iran?

[-] 2 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

To those who have so wrongly stated that Ahmadinejad's statements about destroying Israel happened only once and have been greatly misconstrued, let me put that false notion to rest:

"On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), filed a story on Ahmadinejad's speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia, entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map.[1] The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying:

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine.

"The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, 'the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.'

"Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel)

That sums up the counterargument, but let me point out that it is EASY to wipe a nation off the map. It has happened thousands of times in history. Look at any old map and see how many of those nations still exist. OF COURSE, THE LAND MASS WILL STILL BE THERE. There is no nuclear weapon on earth strong enough to remove the land mass. The point is that the "regime," the government of Israel will be destroyed by nuclear attack, not that the land will be wiped off the map. The NATION will be wiped off the map.

Let's go on with what he really said:

"Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]

"Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.""

We seem to have many differing translations going here, even by the people who are on Ahmadinejad's side. These people are just spouting their own POLITICAL opinions about what Ahmadinejad meant. Shiraz goes on to say...

"No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – "wipe Israel off the map" – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous."

All of that is opinion about the intent, not translation. It is, in fact, very possible to "wipe out" Israel if Iran has nuclear weapons. They can be fired before the U.S. can do anything about it ... unless the U.S. decides to take out those weapons pre-emptively. It is bogus opinion that is is impossible for Iran, once it gets nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel just because it has the U.S. as an ally.

the Wikipedia article continues in Ahmadinejad's justification:

" All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive"

What a SILLY argument. Total splitting of hairs. Would I feel any better if I were an Israeli, knowing that Ahmadinejad had only said that he wants to see Israel "wiped AWAY" or "wiped OFF" versus "vanished." That's a completely stupid argument. If I "wipe away" or "wipe off" the chalk board, does the writing in chalk not completely "vanish?" This is a truly braindead splitting of hairs over symantics. Away, gone, off, vanished ... it's all the same -- annihilated.

Likewise with the notion that Ahmadinejad did not say "off the map"...

"At a gathering of foreign guests marking the 19th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 2008, Ahmadinejad said: 'You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene.'[24]"

Like I really care if he said "disappear off the GEOGRAPHICAL SCENE" versus "off the map." It means the exact same thing. What is a map but a "geographical scene." Note that Ahmadinejad did NOT say "Off the poltical scene," he said "off the geography."

BUT DID HE REALLY NOT SAY "OFF THE MAP?" Elsewhere, we find...

"The Iranian presidential website states: that "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map," and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel)

His OWN website says it!

How did others than the United States and Israel respond to his comments:

"United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was dismayed by the comments, and reiterated Iran's obligations and Israel's right of existence under the UN Charter.

"EU leaders issued a strong condemnation of these remarks: '[c]alls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community.'"

Obviously top leadership all over the world understood his comments exactly as I have -- all of Europe, Canada, Israel, the U.S. congress, and the head of the U.N.

"On November 17, the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning Ahmadinejad's remarks[4] and called on him to retract his bellicose comments in their entirety and to recognise the state of Israel and its right to live in peace and safety."

Now let's go elsewhere on the web to find what else Ahmadinejad said about Israel's destruction and put to rest this notion that Ahmadinejad does not want to destroy Israel as a nation completely:

Let's look first at the earlier statement by the Ayatollah that Ahmadinejad was alluding to:

"Cole said this week that in the 1980s Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian 'Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.' This means, 'This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.' But then anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel 'must be wiped off the face of the map,' which Cole and Nourouzi say is inaccurate." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html)

Again, people are splitting hairs in order to try to find a way to defend Iran. Do I really care whether he said "must vanish from the arena of time" versus "must be wiped off the map???" Whether you are wiped out of time or wiped off the map, you are completely annihilated either way! And EITHER could readily be accomplished with a nuclear weapon hitting Tel Aviv.

"But the story doesn’t end there. Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes that Iranian government entities began to erect billboards and signs with the “wipe off” phrase in English. Joshua Teitelbaum of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs compiled an interesting collection of photographs of these banners, such as one on the building that houses reserve military forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world,” the sign reads in English." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html )

It didn't take Ahmadinejad's government long to start posting his comment all over the countryside, using the phrase that the neo-translators are objecting to. The effort of those translators to try to soften Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is completely ruled out by the fact that Ahmadinejad posted his own comments all over the country (or allowed them to be posted) with the "wiped off the map" phrase, even in Parsi.

This official policy of Iran goes back a lot further than Ahmadinejad:

"In 2000, Khamenei stated, 'Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.'" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html )

Torn out by the roots. That sounds pretty violent. I don't know how you'd "uproot" Israel from the region, since it is determined to be there, without something as strong as a nuclear attack. Nothing else is going to get it out of there! It has no intention of leaving without extreme force being applied against it.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Your pedantic syntactic deconstructions of translations, primarily citing "The Washington Times" and your 'OCD'esque preoccupation with seeking to construct tenuous "casus belli" from Assmanidinejad's vacuous utterances are really rather revealing and unbecoming.

For a different perspective, try : "Inside Iran : Rick Steves' Travel Journal ; The Most fascinating and surprising land I've ever visited." (Video) ~ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30062.htm .

pacem in terris ...

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

But let's go on for the sake of those who mindlessly said that Ahmadinejad's policy does not speak officially for Iran, was mistranslated and was only stated once anyway... (I just ran out of posting length. I could go on for a long time with quote after quote by Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders who have made statements advocating the complete annihilation of Israel:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot 'satanic powers' and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported.

'I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene,' he said.

"'Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.'

"Since taking the presidency in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly provoked international outrage by predicting Israel is doomed to disappear." (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080602124328.f6eyi8y1)

"Ahmadinejad, in an interview with Egypt's state-owned Al-Akhbar newspaper, lashed out at Israel after its president, Shimon Peres, warned at the weekend that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely.

"Israel, Iran's arch-enemy, was 'bound to collapse,' Ahmadinejad said.

"'Iran's capabilities are increasing and it is progressing, and FOR THAT REASON it has been able to compete in the world. Now Israel and the West, particularly America, FEAR Iran's capabilities and role,' he said." ( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Irans-Ahmadinejad-warns-against-attack-says-Israels-end-near/articleshow/10641904.cms )

Obviously, the only CAPABILITIES that Iran has recently acquired or is in process of acquiring, is nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. and Israel do not fear peaceful power-generation reactors at all. We fear enrichment facilities because they are capable of making nuclear weapons. Here Ahmadinejad is bragging that Iran is reaching that kind of power and creating fear in the U.S., but also is implying in a not-to-veiled way that it will use those powers soon.

