IRAN - What would you do? by Jongsstraw

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

IRAN - What would you do?

POSTED BY: JONGSSTRAW
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 15:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4090
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:55 AM

Fair enough.

For me, "pro" tends to mean both agreement and support, and con means disagreement and lack of support. But not necessarily hostility.

I think that maybe there's too many factors here to boil anything down to "Pro-Israel" or "Pro-Iran." In this case it suggests supporting one side over the other, when I don't do either, and I also think that taking sides may be worsening the problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 10:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

We ain't talking about Israel or Iran, either one, at this little moment. We are ( or at least I was ) posting about the correct grammatical usage of the terms " pro" and " con". On the question of Israel, I think it's best to table that argument for the here and now. We seem to disagree, and it's not the type of disagreement that can be resolved quickly or easily.

The mistake you seem to be making, NOBC, is that you mistake NOT being *A*N*T*I*-Iran as actually, actively being PRO-Iran. You seem to have this idea that one cannot be Iran-neutral.

As for the words "pro" and "con" - how's about we use "pro" and "anti", since they seem to fit better. I'm not ANTI-Israel, but I'm not exactly PRO-Israel, either. They have a right to exist, and to defend themselves. As does Iran. Let's just say that Iran has exactly as legitimate a right to nuclear weapons as Israel does. Or Pakistan. Or North Korea. Or South Africa. Or France, Great Britain, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, the United States...

When it comes to Israel, or Iran, or Iraq, I'm Switzerland.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 11:12 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

In the now-ancient words of Star Trek: " What the Klingon has said is unimportant and we do not hear his words"-- " Watch out, Jim, I just called the Klingon a liar."

Either you accessed IMDB quotes, or you have some great memory to come up with that line from Star Trek. The Klingon in question was played by Tige Andrews, who later went on to do the Mod Squad tv series. Friday's Child, a great episode that featured the lovely Julie Newmar, is one of my personal favorites.

" Sorry, neither..." to steal another Trek quote. That particular usage is one that I carry around in my head. A really polite way of calling someone a liar...

Where exactly am I lying asshole ?

I am simply pointing out a flaw in your bullshit, as I am sure you are anti Cuba, despite their gesture to help in a diaster. I can respect people who have opposing opinions but I have no time for hypocrites or assholes... so go fuck yourself

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 11:59 AM

DREAMTROVE

Can everyone please just chill?

Thanks.

Frem, sad story. If we're leaders of the free world, I fear for the free world.

Byte

As for Israel, bulldozing palestinian homes also hits noses.

I think there was a thread here about Iran, somewhere in the middle of seasonal shopping insanity disorder

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 5:17 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Frem, sad story. If we're leaders of the free world, I fear for the free world.

Meh you wanna talk fear, consider that as of yesterday I meet the one year residency requirement to run for THIS townships city council.

And I rejected a well paid consultant position to em that would have excluded me from doing so, a couple months ago - because it struck me as more or less a bribery attempt, and I would rather have the value of a threat enough to make them concerned about the will of their constituents.

I wouldn't do it, despite having enough votes to at least place on the ballot, being that this end of the county is quite fond of my security* forces, but my claws around their neck is a damn stern reminder that they'd best know their place.

-Frem
*And I love my puny little business, which I would not be able to run due to conflict of interest, so there's that, too.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:04 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Congrats! You're the President. What do you do to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions? How do you handle Iran's defiance to the world?
Blockade?
Sanctions?
Attack?
Nothing?
I don't have an answer. I only know that any of the above can have dire consequences. I know that if there is some kind of attack, either by Israel or the US, that our economic way of life will be forever changed. Oil could soar to $200 per barrel, giving us $10 gas or worse. That would just about put the final nail in the economic coffin in this country. Blockade them and we risk the same economic results. Do nothing and we risk nuclear and/or dirty proliferation by terrorist components aligned with Iran.

So what would you do? And what would you do if you got that 3:00am call from Israel saying they've run out of time and have to act now?

