Are We Going to War With Iran?

[The Esotericist]

They are a theocratic dictatorship who prevents it's citizens from representative government and suppresses such movements with secret police and torture. Go to human rights watch and read the testimonies.

Why do you trust such sources?

Who is behind Human Rights Watch? (2004)

Let's hear for war war war!!! Yay! Let's find a justification for it. :shrug: Sometimes, you just need to let other people solve their own problems rather than kill them, take them over, and solve their problems for them.

Of course, unless they have something you want of theirs. . . right?

 

[The Esotericist]

India is going to begin trading gold for oil with Iran. China is considering doing the same thing. From what I read until now Iran traded dollars for oil. Weird!

Bear in mind, when Saddam said he was no longer going to trade his oil in dollars, but was going to start trading his oil in Euros, well, that was the end for him.

And when Qaddafi said Libya was going to start trading their oil for gold instead of Euros? Well, he was dead within the year and NATO took over that country and set up a debt based monetary system.

If Iran plans to start trading oil for gold? Well, b/c they have one of the few banks that is not part of the Bank of International Settlements, nor part of the World Bank or IMF . . . you can count on the International Bankers and the Rothchilds DEMANDING war now if this oil for gold scheme turns out to be true.

 

[StrawDog]

One never knows, but it's fundamentally unjust to impose assumptions on our "enemies" without having all the facts on the table, just like it would be fundamentally unjust for someone else to do the same thing to us, or our grandchildren.

Thank you.

Even if the Iranian leadership has suicidal delusions, I don't buy that the people they govern share the same thinking, nor would those people be prepared to sacrifice their futures for the sake of a messianic ideology.

They never had and do not now have suicidal delusions. These are figments of the USrael propaganda machine. On the contrary Iran has responded calmly and with dignity to serial character assassination. (to use a novel simile)

These recent sanctions have a serious bite to them, and it's most definitely best not to mess with that in favour of unforeseeable consequences, especially if Russia and China are finally cooperating.

The sanctions do not have much of a bite, the media is hyping the scenarios. There are always buyers for oil. China and Russia are not going to cooperate with Washington's sanction delusions and China and India will mop up the excess oil at bargain prices.

If there's going to be a war, let Iran be the one to initiate it and it will make all the difference in the world as far as alignments and the will to fight.

Iran cannot initiate war, it is already under attack. Watch out for the creation of more situations to tempt Iran to overreact and fire the first salvo. This is the oldest trick in the US book.

If Israel makes the first move it will have a negligible impact, involve a heavy sacrifice, and ignite a truly devastating clash of civilizations. They will lose Western support and be held seriously accountable for any consequences, and no one can say what the Arab world's reaction will be either.

Fair appraisal.

Go the other way with sanctions, and if Iran initiates an attack, the Arab world will almost certainly fight on Israel's side against a mutual enemy along with strong Western support, and Iran will get its ass handed to it.

The sanctions that the US want to impose on Iran equates to attempting to ruin its economy - and is an act of war. If Iran retaliates, this will be self defense. What is shocking is that this ENTIRE scenario is based on a non existent nuclear weapons program without an iota of hard evidence that - 1.) Iran is building a nuke, or - 2.) that Iran will use a nuke even if it had one. This is the sad state of reality today with nary a critical voice of reason to be heard on the Western front.

No one outside a very tiny circle of paranoid Iranian leaders would be interested in seeing an Iranian nuclear arsenal and a consequent arms race or MAD scenario.

They have said over and over again that they are not seeking to create nukes, that it is against their religion and moral position and that they would like to see a nuke free World altogether. Its all on the record for those not swayed by media distortions, disinformation and simple untruths - and with an ounce of critical thinking capability.

Even amongst said paranoid Iranian leaders, I've realized that our rhetoric and history of involvement in the region has done a great deal to fuel that paranoia, and that's not even counting the days when British Petroleum ruled the land.

BP is what started this crap in the first place, when the subjects of Empire, stood up to the theft of their resources by nationalizing the Iranian oil industry. Governments and Corporations were colluding then as they are now.