If you think this is NOT what he was implying because that is too hard for you to believe any modern ruler would be that insane and evil, keep reading:

"'Iran believes that whoever is for humanity should also be for eradicating the Zionist regime (Israel) as symbol of suppression and discrimination,' Ahmadinejad said in an interview with a Lebanese television network, carried by ISNA...."

"'Iran follows this issue (the ERADICATION OF ISRAEL) with determination and decisiveness and will never ever withdraw from this standpoint and POLICH.' the Iranian president added.

"Ahmadinejad on Monday said that Iranians and Muslim nations worldwide should hold Qods rallies and show their willingness to dispose of this 'infectious tumor and this regime full of rascality.'" (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/ahmadinejad-iran-is-determined-to-eradicate-israel-1.380629 )

"DISPOSE?"

That sound pretty violent. Not DEpose, but DISpose. As in "throw it into the sea?"

Keep reading if you think these points don't ALL add up to that:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said that Israel would 'soon go to hell' and called on the West to drop support for the Jewish state."

A hellish end, then, is what he has in mind. Or was he just speaking tongue in cheek or just swearing?

""Grounds are being prepared for the Zionist regime [Israel] to go to hell soon and any country supporting this regime will join it on its trip to hell as well," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in Ardebil in north-western Iran, carried live by the news network Khabar." (.http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/ahmadinejad-israel-and-its-allies-are-all-on-their-way-to-hell-1.319549 )

Hmmm.

"'The entire world should know that the Zionists are destined to disappear from the world, while Bint Jbail will remain alive. And the sons of Bint Jbail will know how to defeat the Zionist enemy.'"

So, it will vanish because it DEFEATED by Muslims.

And what KIND of Muslim power is going to be strong enough to make an entire nation ("Israel") disappear against its very determined will?

"Creation of a Palestinian state would not satisfy those intent on 'annihilating' Israel, Ahmadinejad said, speaking at Iran's annual Quds Day rally in support of the Palestinian cause.

"'Do not think that your existence will be recognized with the recognition of the Palestinian state,' the Iranian president said, addressing Israel. 'You have NO PLACE in our region and among our nations, and you will not be able to continue your ignominious life on even a small part of the Palestinian territories.'" (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/27/world/la-fg-iran-israel-20110827)

So, it's back to "annihilation," and this comment was as recent as last summer, so he has not backed down on the strength of his statements even long after the world took his comments to mean the total destruction of Israel.

But let's come even more recent in the news to last month in which even an Arabic newspaper says Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler:

"A report from the United Nations last week listed damning evidence that Iran is conducting research they hope will lead to an atomic weapon. Indeed, this would be enough to prompt Israel into military action against the ayatollahs. And no matter how much Ahmadinejad plugs it nuclear program as “peaceful,” there is no doubt that Israel fears the threat. Hence the Hitler title." ( http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/11/13/176924.html )

"Not for the first time, Ahmadinejad reserved his harshest rhetoric for Israel.

"'The Zionist regime will not survive. It is DOOMED.'" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5isyj2tN7JOhrI9MQuZZH4O18sqjg)

Now all of that is but a tiny portion of the violent rhetoric Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah have continuously used against Israel. How anyone can think Ahmadinejad does not speak for official Iranian policy and that official policy is not the total destruction of Israel can only be explained by ignorance. It is hardly a single time that he has been misquoted. He repeats his message often, and always in the same violent rhetoric.

Learn to see what you do not want to see and hear what you do not want to hear.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

For more rational discourse, please consider :

Pacem In Terris ...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

For less paranoid, reactive, specious & tendentious invective AND more practical, rational, strategic & tangible, 'Imperial War Motives', also consider that the Bankster's main targets re. IRAN, may well be :

a) Iran's Hydro-Carbon Bourse ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm and http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28646.htm ) at The Kish Island Mercantile Exchange - opened in 2008 and trading in a basket of currencies, including Euros, Roubles, Yuan & Iranian Rial BUT NOT in U$ Dollar$ & thereby challenging Reserve Currency, Dollar "HegeMoney" & the Monopoly of the existing Oil & Petroleum Bourses, & ...

b) The 'State Controlled' and "Entirely Government Owned" Iranian Central Bank {NOT Privately Owned) [ http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2011/12/15/senate-passes-sanctions-on-irans-central-bank/?mod=google_news_blog & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran ] as well as ...

c) The possible future proceeds of The Extremely Lucrative post-WAR Oil and Reconstruction Contracts that could follow any WAR and installation of any client / more pliant Iranian regime !!!

Where There Is (even the prospect of) WAR anywhere ; The Parasitic Banksters Are Never Far Away ...

radix malorum est cupiditas ...

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Oi, 'Dave the Knave' : Remember 'Terry Jones' from Monty Python ?

Well, try : "And now for something completely predictable - War with Iran", by Terry Jones : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29908.htm !

Go On, "Biggus Dickus" : Give It A Go !!

verum ex absurdo !!!

[-] 2 points by JonValle (133) 2 years ago

There is absolutely no reason to go to war with Iran. The notion that Iran would tease the US into a war is ludicrous. Iran MIGHT have the capability to make a nuclear weapon, but will they really use it? One nuke versus the immense amount we currently hold.

It isn't an option, we must not go to war with Iran.

[-] 3 points by patriot76 (9) 2 years ago

tell that to all the zio-cons....they are dying to go to war with these Middle Eastern countries....I read it in the newspaper everyday (though I would never count on the media for the truth)...Israel is pushing the US to take some sort of action. Truthfully, I could care less about the safety of Israel....what goes around comes around as they say....they should have known better before settling on that land....

[-] 3 points by JonValle (133) 2 years ago

Trust me, I watch the news everyday, I spend hours daily researching what's going on in the world and it's scarey. A large majority of my friends are in the military (I could not be due to poor eye sight) and I doubt they'd want to go to war again. One friend has seen 3 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He would of done more, but he was injured.

Though, I don't agree with some of Ron Lawl's idea, his foreign policy is spot on and we need to pull all non-essential troops home. In this day and age of technology and societal advances, we should be focusing on pure diplomacy instead of the half assed diplomacy we've come to be used to.

[-] -1 points by patriot76 (9) 2 years ago

I agree....let's worry about the American economy and our own interests....those regions will change when they are ready for it.....

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

ARTICLE : "From Occupation to “Occupy”: The Israelification of American Domestic Security", by Max Blumenthal : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29892.htm ... ad iudicium ...

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

What was your original name? The calcification of your brain! That was written by Al Akbar. Your name is deficit.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

WTF are you talking about ? The ever insightful 'Max B' is the accredited author. His work is published by many non MSM outlets around the world !! What's your point here ?