Getting back on track, maybe, here's one thing I've learned:

It's okay to say "I don't have an answer". Thing is, where we tend to go horribly wrong is, we have a bad habit of following that with a military attack. As a general rule, "I don't have an answer, so let's invade" is not a viable policy, and is going to have disastrous results for all involved. Ask Iraq. Ask Afghanistan, a whole bunch of times. Ask Vietnam. Or Korea. Ask Japan how it worked out for them last time they tried that tactic. "I don't know what to do about America. Let's attack at Pearl Harbor!"

Sometimes, doing nothing actually IS preferable to doing the wrong thing.

As for what I'd do if I got that 3:00am phone call from Israel? First off, I'd remind them about time zones, and let them know that just because it's 10:00am in Tel Aviv, there ARE people who are trying to get a little sleep.

Then I'd tell them that I understand completely, I hope they have enough weaponry to finish their task, because they certainly will not be getting any more from the United States, because if Israel launches a war, it's Israel's war, and the U.S. wants no part of this one. Oh, and good luck with the Chinese, because we're really not going to be able to help much when they get involved either. They're holding a whole bunch of our money hostage, so you understand, right?

Show Israel that it doesn't automatically get a free pass and our certain backing no matter what, and I bet they'll mediate their message real damned quick. Especially if such a message sent by us also has a pricetag attached to it. "Quit fucking around and get serious about living with your neighbors, or kiss every penny of aid from the U.S. goodbye."

Hey, if we're supposed to take a hard line with Iran, why not with Israel as well?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2009 1:22 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Congrats! You're the President. What do you do to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions? How do you handle Iran's defiance to the world?
Blockade?
Sanctions?
Attack?
Nothing?
I don't have an answer. I only know that any of the above can have dire consequences. I know that if there is some kind of attack, either by Israel or the US, that our economic way of life will be forever changed. Oil could soar to $200 per barrel, giving us $10 gas or worse. That would just about put the final nail in the economic coffin in this country. Blockade them and we risk the same economic results. Do nothing and we risk nuclear and/or dirty proliferation by terrorist components aligned with Iran.

So what would you do? And what would you do if you got that 3:00am call from Israel saying they've run out of time and have to act now?

Getting back on track, maybe, here's one thing I've learned:

It's okay to say "I don't have an answer". Thing is, where we tend to go horribly wrong is, we have a bad habit of following that with a military attack. As a general rule, "I don't have an answer, so let's invade" is not a viable policy, and is going to have disastrous results for all involved. Ask Iraq. Ask Afghanistan, a whole bunch of times. Ask Vietnam. Or Korea. Ask Japan how it worked out for them last time they tried that tactic. "I don't know what to do about America. Let's attack at Pearl Harbor!"

Sometimes, doing nothing actually IS preferable to doing the wrong thing.

As for what I'd do if I got that 3:00am phone call from Israel? First off, I'd remind them about time zones, and let them know that just because it's 10:00am in Tel Aviv, there ARE people who are trying to get a little sleep.

Then I'd tell them that I understand completely, I hope they have enough weaponry to finish their task, because they certainly will not be getting any more from the United States, because if Israel launches a war, it's Israel's war, and the U.S. wants no part of this one. Oh, and good luck with the Chinese, because we're really not going to be able to help much when they get involved either. They're holding a whole bunch of our money hostage, so you understand, right?

Show Israel that it doesn't automatically get a free pass and our certain backing no matter what, and I bet they'll mediate their message real damned quick. Especially if such a message sent by us also has a pricetag attached to it. "Quit fucking around and get serious about living with your neighbors, or kiss every penny of aid from the U.S. goodbye."

Hey, if we're supposed to take a hard line with Iran, why not with Israel as well?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

Only problem with this is the US is in control of Iraqs airspace, if Israel gets to play through, do you allow Iran to do so as well ?

or will Iran simply assume as Israel played through it was with US consent and they throw everything they have at any US base and staging area they can reach...

Any play Israel makes unilaterally causes more trouble... Turkey ( my understanding ) would defend its airspace dragging NATO in, Iraq airspace will drag the US in, and Saudi Airspace would likely be both defended and dragging the US in.