 

[quadraphonics]

They have said over and over again that they are not seeking to create nukes, that it is against their religion and moral position and that they would like to see a nuke free World altogether.

Since when is it advisable to take the words of politicians at face value? That doesn't sound like "critical thinking" to me.

If you want to gauge what a polity will and will not do, you should start by looking at their actions and interests. And to that, let's note that the credulous crowd here has long made a habit of noting that Iran has plenty of reasons to want a nuclear deterrent. We also know that Iran has previously colluded with the AQ Khan nuclear black market, and did have an active nuclear weapons program in past years. My own view is that Iran would like to possess a "breakout capability," not an extant arsenal.

But this dead horse has been beaten over and over again here, for years now. What makes you think that you are going to convince anyone to embrace Iran's position with these same old arguments?

 

[spidergoat]

Do you find the following countries as repugnant?

Israel, Iraq, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, USA, Egypt, Colombia, Vietnam, Yemen, and Libya.

Saudi Arabia perhaps, but no, not as repugnant, not as powerful either, which would make their defects more important. Certainly not the USA.

 

[spidergoat]

Why do you trust such sources?

Who is behind Human Rights Watch? (2004)

Let's hear for war war war!!! Yay! Let's find a justification for it. :shrug: Sometimes, you just need to let other people solve their own problems rather than kill them, take them over, and solve their problems for them.

Of course, unless they have something you want of theirs. . . right?

From your link:
But Human Rights Watch finds it self-evident, that the United States may legitimately restructure any society, where a mass grave is found.

Yes, damn right. Genocide automatically forfeits the legitimacy of any government that conducts it.

 

[StrawDog]

Since when is it advisable to take the words of politicians at face value? That doesn't sound like "critical thinking" to me.

When taken in context and over time, when the nation in question has willingly embraced the NPT (as opposed to its No.1 & 2 critics), when the IAEA has found not an iota of fuel diversion nor serious breaches of safeguards, one can absolutely consider that critical thinking. Furthermore - critical thinking - should encompass the entire geo strategic chess board, past & present, along with the fact of dwindling oil mineral resources, and which ME nations have been and are targeted, to appraise the truth that hides in the middle of political discourse.

If you want to gauge what a polity will and will not do, you should start by looking at their actions and interests. And to that, let's note that the credulous crowd here has long made a habit of noting that Iran has plenty of reasons to want a nuclear deterrent.

Of course, that is why both the Israeli and US intelligence agency's are continuously monitoring the situation and have thus declared Iran nuke free. To date. Of course in contradiction to what spews from Obama, Clinton and compliant media. (should this paradox not be a huge story in the NYT?) If one looks at the actions and interest of the US, one sees quite clearly what is occurring, and has been occurring for a very long time.

We also know that Iran has previously colluded with the AQ Khan nuclear black market, and did have an active nuclear weapons program in past years.

Like probably every vulnerable country on the planet - including Israel. Should we invade Israel to look for nukes? No? Why not?

My own view is that Iran would like to possess a "breakout capability," not an extant arsenal.

A distinct possibility, but not one that bears up to scrutiny. Yet.

But this dead horse has been beaten over and over again here, for years now. What makes you think that you are going to convince anyone to embrace Iran's position with these same old arguments?

This is a predictably stereotypically Western world view opinionated board that has swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker. Some alternative opinions are helpful. If you were Iranian Joe would you welcome those?

 

[StrawDog]

Saudi Arabia perhaps, but no, not as repugnant, not as powerful either, which would make their defects more important. Certainly not the USA.

Do you not consider - indefinite detention without trail, rendition, assassination, torture, war crimes, etc repugnant?

 

[spidergoat]

Torture is illegal, and I don't believe we are committing war crimes as a matter of policy. I'm in favor of assassination and detention of our enemies in war. I don't believe the USA is beyond criticism, but compared to Iran, we are a beacon of morality.