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

Blumenthal said that fundamentalist Christians support Israel, duh? SO that means Israel wants war with Iran? What? Fundamentalist Christians don't want Israel in a war they want a temple in Jerusalem. They are not aware that the Jordanians built a mosque there and so there could NEVER be another temple. The ground is ruined...according to Jews.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Jordanians built a Mosque ! Eh ?! And are these 'fact' based questions and statements or merely your opinions ? Are you able to corroborate or provide links for any of this ?

Further, I've no interest whatsoever in your 'critique' of Blumenthal or his writings. Take it to Max & ...

fiat pax ...

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

Dome of the Rock. Jerusalem used to belong to Jordan. Back in the day when only Muslims were allowed there and Jewish holy sites were desecrated.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Specious and tendentious mendacities aside, you should also really research 'The Crusades' to see who desecrated what and when & FYI, The 'Dome of the Rock' was built over 1300 years ago ... but hey! Don't just take my word for it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock !!

fiat pax ...

[-] 0 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Man I get tired of people taking a snapshot of history and acting as if everything started there. When people refer non-stop to the crusades and act as if it's natural for Muslim nations today to resent them and excuse radicalism because of that, they totally forget the Battle of Tours, fought in 732 in France. The battle turned back a campaign of Muslim expansion into Europe, and came 300 years before the first crusade. If modern radical Islam can be excused as a response to militant Christian expansionism that happened 800 years ago, then why can't the Crusades be excused as a response to militant Islamic expansionism three hundred years earlier?

This portrayal of Islam as the passive victims of Christian violence has just got to stop. Its propaganda, pure and simple, based on a superficial and snap-shot reading of history that pretends things happened in a vacuum. Nations fight against each other throughout history, and the silly exercise of who you hold as guilty all depends upon when you start your timeline.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

That was many years after the Jews were ousted. Keep reading.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

iLoL! You are the one who came up with inter alia, "the Jordanians built a mosque there" and you'd like ME to "keep reading" ?!! Well you can bet on the fact that I'll be doing just that !!! Meanwhile, research "Diaspora" and keep "Spanking Your Mojo" but do try NOT to go any blinder than you are already et ...

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

So there is no mosque there? So it wasn't built after the Jews were ousted? So the Jordanians weren't in charge until 1967? Oh...don't read.

In response to the next post: F Jordan. Arabs owned Jerusalem since 1300? Okay, that was when that land was made impossible to build a temple. Because there is a mosque....no temple. That was Muslim strategy to keep the Jews from rebuilding their temple.

Telchas teezee

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Hmmm. As I told you, the mosque was built over 1300 years ago ; Jordan only got independence from The British in 1946 & was a new country carved out of the old Ottoman Empire in 1921 after WW1, so WTF has Jordan being 'in charge' (for all of 21 years!) got to do with anything ?!

Perhaps you should give this 'reading mullarkey' a go yourself !

multum in parvo ...

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Thanks

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

@louis ; u r wlcm + "How Iran Acquired A Stealth Drone" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29899.htm ! fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Looks like someone messed up!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Yes, just like 'Dave the Knave' here on this thread, who thinks that constant repetition of the same BS some how validates or substantiates itself !

pax et lux ; nunc et semper ...

[-] 1 points by JonValle (133) 2 years ago

China is a good example of an area that was poor of the poor and sheltered from the rest of the world. Yes, the 'western' world helped them get to where they are today, but, the country has grown and progressed to be a huge factor in this world. We can sit here and blame them, but all they did was take advantage of what was presented to them. We need to do the same. We, as Americans (this applies to many countries), have the chance to rebuild our society and progress it forward.

We need to rebuild our work force, make more products at home. We need to empower small businesses to encourage growth and encourage employment. The citizens need to kick out those in our government that wish to see us burn rather than prosper.

(this post is not partisan. I believe the problems lay on both sides of the aisle, many are to blame)

[-] 0 points by patriot76 (9) 2 years ago

US companies initially got the ball rolling for China, large companies set up shop their because of cheap labor and relaxed labor/corp laws. But Chinese companies began making knockoff companies on products like washers, computers, etc....so Chinese companies are making lots of money too now. Haier would be one example. China is manufacturing while India handles many of the financial and technology/IT outsourcing aspects....millions of back office financial jobs have been outsourced to India....

[-] 1 points by JonValle (133) 2 years ago

I was just using China as an example.

But you're right. I know this first hand. My father lost his job due to outsourcing to China. He's an electrical engineer who was making close to 95k a year. We owned a house and everything was great. Once they started outsourcing, they lowered his pay significantly and then eventually laid him off. He now makes significantly less for a company that buys purpose build test units from China to tech out and sell in America.

I wonder how long until China starts outsourcing to us for cheap labor.

[-] 2 points by gmxusa (274) 2 years ago

Head of World Bank prepares Americans for what is coming.

http://youtu.be/mOwZwkhFemQ

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

ARTICLE : "George Orwell on the Evil Iranian Menace" by Glenn Greenwald ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29890.htm ... fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

p@triot76 : As you instigated this thread, I thought that you like a 'heads up" of :

fiat lux et fiat pax ...

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

actually since islam is based on Mosses aswell as Mohamed, it's interesting the religions from different ages still exist in the middle east

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

ARTICLE : "USrael and Iran", by William Blum ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29880.htm ... fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

This time (in Iran) is not the U.S. providing the "evidence" of a nuclear weapons program. It is the U.N.

Last time (in Iraq), Saddam Hussein was controlled by the West which had neutered him. The UN had long been searching and claimed it had found nothing. This time (in Iran) NO ONE controls Ahmadinejad, and the UN has found something significant.

I was against the invasion into Iraq from the beginning and put friendships on the line by speaking against it. I thought the evidence provided by Colin Powell was a terrible joke, exactly as it turned out to be. This time is different. No one should be persuaded to believe that Iran is the same as Iraq. It is apples and oranges.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

@ Naive Dave : Re. "This time (in Iran) NO ONE controls Ahmadinejad, and the UN has found something significant." = TOTAL BS !!!

Did you even read Bill Blum's piece? + See my posts above and ST0P your Trolling for WAR !!

honi soit qui mal y pense ...

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

I did read it. That's why I wrote the response I did. Did you even read my response? Iran and Iraq are apples and oranges. Iraq was not constantly threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, which was well monitored by the U.N. Iran doesn't allow U.N. monitoring. Iran's leader constantly threatens to completely terminate Israel. Iraq had a secular leader (albeit a thug). Iran has religious fundamentalist leaders.

You might stop being so dictatorial and commanding yourself.