As any attack this distance would require dozens of aircraft, air refueling, etc it would be hard to claim they snuck through after the fact...

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/news68843.html

The Iraqi Air Force will be able to enhance its air defence capabilities with the arrival of a new digital air surveillance radar (DASR) system.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=100143§ionid=351020201

" Amid reemerging speculations of an Israeli sneak attack on Iran, Baghdad warns Tel Aviv against using Iraqi airspace to carry out its military plans against Tehran. "

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1098726.html

" raqi parliament members on Wednesday warned Israel that using using its country's airspace to attack Iran would be considered an attack against Iraq.

"Any penetration of Iraqi airspace by an Israeli national would be considered an attack against Iraq," Hassan al-Sanid, a member of Iraq's parliamentary committee on security and defense, said in remarks carried in the Baghdad daily al-Sabbah. "

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2009 2:34 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Congrats! You're the President. What do you do to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions? How do you handle Iran's defiance to the world?
Blockade?
Sanctions?
Attack?
Nothing?
I don't have an answer. I only know that any of the above can have dire consequences. I know that if there is some kind of attack, either by Israel or the US, that our economic way of life will be forever changed. Oil could soar to $200 per barrel, giving us $10 gas or worse. That would just about put the final nail in the economic coffin in this country. Blockade them and we risk the same economic results. Do nothing and we risk nuclear and/or dirty proliferation by terrorist components aligned with Iran.

So what would you do? And what would you do if you got that 3:00am call from Israel saying they've run out of time and have to act now?

Getting back on track, maybe, here's one thing I've learned:

It's okay to say "I don't have an answer". Thing is, where we tend to go horribly wrong is, we have a bad habit of following that with a military attack. As a general rule, "I don't have an answer, so let's invade" is not a viable policy, and is going to have disastrous results for all involved. Ask Iraq. Ask Afghanistan, a whole bunch of times. Ask Vietnam. Or Korea. Ask Japan how it worked out for them last time they tried that tactic. "I don't know what to do about America. Let's attack at Pearl Harbor!"

Sometimes, doing nothing actually IS preferable to doing the wrong thing.

As for what I'd do if I got that 3:00am phone call from Israel? First off, I'd remind them about time zones, and let them know that just because it's 10:00am in Tel Aviv, there ARE people who are trying to get a little sleep.

Then I'd tell them that I understand completely, I hope they have enough weaponry to finish their task, because they certainly will not be getting any more from the United States, because if Israel launches a war, it's Israel's war, and the U.S. wants no part of this one. Oh, and good luck with the Chinese, because we're really not going to be able to help much when they get involved either. They're holding a whole bunch of our money hostage, so you understand, right?

Show Israel that it doesn't automatically get a free pass and our certain backing no matter what, and I bet they'll mediate their message real damned quick. Especially if such a message sent by us also has a pricetag attached to it. "Quit fucking around and get serious about living with your neighbors, or kiss every penny of aid from the U.S. goodbye."

Hey, if we're supposed to take a hard line with Iran, why not with Israel as well?

Only problem with this is the US is in control of Iraqs airspace, if Israel gets to play through, do you allow Iran to do so as well ?

or will Iran simply assume as Israel played through it was with US consent and they throw everything they have at any US base and staging area they can reach...

Any play Israel makes unilaterally causes more trouble... Turkey ( my understanding ) would defend its airspace dragging NATO in, Iraq airspace will drag the US in, and Saudi Airspace would likely be both defended and dragging the US in.

As any attack this distance would require dozens of aircraft, air refueling, etc it would be hard to claim they snuck through after the fact...

The Iraqi Air Force will be able to enhance its air defence capabilities with the arrival of a new digital air surveillance radar (DASR) system.

" Amid reemerging speculations of an Israeli sneak attack on Iran, Baghdad warns Tel Aviv against using Iraqi airspace to carry out its military plans against Tehran. "

" raqi parliament members on Wednesday warned Israel that using using its country's airspace to attack Iran would be considered an attack against Iraq.