 

[StrawDog]

Torture is illegal, and I don't believe we are committing war crimes as a matter of policy. I'm in favor of assassination and detention of our enemies in war. I don't believe the USA is beyond criticism, but compared to Iran, we are a beacon of morality.

So you are comfortable with the fact that if perhaps mistakenly, YOU are suspected of collusion with "terrorists" or "enemies", you can be arrested and thrown into a detention center and held indefinitely, without charge, legal representation, or your family even knowing where you are? Perhaps for ever.

 

[spidergoat]

Compare that to Iran, where you can be subject to the same thing as well as being tortured, for doing nothing more than being gay, or saying something that could be interpreted as against Islam, or blogging, or standing up for a representative government.

 

[StrawDog]

Compare that to Iran, where you can be subject to the same thing as well as being tortured, for doing nothing more than being gay, or saying something that could be interpreted as against Islam, or blogging, or standing up for a representative government.

Whether you want to accept it or not - there is no moral difference between the two.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't accept it because it isn't true. Life in Iran seems to be normal- as long as no one questions the regime. It's a kind of charade of life, it pretends to be a society of justice, but the watchful eye of big brother is all around. It's 1984 made real, not unlike N. Korea but not as poor.

 

[quadraphonics]

When taken in context and over time, when the nation in question has willingly embraced the NPT (as opposed to its No.1 & 2 critics), when the IAEA has found not an iota of fuel diversion nor serious breaches of safeguards, one can absolutely consider that critical thinking.

The IAEA has declared Iran to be out of compliance with its obligations under the NPT, and Iran has refused to comply with a subsequent UN Security Council resolutiono demanding they cease uranium enrichment.

Not sure who these "critics" you're referring to are, but the USA was among the earliest signatories to the NPT.

Furthermore - critical thinking - should encompass the entire geo strategic chess board, past & present, along with the fact of dwindling oil mineral resources, and which ME nations have been and are targeted, to appraise the truth that hides in the middle of political discourse.

And such an appraisal would be remiss to ignore Iran's geopolitical ambitions, the recent surge in fossil fuel production in North America, etc.

Like probably every vulnerable country on the planet - including Israel.

If you have evidence that Israel purchased stuff from the AQ Khan network, I'd love to see it.

In the meantime, why is it that being a "vulnerable country" with a clear interest in a nuclear deterrent and alleged links with the nuclear black market results in the presumption that Israel has nuclear weapons, but not that Iran is looking for the same?

Should we invade Israel to look for nukes? No? Why not?

Nobody has suggested that anyone invade Iran to "look for nukes." You seem to be replaying the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or something. The most that's been suggested is targetted strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities to interrupt their nuclear program.

Meanwhile, Israel is not an NPT signatory, and so does not have the same obligations as Iran, and so is not in defiance of a UNSC resolution to cease enrichment.

A distinct possibility, but not one that bears up to scrutiny. Yet.

Why not? Do you have any actual coutnerargument, or are you just dismissing this out of hand?

This is a predictably stereotypically Western world view opinionated board that has swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker.

Or, that's what you need it to be, in order to buttress your self-image as a crusading truthseeker overturning the idiocy of callow sheeple. You might get some mileage out of that, if you could resist your tendency to embrace opposing propaganda.

Some alternative opinions are helpful.

The opposite of propaganda is not counter-propaganda.

If you were Iranian Joe would you welcome those?

I would not appreciate people going around stumping for the dictators that oppress me, no. One can perfectly well dislike the prospect of a military conflict with the USA and the system of authoritarian repression, no?

 

[quadraphonics]

Whether you want to accept it or not - there is no moral difference between the two.

So you're saying that the Iranian dictatorship is morally equivalent to the imperialist American hegemon? Interesting. When will we see this equivalence expressed in equivalent skepticism of their respective positions and statements?

 

[The Esotericist]

From your link:
But Human Rights Watch finds it self-evident, that the United States may legitimately restructure any society, where a mass grave is found.

Yes, damn right. Genocide automatically forfeits the legitimacy of any government that conducts it.