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

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

Israel already has nuclear weapons

Sting - Russians (plus lyrics in description)

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

In terms of cold, hard strategic logic, there is no country on earth as surrounded by enemies as Iran. The Imperial Armies of the U$A are camped out on both Eastern (Afghanistan) and Western (Iraq) borders. To the North are oligarchic US allies and to the South are the decadent, dynastic and despotic Arab regimes who are in Utter Dread of The Very Notion of an "Islamic REPUBLIC". Iran also actually shares a border with Nuclear Armed Pakistan, a long term US 'client' with whom it has always had a difficult relationship. Finally and of course, The 'Zionist-Apartheid Entity' is a nuclear power of the first order and The Pre-eminent Hegemonic Power in the region bent on retaining its position.

For over sixty years the Zionist-Apartheid Entity has been trying to entice Iran's ~50,000 strong Jewish community to decamp to Israel, but the loyal-to-Iran descendants of ancient Persian Jewry will have no truck with the Zionists and have consistently refused all entreaties. Yet another one of those uncomfortable facts-on-the-ground, that The Zionist Propaganda Machine would rather you did NOT know. Thus, for further insights re, 'Iran and Jews', please see :

Regime change in Iran will be achieved by the Evolution of the Iranian body-politic and it has been happening ever since Iranians got rid of that despotic CIA-puppet known as "The Shah" and his brutal secret police, Savak. Iran has had many elections since 1979 whereby the popular-will does find expression both locally and nationally so to pretend that it is on any kind of par with for example The "Kingdom" of Saudi Arabia, is frankly 'beyond the pale'.

We can increasingly see the real reasons for the Slow Motion and Covert War being pursued against Iran by The Empire, as alluded to in my posts above. As such, please further consider that in Feb. '08, Iran opened a Hydro-Carbon Bourse at the Kish Island Mercantile Exchange ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm and http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28646.htm ) - trading in a basket of currencies, including Euros, Roubles, Yuan and Iranian Rial BUT NOT in U$ Dollar$ and thereby challenging Reserve Currency, Dollar "HegeMoney" and the Monopoly of the existing Oil and Petroleum Bourses.

An 'evil and unholy alliance' of The "United States of Amnesia" (Gore Vidal) ; The Zionist-Apartheid Entity ; The Despotic 'Kingdom' of Saudi-Arabia and The Global Corporate Power Elites, are pitched against Iran and its people. ALL right thinking people everywhere, who truly believe in Peace, Justice and Freedom MUST oppose a WAR with Iran both for the sake of innocent Iranians AND with an eYe to the Global Conflagration that will result.

Thus, despite your subjective interpretations of "dictatorial and commanding" or otherwise, please pre-prepare yourself for the Quite Clear Moral and Ethical Equation I will make between Israel (1948 - present) And 'Apartheid Era South Africa' as well as the references to Kermit Roosevelt, Jnr. & The CIA's 'Operation Ajax' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh ) in my probable next post to your almost inevitable reply to follow here ! I'll keep some powder dry for now & I'm all typed out too !!

Finally, W.M.D = Words of Mass Deception and repeating them does NOT make them true. Claiming your post to be a response to William Blum's article shows that you did in fact NOT read it as you claim and your post-factum dissembling on the matter, leads one to question your bona fides even further. Therefore, please do NOT pretend that you know what you are talking about OR that you have come to your conclusions by any independent research Or that you are NOT just sprouting Pro-WAR 'received (pseudo) wisdom'.

Though you won't read them, I nevertheless re-offer the three articles which I have posted on this thread, for the information of others IF not yourself.

~*~

fiat lux ; fiat pax ; fiat justitia ruat caelum ...

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

As you spend no time on the numerous quotes of Ahmadinejad that I gave, which completely disprove the statements you've made about his innocence, I'll waste no time reading what you've posted. There is no sense reading someone, then posting the "lengthy," "detailed" response he/she demands, if the person isn't going to read what I've written or is simply going to dismiss it. I spent an hour pulling together some of the many quotes, and you've ignored them. So, you are NOW right: I won't read yours -- not as a tit for tat but as one who won't waste his time with someone who isn't listening to and engaging with the things that are written but who has resorted to nothing but ad-hominem attacks in his responses to those other posts.

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

Douche. Settled on 1000 murderers for one kid. And stop lying. You never read anything.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

Sure they will use it. 1) That's why they want it so bad; but more importantly 2) Ahmadinejad is not thinking rationally, nor is the Ayatolla. They are not adding up nuclear weapons to see how wins. They are planning to use it for religious reasons. They believe the Mahdi and Allah will miraculously protect them for such courage.

--Knave Dave http:thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

Yes, there is. Economic reasons, domestic stimulus.

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

The US is doing the same thing to Iran that it did to Japan preWWII

[-] 1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Very similar yes.

[-] 1 points by JonValle (133) 2 years ago

I feel that, behind the scenes, our government is freaking out about our dwindling energy resources, and is waging a campaign to secure said sources of energy. I'm not throwing out a conspiracy theory or anything like that. Just saying, judging on how we ignore many other conflicts in other regions of the world, that don't have oil reserves.

Either way, if we continue down this path, we're looking at a bleak future.

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

If someone doesn't take MUCH stronger action with respect to Iran (whether it is surgical strikes or something more creative like the stealth virus that wiped out parts of Iran's nuclear program), were looking at no more Tel Aviv. Will you feel the same way if a whole city lies dying because of Western inaction?

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

We should know a Pro-WAR Propagandist by his works and words & re. the above ... ipse dixit !!!

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

That is the wrong answer.

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Such paranoid, mendacious and unsubstantiated - hyperbolic invective needs a peek into alternative truths so that LOVE can vanquish WAR Propaganda !!!

As such, please attempt to engage with http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30062.htm : "Inside Iran : Rick Steves' Travel Journal ; The Most fascinating and surprising land I've ever visited.".

pacem in terris ;-)

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

Being a land full of wonderful people and interesting culture has nothing to do with whether their leaders, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatolla, are rational. They are driven by intense religious beliefs wherein faith means that you do not let human reason stand in the way of doing what you believe God commands. You choose to trust that God will protect you when you carry out his divine directive. You are wrong to think that Iran wants a nuclear bomb just to protect itself. It wants a bomb to hurt "the Zionist entity" and "The Great Satan" (the U.S.). It wants a bomb because its leaders want to be religious heroes and do damage to these two beasts. It wants a bomb to bring on the end of the world according to Fundamentalist Islamic beliefs.

If you are wrong, a city like Tel Aviv gets erased from the earth.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 2 years ago

Saudia Arabia (Sunni) is looking at Iraq and Iran (both Shite) nervously. Has been for a few years since Bush Toppled the Sunni leader of Iraq.

