Are We Going to War With Iran?

[The Esotericist]

Ancient history.

What mass graves and genocide were you talking about in Iran?

 

[spidergoat]

I never made that specific argument for Iran, but in the 1980's they executed thousands of political prisoners.

 

[quadraphonics]

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,

Nobody has denied that.

and of course, it`s pursued in accordance to the NPT,

The institution charged with deciding that question does not agree with you.

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

The NPT does not oblige any state to condemn and punish states outside the NPT.

And I'll likewise note that your criticism there would apply to nearly all states, not just the USA.

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

Strawman. Nobody has ever proposed ignoring such. Indeed, almost nothing else ever gets talked about around here.

If Iran is to be invaded or bombarded looking for hypothetical nuke making stuff or nukes,

Nobody has suggested that.

surely logic suggest we invade Israel to look for the same.

How do you figure?

And wouldn't your position also demand strikes on Pakistan, India and North Korea as well?

Any strike on Iran will lead to a wider conflict

Probably, yeah.

and end in an invasion and attempted occupation,

That's very doubtful. Nobody has the appetite for that, these days.

with the added danger of dragging other nations with economic interests in Iran into a wider reaching conflict.

That's already happened. It's a big reason why there's so much enmity and internationalization of the conflict in the first place.

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

Not for failure to comply with the NPT, no.

But such a state would no longer be able to legally import nuclear technology from NPT signatories (like Russia), nor would any other state be under any obligation to respect Iran's right to civilian nuclear technology.

There is simply no evidence for nukes whatsoever.

? You were arguing that Iran is not trying to build a threshold capability, there. That doesn't involve building actual nuclear weapons, so it wouldn't produce much in the way of evidence of such.

But we do know that Iran did previously have an active nuclear weapons program, and so has accumulated at least some knowledge about their production and design - which is one of the pillars of a threshold capability.

The other pillar being a sufficiently robust uranium enrichment infrastructure to produce weapons-grade material relatively quickly if desired. Which is, again, exactly what Iran is investing in. Iran is creating a situation in which the only barrier between them and possession of nuclear weapons is their own intentions. Other states would prefer that there be some more concrete barriers between Iran and such an arsenal.

What is this sheeple that you keep referring to?

The fictional media-brainwashed masses that you are so wont to address yourself to. Google "sheeple," if you have a minute.

No, again you are confusing my attempts to correct the disinformation that is being presented as "reality" with taking sides.

You're the one who is confused - both about what is "reality," and what role you are playing.

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.

Strange how your stumping was nowhere to be found when said authoritarian regime was itself targetting, torturing and killing large numbers of Iranian civilians. Instead, you were openly defending the regime.

And you've pulled the same stunt when it comes to Syria.

You don't have any credibility on this point.

The suggestion that war, under any circumstances, creates a better world is particularly mendacious.

So you consider such wars as, for example, WWII or the US Civil War to have made the world worse? We'd be better off if we'd tolerated the spread of Naziism and slavery?

Pacificism makes for great sound bites, but the world just isn't so convenient.

 

[The Esotericist]

I never made that specific argument for Iran, but in the 1980's they executed thousands of political prisoners.

Yeah, so? Ancient history. That's their business, not ours.

So we don't like how they conduct their politics. How is that our business? If it were democratic capitalists in control slaughtering Islamic terrorists. . . Somehow I doubt we'd be saber rattling.

Oh yeah, we wouldn't. . . look, we're not doing shit about all the human rights abuses and slaughter of innocent Palestinians that Israel does every year. I wonder why? Maybe because it isn't in our political interest to do so?

Face it, the American press, the American politician, and the average American voter are hypocrites and war mongers.

 

[Watcher]

It seems like the propaganda machine is churning and sabers are rattling. Could they be preparing us for yet another war? I read online that Iran is backing down from its threat to block the Strait of Hormuz, but what if Obama goes ahead with his plan to implement more sanctions? What will the Iranians then do?

By "we" I assume you mean the USA?

Not sure about war, but if it is determined that nukes are being produced in Iran I expect that those facilities will be attacked by missile strike or bombing. Invasion only if they can't determine for sure if they have been taken out. Just my guess.