I'm sorry, what mass graves? What genocide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars#The_Sand_Creek_massacre_and_the_Sioux_War_of_1865

The Sand Creek massacre and the Sioux War of 1865
Main articles: Sand Creek massacre, Colorado War, and Sioux Wars

On November 29, 1864, Colorado volunteers attacked a peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho village camped on Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado. Under orders to take no prisoners, the militia killed and mutilated about 200 of the Indians, two-thirds of whom were women and children,[29] taking scalps and other grisly trophies of battle.[30] The Indians at Sand Creek had been assured by the U.S. Government that they would be safe in the territory they were occupying, but anti-Indian sentiments by white settlers were running high. Later congressional investigations resulted in a short-lived public outcry against the slaughter of the Native Americans.

Following the massacre, the survivors joined the camps of the Cheyenne on the Smokey Hill and Republican Rivers. There, the war pipe was smoked and passed from camp to camp among the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho camped in the area and an attack on the stage station and fort at Julesburg was planned and carried out in January 1865. This successful attack was followed up by numerous raids along the South Platte both east and west of Julesburg and a second raid on Julesburg in early February. A great deal of loot was captured and many whites killed. The bulk of the Indians then moved north into Nebraska on their way to the Black Hills and the Powder River[31][32]

In the spring of 1865 raids continued along the Oregon trail in Nebraska and the Sioux, the Northern Cheyenne, the Northern Arapaho together with the warriors who had come north after the Sand Creek massacre raided the Oregon Trail along the North Platte River, and in July 1865 attacked the troops stationed at the bridge across the North Platte at the present site of Casper, Wyoming, the Battle of the Platte Bridge Station.[33][34]

Later, in 1890, a Ghost Dance ritual on the Northern Lakota reservation at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, led to the Army's attempt to subdue the Lakota. On December 29 during this attempt, gunfire erupted, and soldiers killed up to 300 Indians, mostly old men, women and children in the Wounded Knee Massacre. The approximately 25 soldiers who died may have been killed by friendly fire during the battle. Long before this, the means of subsistence and the societies of the indigenous population of the Great Plains had been destroyed by the slaughter of the buffalo, driven almost to extinction in the 1880s by indiscriminate hunting.

You do know that the Lakota tribe wants recognition from the U.N., don't you? I think, considering your stand here, it would be only fare to cede the Lakota land to them then, huh?

Freedom! Lakota Sioux Indians Declare Sovereign Nation Status

Threaten Land Liens, Contested Real Estate Over Five State Area in U.S. West

Lakota Satisfies Treaty Council Mandate of 33 Years, Drafted by 97 Indigenous Nations

Dakota Territory Reverts back to Lakota Control According to U.S., International Law


Washington D.C. – Lakota Sioux Indian representatives declared sovereign nation status today in Washington D.C. following Monday's withdrawal from all previously signed treaties with the United States Government. The withdrawal, hand delivered to Daniel Turner, Deputy Director of Public Liaison at the State Department, immediately and irrevocably ends all agreements between the Lakota Sioux Nation of Indians and the United States Government outlined in the 1851 and 1868 Treaties at Fort Laramie Wyoming.

 

[StrawDog]

The IAEA has declared Iran to be out of compliance with its obligations under the NPT, and Iran has refused to comply with a subsequent UN Security Council resolutiono demanding they cease uranium enrichment.

Again, contrary to what the US Admin and the media may say, Iran, like any other NPT member, has a legal right to enrich uranium to non-weapon levels, and of course, it`s pursued in accordance to the NPT - and of course the fact is - no diversion of nuclear material has been found.

Not sure who these "critics" you're referring to are, but the USA was among the earliest signatories to the NPT.

US & Israel. Israel by producing and stockpiling undeclared nukes and the US for not condemning and punishing Israel for doing so.

And such an appraisal would be remiss to ignore Iran's geopolitical ambitions, the recent surge in fossil fuel production in North America, etc.

And of course not exclude the USNATO serial assaults on non compliant oil rich nations and their pipeline carrying surrounds.