[-] 2 points by JonValle (133) 2 years ago

My stance stands with any country. If we have another cold war, so be it. What we don't need is to preemptively enter another war, justified or not. That should go for any country.

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

What if the country has vowed to destroy another and is known to be on a weapons program that will readily do it?

-Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Which "country has vowed to destroy another", you mendacious, dissembling fool ?

It will strike most close and dispassionate observers that it has been Israel and her vociferous supporters who are constantly banging the drum for war with Iran and NOT vice versa !!

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

Your constant ad hominem attacks speak of a person who cannot argue against the ideas. See elsewhere where I have quoted at length just a few of the many times that Ahmadinejad has vowed to see Israel destroyed. I'll answer you there, rather than repeat it all hear.

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by exmachina (94) 2 years ago

That's their own problem not that of US/world police! If the US attacks Syria or Iran, Russia should not stand idle and watch another invasion by the oppressor!

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

Well, I don't like the U.S./world-police business either, but I think that standing by your allies is another matter. To be sure we get involved in conflict where we really have no dog in the the fight (in order to "spread democracy" or "stand against tyrants"), such as Kosovo or even Iraq; but I think it is SMART to have allies in the world, and you will not have them if you do not help defend them.

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

You aren't seeing the key ingredient here? Ahmadinejad doesn't care if the U.S. can blow Iran up with more nuclear power or even if Israel can. He is is not politically motivated. He is not motivated by love of Iran or by love of its people. He is motivated by Islamic fanaticism. In his view, something greater than the return of Christ (in his view) is ready to happen now -- the return of the twelfth (hidden) Imam. It is the Muslim equivalent of the return of Christ. In his view, this one know as the Mahdi will return once war is started with the West or once Israel is destroyed, and the Mahdi will reward him with great personal standing. The Mahdi will save Iran (in his view) because its leader showed courage in launching "holy war" against Israel or against what he views as Christian nations. The Mahdi will defend Iran. Even if he does not, the cost will be no greater than the cost of all those Palestinian lives as suicide bombers. It will be a price the Mahdi deems worth paying.

Therefore, there is NO stopping Ahmadinejad by sanctions or even by the shear size of our weapons. There is only STOPPING him! Only ending his nuclear program. The longer the world waits to take such serious action, the more likely Israel will do it on its own to defend itself against one it knows will attack it as soon as able. Or the more likely Ahmadinejad will have nuclear weapon and use it before the West can find it and take it away from him.

Religious zealots from violent traditions, such as Fundamental Islam, do not care if they bring calamity, for in doing so, they will also bring the Mahdi.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

We should know a Pro-WAR Propagandist by his works and words & re. the above ... ipse dixit !!!

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

A pro-war propagandist is someone who favors wars. I don't. I thought the Iraq war was stupid and may have lost friends saying so. I think letting Iran gain nuclear arms is incredibly foolish. Iran clearly does not want this nuclear ability for medical research and is lying to the world when they claim they do.

No one goes to the expense of deeply burying facilities for the sake of medical research, as Iran claims, showing the leaders who say this are complete liars. NOBODY makes facilities like that for medical research. It would take hundreds of years to make an investment of that size pay off with nuclear medicine. You do it only because you desperately want nuclear missiles, and anyone who thinks the middle east is going to avoid nuclear wars by letting people as religiously driven to assault Israel as the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad is foolish. Fearing a war that MIGHT start if you blow up their nuclear facilities, you assure a war that will kill millions of people in Tel Aviv or even NYC, rather than a few in a nuclear facility.

No one is talking about regime change in Iran, as Bush foolishly did in Iraq. They are talking about defanging them by destroying their nuclear weapons facilities. Anyone who thinks they are not nuclear weapons facilities lives in denial.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

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

should the US end its nuclear program?

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

Well that's a bunch of bull. We ought to go over there, blow the shit out of that bastard and anybody who sides with him, and keep their goddam oil. That's just the way it is.

[-] 1 points by abigailwatkins007 (1) 2 years ago

Moving To New York http://www.shleppers.com/ Shleppers has been New York's leading relocation and moving company.

[-] 1 points by smmv2005 (106) 2 years ago

If Isreal start war with Iran, We clean its name on the world map forever.(your map not ours...our map has not it.)

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

Are you in favour of war with Iran?

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

Here's an interesting take on the reasoning for war with Iran:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/201112411011569936.html

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

I think this is a mistake. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddeq . Follow the references and ideas it raises. Note that Iran was making real progress toward democracy, and the U.S. sided with Britain in overthrowing that effort in order to maintain control over their oil. Here in America we may have forgotten the brutality of the Shah's regime and our role in supporting it, but we can rest assured that the Iranian memory of these events will last a lot longer. We would like to believe that our tolerance for that sort of sordid, corrupt politics has ended ... but the situation in Iraq belies it.

We would like to hope that the Iranians will forgive ordinary Americans for the actions of a few politicians we weren't paying attention to, and that we will find it in ourselves to forgive the progressive Iranians for the actions of a few Islamist extremists... even so, if they were holding nuclear bombs, I'm not sure we would feel so confident. Waging peace with Iran will not be easily done.

But the effect of a war might well be to put us more at risk. Before any people gets enthusiastic about bombing Iran or getting involved in any war, they should have a look at a map. Iran is 636,372 square miles - compare to Iraq's 169,234 square miles and Afghanistan's 251,772 square miles. That's 421,006 total - Iran is 51% bigger than both of them combined. And while Iran has some opposition yearning for freedom, we have nowhere near the kind of support we imagined in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can't count on them siding with us once the bombs start falling and the radiation from bombed-out nuclear reactors starts falling out of the sky. War with Iran means trying to subjugate all that vast expanse of territory. And when we fail, what kinds of counterattacks will start coming in our direction?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"And while Iran has some opposition yearning for freedom, we have nowhere near the kind of support we imagined in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can't count on them siding with us once the bombs start falling and the radiation from bombed-out nuclear reactors starts falling out of the sky."

You're referring to the Green Movement.

According to Fareed Zakaria, the leaders of the Green movement don't oppose the nuclear energy program.

Basically, if the nuclear energy program is our rationale, we have zero domestic support to invade.

You forgot to mention their population which is about 74 million, well over double of Iraq's population.

[-] 1 points by gmxusa (274) 2 years ago

Iran will launch 11000 missiles a minute if attacked, targeting Israel and US bases in range.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21389599/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/iran-says-it-can-fire-rockets-minute/

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

Do you believe that?