"Any penetration of Iraqi airspace by an Israeli national would be considered an attack against Iraq," Hassan al-Sanid, a member of Iraq's parliamentary committee on security and defense, said in remarks carried in the Baghdad daily al-Sabbah. "

An air strike by Israel on Iran certainly does seem problematic for them. Your map shows why. There is something different about Israel these days it seems to me, because the Israel I grew up with would never have let the situation get to the point it has. They would have taken out Iran's facilities long ago in an invisible manner. No jets, no missiles, just destruction of the facilities from the inside. To me, it indicates their intelligence and espionage abilities are about as bad as ours. An Israeli attack now on Iran would have devastating consequences for the whole world, but especially the US. It's almost too late to do anything to stop Iran. As others have said, we may have to learn to live with it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2009 3:19 AM

KWICKO

Couple things:

1) Gino, you'll note that in my hypothetical presidency, I never gave Israel permission to use Iraqi airspace. :) Looks to me like they're going to have to take the long way 'round, ALLLLLL the way around the Arabian peninsula, since I really doubt Syria, Jordan, Turkey, or Iraq are going to allow them to play through.

2) Jongs, I'm right there with ya. Seems there was a time when bad stuff would "just happen" when someone was doing something the Israelis didn't like, and their plans would all come to naught, and Israel would walk away clean. Either they had plausible deniability, or they would simply come clean after the fact, and act all "What? Was that wrong? Should we not have done that?", like they did with Iraq's nuclear reactor project.

As for learning to live with it, worse things have happened. We (humans in general, not just Americans) always assume that the nation we don't trust at the moment is the craziest bunch of animals on the face of the planet, capable of any atrocity at a moment's notice. Truth is, that's rarely the case, and more often than not, they're just people too, trying to live their lives and be their own nation and chart their destiny. There was a time when the Russians getting the bomb was the scariest thing imaginable, because they were crazy godless barbarians who would stop at nothing to take over the world. Except that they got the bomb - tens of thousands of them, in fact - and it turns out the Russians DO love their children, too, as the old Sting song goes. Then it was the segregated South Africa we had to fear - what would happen when "the black problem" got their hands on South Africa's nuclear stockpile? Answer: not much. Then it was Pakistan - a MUSLIM nation with The Bomb, OH NOES!!! A few years ago it was Korea; amazingly, Hyundai still sends cars our way, and none of them are releasing mushroom clouds from their tailpipes.

It's just another thing. It's a concern, it's a worry, but it's not THE worry. I'm more scared that I might die at the hands of a cellphone-talking-driver than from any Iranian nuke or any terrorist attack. Of the three, one of them is a proven killer, day after day, year after year.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2009 3:34 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That strategy certainly worked in Iraq!

Your confusing the embargo on Iraq oil exports with an embargo on Iranian gasoline imports.

Its different for two reasons. One, gasoline is refined oil and two, an import means its going in.

The gasoline idea is not mine, its considered the most severe option short of military action in the playbook. Iran's economy, already on weak footing, would simply shut down in a matter of days likely resulting in massive social unrest and violence. Iran would be forced to respond militarily, which is why the option has not been used. Once used military confrontation is inevitable.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2009 3:36 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

We ain't talking about Israel or Iran, either one, at this little moment. We are ( or at least I was ) posting about the correct grammatical usage of the terms " pro" and " con". On the question of Israel, I think it's best to table that argument for the here and now. We seem to disagree, and it's not the type of disagreement that can be resolved quickly or easily.

The mistake you seem to be making, NOBC, is that you mistake NOT being *A*N*T*I*-Iran as actually, actively being PRO-Iran. You seem to have this idea that one cannot be Iran-neutral.

As for the words "pro" and "con" - how's about we use "pro" and "anti", since they seem to fit better. I'm not ANTI-Israel, but I'm not exactly PRO-Israel, either. They have a right to exist, and to defend themselves. As does Iran. Let's just say that Iran has exactly as legitimate a right to nuclear weapons as Israel does. Or Pakistan. Or North Korea. Or South Africa. Or France, Great Britain, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, the United States...