If you have evidence that Israel purchased stuff from the AQ Khan network, I'd love to see it.

No, they got it from the apartheid South African regime.

In the meantime, why is it that being a "vulnerable country" with a clear interest in a nuclear deterrent and alleged links with the nuclear black market results in the presumption that Israel has nuclear weapons, but not that Iran is looking for the same?

Israel is vulnerable and has acquired nukes. If Iran is to be invaded or bombarded looking for hypothetical nuke making stuff or nukes, surely logic suggest we invade Israel to look for the same. Perhaps just limited strikes on their reactors, I mean we are not sure eh?

Nobody has suggested that anyone invade Iran to "look for nukes." You seem to be replaying the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or something. The most that's been suggested is targetted strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities to interrupt their nuclear program.

Its the same thing. Any strike on Iran will lead to a wider conflict and end in an invasion and attempted occupation, with the added danger of dragging other nations with economic interests in Iran into a wider reaching conflict.

Meanwhile, Israel is not an NPT signatory, and so does not have the same obligations as Iran, and so is not in defiance of a UNSC resolution to cease enrichment.

Of course. So then if Iran rejects the NPT all will be well, no more anti Iranian fervor?

Why not? Do you have any actual coutnerargument, or are you just dismissing this out of hand?

There is simply no evidence for nukes whatsoever.

Or, that's what you need it to be, in order to buttress your self-image as a crusading truthseeker overturning the idiocy of callow sheeple.

What is this sheeple that you keep referring to?

You might get some mileage out of that, if you could resist your tendency to embrace opposing propaganda.

No, again you are confusing my attempts to correct the disinformation that is being presented as "reality" with taking sides. I also believe, based on recent history, that hundreds and perhaps thousands of Iranian civilian lives are at stake here. Have you never stood up to a bully?

The opposite of propaganda is not counter-propaganda.

If I was to promote Iran is an angel amongst nations you could pull that trick. Of course I don`t, they are a ruthless bunch, up there with rest of the baddies.

I would not appreciate people going around stumping for the dictators that oppress me, no. One can perfectly well dislike the prospect of a military conflict with the USA and the system of authoritarian repression, no?

You have a point there, except I am not stumping for authoritarian regimes, I am stumping for the countless civilians who will die if Iran is targeted. The suggestion that war, under any circumstances, creates a better world is particularly mendacious.

 

[StrawDog]

So you're saying that the Iranian dictatorship is morally equivalent to the imperialist American hegemon? Interesting. When will we see this equivalence expressed in equivalent skepticism of their respective positions and statements?

They are both guilty of gross human rights abuses. Next time Teheran assassinates a US scientist, I will voice my moral outrage.

 

[The Esotericist]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224269.html
Iran focus of Israel's spy chief's secret visit to US

Head of Israel's infamous spy agency (Mossad), Tamir Pardo

Tamir Pardo, the head of Israeli spy agency, Mossad, has paid a secret visit to the United States to hold discussions with top US officials on Iran's nuclear program.

The information about Mossad chief's secret meeting was revealed by comments made by two US senators during a public hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Pardo held talks with Jewish Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate panel, Republican senator Saxby Chambliss and CIA director David Petraeus.

No further details have leaked to media.

Washington and Tel Aviv have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the "option" of a military strike, based on their allegation that Iran is seeking to acquire a military nuclear technology, a claim Tehran has strongly rejected.

Iran insists that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Iranian officials have also promised a crushing response to any military strike against the country, warning that any such measure could result in a war that would spread beyond the Middle East.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-iran-usa-report-idUSTRE8100BH20120201
Group urges credible U.S. military threat to Iran

(Reuters) - The United States should deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen its rhetoric to make more credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran's nuclear program, a bipartisan group said on Wednesday.

Former U.S. politicians, generals and officials said in a report that the best chance of stopping Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons was to make clear American willingness to use force, although it stopped short of advocating military action. . .

 

[spidergoat]

I'm sorry, what mass graves? What genocide?

Ancient history.