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

TEL AVIV, Israel, Nov. 30 (UPI) -- With missiles that can reach every corner of the Middle East and survive preemptive strikes, Iran is already "the major missile power of the region, at least in theory," said a former head of Israel's missile defense program.

"No other country in the world ... comes close to Iran in the number and variety of ballistic missiles in development or already deployed," Uzi Rubin wrote in a study published by the Institute for National Security Studies.

And yet, some of those missiles' effectiveness is questionable, he noted.

Rubin based his study on published materials but his background -- from 1991 to 1999 he was the Arrow anti-ballistic missile program manager -- enables him to better analyze those reports.

He wrote that most of the missiles designed to control the sea, land, and air near Iran show Chinese and Russian pedigree. The Raad, apparently an advanced version of the Chinese Silkworm, is a shore based anti-ship missile whose range should be sufficient to bloc the Persian Gulf at its widest point.

The Zelzal, which originally hails from China, is intended to hit hostile troops concentrated some 125 miles away. Other programs are externally similar to the old Soviet Strela, and anti-tank missiles.

During naval exercises, in April 2006, Iran unveiled a rocket propelled underwater projectile and a flying boat. However, "A cursory examination of the video images revealed them to be 1960s vintage Soviet technologies" that Russian companies are marketing, "Apparently with no great success."

Iran's Shahab family of ballistic missiles shares the heritage, propulsion technology and general layout of the Soviet R11 missiles of the 1950s, also known as the Scuds. Gradually it has been increasing its missiles' ranges and they are, "an indispensable complement to its nuclear ambitions," according to Rubin.

Iran bought Scud B and Scud C missiles with their launchers and production lines, dubbed them Shahab 1 and 2, and manufactured them "in considerable quantities," Rubin noted.

That program was initially designed to counter the Iraqi threat. Eventually Iran amended its threat perception. It sought to dissuade Saudi Arabia from hosting U.S. forces, and -- if the U.S. attacked -- planned to strike at Israel.

Hence the Shahab 3. It is, "a very close relative, if not a full fledged clone of the North Korean mysterious No Dong," wrote Rubin.

In 2004, Iran tested an extended version of the Shahab 3. It is a longer missile, its internal design seems to have been significantly modified, and it "carries the telltale signs of Soviet-style missile engineering."

After that test the Iranians said their missiles have a range of about 1,250 miles.

With them, "Every major city and military installation between the western shores of Turkey and the eastern border of Pakistan and between the Black Sea in the north and the southern narrows of the Red Sea are within range," Rubin noted.

Moreover, it can hit any point in the Middle East from fixed sites deep inside Iran. It can deploy the missiles from well-protected silos "survivable against preemption."

Only 10 Shahab 3 flight tests were conducted between July 1998, when it was first tried, and May 2006.

"This is a remarkably low number for what is surely a strategic weapon for Iran." About half those tests ended in total or partial failure, Rubin said.

By Western standards the Shahab 3 would not yet be considered operational. It would not be mass-produced. However, Iranians seem to think that if the design works once or twice, they are ready to take the chance that it will work in the battlefield too.

"There should be no doubt that in case of conflict, Iran will launch Shahab 3 missiles regardless of their flight test record, and that some of them will reach their destinations," Rubin stressed.

Last year Iran's then-Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani elaborately extolled solid propellant rocketry and alluded to a twin-engine missile; Rubin inferred that Iran is engaged in developing a multi-stage strategic range ballistic missile.

He told United Press International he believes Iran's intelligence was behind the theft of KH55 (Kent) cruise missiles in the Ukraine. The plane that flew them out belonged to a company whose address was a Tehran mailbox.

"The theft ... will serve for the development of an indigenous version of a strategic cruise missile," he maintained.

According to Israeli intelligence, and a German account, a BM 25 missile, with a range of roughly 1,500 to 2,200 miles, was transferred from North Korea to Iran.

But the Iranians do not need such a missile to hit targets in the Middle East. The Shahab 3's range is sufficient for that. It should, however, concern the Europeans since it could reach central Europe.

Iran is also developing satellites. Its achievements have been "relatively meager," according to Rubin, but its statements and disclosures about that program suggest it is picking up speed.

"Any suitably modified SLV (Space Launch Vehicle) can serve as an ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile), Rubin noted.

All indications are that Iran's missile and space programs "have suffered from deficiencies in leadership and resources ... The disparate programs are making headway, but in a somewhat chaotic manner," he wrote.

Nevertheless, Iran's missile and space programs "are no paper tigers."

At the rate they are going, "Iranian missiles will dominate the entire continent of Europe by the end of this decade. Once they perfect their workhorse SLV, their reach will become truly global," Rubin added.

© 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI's prior written consent. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2006/11/30/Analysis-Irans-growing-array-of-missiles/UPI-91151164898583/

[-] 2 points by gmxusa (274) 2 years ago

Based on Iran's prior history, I doubt they are going to attack anyone without being attacked first.

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

I would be very skeptical of any hype.

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

Based on Iran's overwhelming Islamic Fundamentalist religious makeup and its tyrannical despot who has promised Israel will be destroyed, I have no doubt they will attack Israel as soon as they have a nuclear weapon ... probably even before testing. It's test site will be Tel Aviv.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Absolutely no one I know advocates an Iranian Nuclear Bomb and I totally concur with that ... BUT let's just for a micro-second try to imagine a possible Iranian motivation. The only rational answer to that particular quandary can be summed up in two words & one hyphen : Self-Defence !

Your "Iran's overwhelming Islamic Fundamentalist religious makeup" displays ZERO understanding of Iran, Iranians and Iranian history and "tyrannical despot" shows ZERO understanding of the nuances of Iranian politics, whilst "Test Site ... Tel Aviv" has all the hallmarks of hyperbole, mendacity and WARmongering !!

You may baselessly "have no doubt they will attack Israel as soon as they have a nuclear weapon." whereas I personally have "no doubt" that you 'David Haggith' are quite simply an 'Evil C..nt of the 1st order' and when you use the word 'Knave' in your given moniker here, subconsciously you actually do display a scintilla of self-awareness !!!

encore, "honi soit qui mal y pense" ...

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

Shadz, you are looking for a "rational answer," and, therefore, finding a rational reason. But what if Ahmadinejad is not rational at all? Your assumption is that he is, but his consistent rhetoric and his tying of his beliefs to the return of the Mahdi make it evident that he is not.

Nuances of Iranian politics in NO way justify or even explain the extreme statements he has made about annihilating Israel for all time.

Your constant dodge to ad hominem attacks is the tactic used by anyone who cannot attack the arguments with facts. It's the oldest argumentative fallacy in the world. If you cannot attack the argument, create a straw man and attack him.