 

[spidergoat]

Yeah, so? Ancient history. That's their business, not ours.

So we don't like how they conduct their politics. How is that our business? If it were democratic capitalists in control slaughtering Islamic terrorists. . . Somehow I doubt we'd be saber rattling.

Oh yeah, we wouldn't. . . look, we're not doing shit about all the human rights abuses and slaughter of innocent Palestinians that Israel does every year. I wonder why? Maybe because it isn't in our political interest to do so?

Face it, the American press, the American politician, and the average American voter are hypocrites and war mongers.

Their politics also involves supporting terrorism against our allies the Israelis, so that makes it our business. They openly chant death to Israel, and they seem to be hiding something about their nuclear program.

 

[Bowser]

By "we" I assume you mean the USA?

Not sure about war, but if it is determined that nukes are being produced in Iran I expect that those facilities will be attacked by missile strike or bombing. Invasion only if they can't determine for sure if they have been taken out. Just my guess.

Well, the nuke question seems as though it is just an excuse, but if attacking those facilities is the total extent of our involvement, and only that, I might buy into it. I can't see the US waging another long term war. The people are. I believe, tired of war.

 

[The Esotericist]

Their politics also involves supporting terrorism against our allies the Israelis, so that makes it our business. They openly chant death to Israel, and they seem to be hiding something about their nuclear program.

It isn't "they," it is their government. And their government has a problem with the Israeli government, not the Israeli people. Don't fall prey to western propaganda and mistranslations. No, it doesn't make it our business. . . we, the American people, never elected the apartheid Israeli government that continues it human rights abuses down upon the Palestinian people. Many Americans see no problem with the support that the Palestinian freedom fighters receive.

You can call a group of people terrorists, or you can call them freedom fighters. Or you can call the covert subversive elements that the CIA has inserted into Iran terrorist, it all depends on your point of view now, doesn't it? When it all comes down to it, it isn't about what the people want. I don't think the people want change through violence and war. It is the international banking and financial elites that want war and violence. Iran wants the freedom to conduct it affairs peacefully. It wants to help its allies peacefully, to trade its resources peacefully, and to pursue its energy policy, peacefully. However, the western powers, and their banking and financial interests have other plans. The international financial interests have caused war to be declared on every nation that weren't allied with the IMF and the BIS. Iraq when it threatened to start trading in Euros, Afghanistan for it's opium resources and to get it a central bank allied with the Rothschilds, and when Libya decided it would start trading oil of gold? Well. . . that sealed it's doom. Now that the Euro and the dollar are going under and Iran wants to start trading oil directly to the Chinese, not for dollars. . . How long do you think it will be?

This is a recipe for disaster. If this wasn't really about war with China, we would have been inside of Iran years ago. . . .

 

[spidergoat]

No shit. I wasn't talking about the people of Iran.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yeah, so? Ancient history. That's their business, not ours.

If the 1980's are ancient history, I look forward to no longer hearing any complaints from Iran about US support for the Shah, or the Moussedeq coup, or support for Iraq in the war against them, etc. In fact, if that's all "ancient history," then what the heck is the big sticking point in relations with Iran anyway?

And I tend to think that systematic violations of human rights - that is, crimes against humanity - are the business of everyone. That's why they're called "crimes against humanity."

If it were democratic capitalists in control slaughtering Islamic terrorists. . .

So now you're equating socialist university students who don't want to live under a theocracy, with religious terrorists? Good to know that your skills at craven moral equivocation are as sharp as ever, and that your moral compass continues its long absence.

Hey, as long as we're playing this game of fact-free equivocation, I'll just go ahead and equate the Islamic Republic with Nazi Germany. They're both outspoken Jew-haters right? So it follows that the world needs to team up and wage total war against Iran, and then occupy the country indefinitely. That was easy, and fun!

Oh yeah, we wouldn't. . . look, we're not doing shit about all the human rights abuses and slaughter of innocent Palestinians that Israel does every year.

So what? Did somebody somewhere argue that Iran's human rights abuses are a problem, but that Israel's are not? You seem to be eliding between different positions as it suits you, which is cheap and trollish. The fact that things could be improved in Israel doesn't, itself, imply that Iran doesn't present a serious problem. You're just looking to change the subject, score some cheap "Americans are hypocrits!" points, and so avoid the entire subject.