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Dave, I've expressed contrition for the 'ad hominem' in my more substantive previous post above and do so again here : Sorry ;-)

We may well never agree on the matter of how important The Buffoon Ahmedinejad is to Iran and Iranian Politics but needless to say he and his buffoonery is indispensable (& indeed a "sine qua non" !!) to all those who desire WAR with Iran !!!

Re. "The Rational", please attempt to intellectually engage with :

a) http://www.iranisnottheproblem.org/about_the_movie ;

b) http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/iran-is-not-the-problem/ &

c) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1lliIGCcfs (Alt. Link) !!

Pacem In Terris !

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

O.K. Thanks for that expression. I accept that and will try to be more careful in my own responses now that I've seen it.

I agree that there are people who are too eager for war with Iran and that Republican are often rapacious when it comes to wanting to go to war with evil empires, but Republicans are not the ones who will be making that decision. Their current lineup of candidates stand no chance of winning against Obama precisely because they are too extremely right, so they will never hold the middle in a general election.

Therefore, we have only to be concerned with what the Obama admin. will do because congress, while it has the sole power to declare war, would never dare go there without the will of the nation's Commander in Chief behind such an act, and OBAMA has NO interest in war with Iran if it can be avoided. He KNOWS his party core hates the idea. He knows it would make his economic recovery goals impossible because it would drive up the speculative price of war, AND he has never shown himself to be a warmonger.

He is, however, unwilling to let Iran get nuclear weapons, and he is completely right in being unwilling, and he WILL bomb the facilities if the diplomacy fails. That diplomacy will certainly fail with the evil-inspired Ahmadinejad who has already rigged elections to stay in power; but I think Obama's hope is that revolutionaries within Iran will succeeed in taking Ahmadinejad out.

I cannot engage with all the articles and movies you post, as I do not have time. It would take HOURS to give them all a thorough viewing. I have engaged with a couple on a couple of other posts of yours today and yesterday, but need to keep it to engaging directly with your own argument for time sake.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

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

I find that to be an overly simplistic analysis.

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

I could go on at much greater length and detail if that would be helpful ; )

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

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

Let's hear it. I would love to hear how you arrived at your conclusions.

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Yes, 'GirlFriday' is absolutely right : Go on 'Dave the Knave' ; grow a pair, find a spine, put your arse where your mouth is and show us your "greater length" !!

Failure to do so will only reveal you to be that unique paradox ... A Dickless Prick !!!

multum in parvo ...

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

See comments I have now added throughout this page in response to others that show exactly where I get my fact. And, LENGTHY, as those factual quotes were, they are only a small representation of the quotes that can be found from Ahmadinejad in newspapers all over this world and on occasions in every year of the last decade and this one in which Ahmadinejad has called for the complete annihilation of Israel. So, take the time to go back through this page and read the numerous quotes of Ahmadinejad I've now posted.

There are no facts you can post to negate those quotes, as the quotes, themselves, are facts, and stand on their own.

I could give many, many more, but if you don't want to see or acknowledge the authenticity of the ones given what with the numerous resources quoted from all over the world over the course of many years, then no amount of facts will convince you of what you simple don't WANT to believe.

The loser of the argument is the one who has to resort to mere name calling.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Alas, "the losers of the argument" between AssmanDinejad (THE Imperial bete noire du nos jours !) and The U$A & Israel, threatens to be The People of Iran !!

To those to whom yet another Imperial WAR of Aggression (THE Supreme War Crime at Nuremburg !!) is abhorrent ; please do try to watch, cogitate upon and disseminate :

a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1lliIGCcfs &

b) http://www.iranisnottheproblem.org/about_the_movie !!

Pacem In Terris = Peace On Earth ;-)

dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

I wish I had time to review the movie, but it over an hour long, and I don't. I have other writing that has nothing to do with Iran that I need to get back to on my blog.

I will only point out that the movie deals with the Bush administration, at least in the beginning that I watched, and I think Bush was a puppet with Dick Cheney's hand up his butt, operating his mouth, and we are now dealing with a much different administration where these arguments no longer apply.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

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

hadn't even thought about the size

[-] -1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Why doesn't the Prez save time and paperwork by going to the UN to finally, officially and once and for all, DECLARE WAR ON THE WHOLE WORLD - including of course 99% of America?

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Let's kill the Iranian leadership, let the Iranian people sort out their country. Iran is an aggressive country using hezbollah, syria, lebanon as puppets to do its dirty deeds. How can any liberal support Iran? They kill gays, enslave women , want to destroy all Jews. That is why Liberalism is a mental disorder. Israel is a democratic country with political freedom.

[-] 0 points by Remigration2Europe (13) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

War is great stimulus for the economy

[-] 2 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

Not really. Broken window fallacy. We'd be better off nation-building right here.

[-] 0 points by NintyNiner (93) 2 years ago

The lobbyists are pushin for a new conflict since we are pullin outta Iraq and Afganistan. War is business! Iran seems to be the top target from what the media wants us to hear. Money in Politics is going to get us all killed!

[-] 1 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

Money is politics. Always was. Iraq was a huge blunder that took place because a Texas boy couldn't live with threats on Daddy. Afghanistan was so warranted. Should have bombed nce or twice, realized no one lives there (out in the open anyway) and left. Then we could have killed Osama, the prepetrator, much sooner.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Sp@nx :

a) "Iraq was a huge blunder" ! Blunder, eh ? ~1.5 Million, Dead ( http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq ) ; ~2 Million, Internally Displaced ; ~1 Million, In Exile ... so aren't Reparations now in order ?

b) "Afghanistan was so warranted."! Really? WTF did The People Afghanistan have to do with Anything?

c) And Are You Also Still Up for Another WAR on Iran and Innocent Iranians ?

d) How have you USers come to be so full of Pro-WAR MSM "Kool-Aid" ?

veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] 1 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago
  1. Yes, reparations are in order.
  2. Nothing. But the taliban were the Osama sponsors. (at least for safe haven.)
  3. Never been against Iranian people. They tried to overthrow the little douche.
  4. How did your mother live with herself knowing she could have had an abortion?

fuckus youus.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Oh Dear ! You were doing quite well with questions 1-3 and then you got "all unnecessary" !!

"veritas vos liberabit" = "The Truth Shall Set You Free" and is actually taken from The New Testament (John, 8:32) but ho-hum, as I'm now left with the clear impression that you too {like 'Dave the Knave' on this thread} are a bit of a ... "Biggus Dickus" ;-)

Nosce Te Ipsum !!!

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

I am still doing well. The truth bullshit. Whose truth, yours? I don't care about testaments. Biggus Limpus Dickus-uselessus! lol Uncle Milty-Biggest Dick in Hollywood!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Did you miss your meds (again!) this morning ?

[-] 1 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

I don't subscribe to meds. I wish you the best shadz. No one wants war with Iran, feel better?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Yes ! Thanx !! And re. Iran, I honestly hope that you are right !!!

Stay Well Yourself and The Best Wishes of The Forthcoming Season to you and yours.

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 1 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

Peace on earth! You are yours as well.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Yes ! Peace On Earth !! dum spiro, spero !!! ( = as long as I breathe, I hope). Blessings be upon you. x

[-] 1 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

How strange that after we argued we now wish upon each other what we wish on ourselves. I wish we started that way. We have common ground. It is that we are alive and cherish that. If anything, life is sacred. Please don't hate the people that are afraid for their lives. My whole argument was based on an Iranian man, in charge, who speaks hateful words. He must not be allowed to continue. But, I pray no war. Innocent people should not die because of those that spew hatred. I like your hope. I will use it to spread hope.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

@'Spankysmojo': I really appreciate your lovely words which are actually very moving and life affirming. Consider that sometimes we have to go through BS to see through to 'Love, Truth and Beauty'.

We Must NOT allow fear and loathing to guide our thoughts. The "Iranian man" is barely in charge of anything as his is predominantly a 'political and ceremonial figurehead' role and despite any stupid and ill judged words, he is subject to many checks and balances due to the intricacies and nuances of Iranian Politics, Culture and Society. Also, maybe he too and other Iranians beside, are also being motivated by fear for which (prima facie) there would seem some reason - given the words of people such as 'Dave The Knave' on this thread and across the Main Stream Media in The USA, UK etc. who really do seem desperate for WAR on Iran.

I will remember our exchange here for a long time to come and again extend my sincere best wishes to you and yours at this time of seasonal hope and moment of friendship.

Peace and Prosperity To You and Yours and Protection Over Your Home and Hearth ;-)

Pax, Amor et Lux ; Hic et Ubique ; Nunc et Semper ...

(Peace, Love & Light ; Here & Everywhere ; Now & Always)

[-] 1 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

Thank you, again. This could be the start of a great new friendship. Let me say, the Shah was scum. Israel was desperate, no excuse. Iranians are Persians. Friends of Jews. I respect and love Iranians. I do not approve of the hating regime that boasts of destruction of Israel. So, I want to say, peace and love to everyone but the perpetrators of crimes and hatred. Btw- I hate the Jews that preach hatred. A shame on my culture.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Thanx again ;-) & re. "Iranians are Persians. Friends of Jews" and for real insights re, 'Iran and Jews', please see :

a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7yz2vciGk ,

b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q &

c) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngttxIzXRsE !

I myself, by bonds of blood and marriage - have Agnostic, Atheist, Christian, Jew and Moslem in my family and Nobody wishes for WAR with Iran. Personally, I've become somewhat 'anti' all this Abrahamic Mumbo-Jumbo and subscribe to 'Buddhistic' Meta-Physics and Spirituality but the Real Secret inside All Religions Is : That There Can Be No Secrets within The Ultimate Universality Of The Human Experience but I digress ! Suffice it to end with :

Shalom Aleichem ; Salam Alaikhum ; Pax Vobiscum ; Ommm Shaanti ....

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

There is no reason to go to war with Iran. Not one. People standing around trying to say that Israel is behind this are equally full of crap. The reality is that Iran has oil. Period.

How do those sanctions work? http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/92804

I find this, the lets-go-to-war with Iran to be insane,

[-] 3 points by gmxusa (274) 2 years ago

Judging by this AIPAC dissident, the pressure for war against Iran is a combination of Israeli interests and the Oil business.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/06/aipac-from-the-inside-1-isolating-iran.html

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

a) Iran has The Words 2nd Largest Liquid & 3rd Largest known 'Total' Oil Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iran ,

b) Iran has The Worlds 2nd Largest known Gas Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_reserves_in_Iran

c) Further consider that in Feb. '08, Iran opened a Hydro-Carbon Bourse at the Kish Mercantile Exchange ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm and http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28646.htm ) - trading in a basket of currencies, including Euros, Roubles, Yuan & Iranian Rial BUT NOT in U$ Dollar$ & thereby challenging Reserve Currency, Dollar "HegeMoney" & the Monopoly of the existing Oil & Petroleum Bourses.

Casus Belli ?!

[-] 2 points by gmxusa (274) 2 years ago

Casus rapio!

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

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2006/May/opinion_May27.xml&section=opinion&col

I wouldn't use Israel as the motivator or pretext for the US engaging in war with Iran. I am not saying that Israel doesn't run their own game (spying, etc, Iran Contra) and in fact maintains business connections such as here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4075900,00.html

But, you are giving them a little too much power that they have not really had before and will not in the future. Israel is a client state of the US. Not the other way around. The US has always had their eye on Iran and Saudi Arabia and casts eyes every now and again at Turkey.

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

If you think the real power in the banking cartel is not dead even with the US and Israel, you are giving the US too much credit.

As far as Saudi being an enemy, ever heard of the petro-dollar?

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

Yep. Point?

[-] 1 points by gmxusa (274) 2 years ago

I hope you are right and our Middle East policy is not dictated by Israel.

http://youtu.be/MeVBa4lSscw

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

but if Iran has money what will it spend it on ?

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

The same thing that they are spending it on now. Because we are isolating them does not mean that they do not have relationships with others. Shucks, last week protesters became irate with the British Embassy in Iran and they left. Of course, this was after the British decided to support further US sanctions. Iran was like......really? There is a shot somewhere of a broken window which was terrifying for them. They verbally and publicly support sanctions against Iran which in turn leads to a really angry group of people that smash windows and then in turn act confused in a victim sort of way.

Iran maintains relationships with China, Russia, India, Venezuela and other countries.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

@ GF : Having read some of your posts, here and elsewhere on this forum, I thought that you may be interested in : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29917.htm .

fiat lux et pax ...

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

Thanks, let me throw three at ya. http://www.tehrantimes.com/opinion/93212-irans-response-to-britain-a-message-for-other-eu-states

This one has a listing of three groups that Iran lists as terrorists: http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/93343-by-opening-virtual-embassy-us-admits-mistake-in-cutting-ties-iran-says This is an older (2008) article that I came across that mentions one of those groups that I found interesting. http://iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=4905

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Thanx & ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah . Pax et Lux ; Nunc et Semper .

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by patriot76 (9) 2 years ago

Israel = the purest evil known to man