Face it, the American press, the American politician, and the average American voter are hypocrites and war mongers.

I don't think I've ever encountered a person who is not a hypocrit, on some level. Not sure what that has to do with anything, other than that it points out the naive premise you seem to be working from (that the world can be divided into "hypocrits" and "not hypocrits," and that we should politically favor the latter).

But as to "warmongers:" that's a silly attribution to make of the average voter. There's no popular appetite for war with Iran these days. The whole Iraq and Afghanistan things were too expensive and exhausting.

 

[Bowser]

But as to "warmongers:" that's a silly attribution to make of the average voter. There's no popular appetite for war with Iran these days. The whole Iraq and Afghanistan things were too expensive and exhausting.

Right on! There are those who are chanting a mantra and beating their war drums, but I don't believe many truly want yet another war. If Obama can keep us out of yet another conflict, he will have my vote.

 

[Giambattista]

Right on! There are those who are chanting a mantra and beating their war drums, but I don't believe many truly want yet another war. If Obama can keep us out of yet another conflict, he will have my vote.

Of course, until you vote for him, and then he goes ahead with it after the election.

Libya, which garnered Obama's coronation as a "born-again Neocon" by William Kristol, should not be forgotten.

 

[Giambattista]

Oh, that was his greatest coronation yet!

DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH

666

13 steps to hell

 

[The Esotericist]

I don't think I've ever encountered a person who is not a hypocrit, on some level. Not sure what that has to do with anything, other than that it points out the naive premise you seem to be working from (that the world can be divided into "hypocrits" and "not hypocrits," and that we should politically favor the latter).

But as to "warmongers:" that's a silly attribution to make of the average voter. There's no popular appetite for war with Iran these days. The whole Iraq and Afghanistan things were too expensive and exhausting.

My point is, you can't justify intervention in another nations internal affairs by what they are doing to their people when your allies are doing the same thing, when you have a history of doing the same thing. It is lunacy and disingenuous. What is going on here is something entirely different. This has to do with banking and resources. It is lying to say that it has to do with "human rights." We have never gotten involved anywhere on the planet due to human rights, anyone who believes that is naive and ignorant. It has always, and will always ever be about realpolitik.

spidergoat was saying the reason we need to go to war with Iran is because of their terrible human rights abuse record. That is hogwash. Every nation on the Earth has a terrible human rights abuse record, including the United States. The fact of the matter is, he is just a Zionist supporter of the Zionist media establishment and can't think on his own. It is not in the interests of the people of the Earth for there to be war. It is evil and war is wrong. War is the ultimate failure of politics. The only beneficiaries of war are the ultra rich and the hyper elites. Any talk of war is foolishness.

 

[The Esotericist]

Of course, until you vote for him, and then he goes ahead with it after the election.

Libya, which garnered Obama's coronation as a "born-again Neocon" by William Kristol, should not be forgotten.

Precisely! SOOOOO. . . .

Here you have a candidate that states OVER AND OVER again that he will make sure NO MORE WAR will happen; has been saying it FOREVER, is consistent, and someone you know you can trust. . . why? Because the media won't cover him, and covers him negatively, so you know that corporate powers who like war are against him. . .

And yet the dumbed down population won't overwhelm to polls in sufficient enough numbers that we can't possibly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the elections are being stolen?

What are a free people to do? :shrug:

Let them take us to war I guess. . . . .

 

[adoucette]

And yet the dumbed down population won't overwhelm to polls in sufficient enough numbers that we can't possibly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the elections are being stolen?

More BS

The Voter News Service has NOTHING to do with the actual election results.

It is used by the news services to do their broadcasts, but the actual results of the election are not based on their data.

Then of course your article makes other bogus assertions like: i

n most precincts, the actual counting of the ballots is concealed from the public, and nobody is allowed to see inside the voting machines, or review the computer software that counts the ballots. 70% of all votes in America are counted by machine, and nobody, not private citizen, not local election official, nobody, is allowed to examine how it all works.

Is totally wrong.

http://votingintegrity.org/default.html
http://votingintegrity.org/pdf/gao-sarasota.pdf