When it comes to Israel, or Iran, or Iraq, I'm Switzerland.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

Not sure one can be neutral on this subject, at least not in the context of this thread, but if you say you are, I'll accept that.
You are correct, I do sometimes divide things into pro and con or anti ( same thing as far as I'm concerned.), black and white, yes and no, and don't leave room for the maybe in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2009 3:42 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Sing it with me:

KILL THE JEWS!
KILL THE JEWS!
KILL THE JEWS!

While this is disturbing...don't forget, he considers EVERYONE a Jew.

Obama, Jew. The Queen, Jew. Sarah Palin, Jew. Tiger Woods, Jew. The cop that pulled him over for going 80 in a school zone, Jew. The cast of Glee, Jews. The aliens who give him nightly anal probes, jews. His neighbor, Jew. His parents, Jews. Jews, everyone of them. All Jews...and all Nazis and all 'out to get him'.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2009 3:51 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Sing it with me:

KILL THE JEWS!
KILL THE JEWS!
KILL THE JEWS!

While this is disturbing...don't forget, he considers EVERYONE a Jew.

Obama, Jew. The Queen, Jew. Sarah Palin, Jew. Tiger Woods, Jew. The cop that pulled him over for going 80 in a school zone, Jew. The cast of Glee, Jews. The aliens who give him nightly anal probes, jews. His neighbor, Jew. His parents, Jews. Jews, everyone of them. All Jews...and all Nazis and all 'out to get him'.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

He even thinks Jesus Christ was a Jew!.....Oh wait, he was. Sorry 'bout that.

Hey PN...have you ever seen the film "History Of The World Part I"? During the "Inquisition" segment, Mel Brooks sings a wonderful cabaret number called The Inquisition, complete with Jews under torture, and dancing and singing nuns. I suggest you watch it. It will bring you much happiness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2009 3:58 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

In the now-ancient words of Star Trek: " What the Klingon has said is unimportant and we do not hear his words"-- " Watch out, Jim, I just called the Klingon a liar."

Either you accessed IMDB quotes, or you have some great memory to come up with that line from Star Trek. The Klingon in question was played by Tige Andrews, who later went on to do the Mod Squad tv series. Friday's Child, a great episode that featured the lovely Julie Newmar, is one of my personal favorites.

" Sorry, neither..." to steal another Trek quote. That particular usage is one that I carry around in my head. A really polite way of calling someone a liar...

Where exactly am I lying asshole ?

I am simply pointing out a flaw in your bullshit, as I am sure you are anti Cuba, despite their gesture to help in a diaster. I can respect people who have opposing opinions but I have no time for hypocrites or assholes... so go fuck yourself

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

Not gonna waste my time recapping the post of 12-02 time stamped 06:54 where I correctly quoted the post that you edited and distorted by editing a quote within a quote, a particular and deliberate effort. Or the one at 08:34 where I explained my objection to distortion of what I posted but not to editing.

You will note that when I merely misattributed something to Kwicko, and he called me on it, I promptly apologized.

You are a liar,and a cheat, and a coward and a pisspot. You are "nye-kultourni."

You will remain such until you cease deliberately distorting others' words, and apologize, and then act like a gentleman, instead of like Dick Cheney.

Go back to your mosque and jump off the minaret.

"Gino Beefaroni's words are STILL unimportant, and we STILL do not hear him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:53 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That strategy certainly worked in Iraq!

Your confusing the embargo on Iraq oil exports with an embargo on Iranian gasoline imports.

Its different for two reasons. One, gasoline is refined oil and two, an import means its going in.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up. Because when you started rattling on about military strikes and sinking the Iranian navy, and I said that that strategy worked wonderfully in Iraq, I of course was speaking of your gasoline embargo idea. [/sarcasm]

Quote:

The gasoline idea is not mine...

No kidding. It's still a stupid idea. Didn't we try something similar with Japan in 1940? What's the worst that could happen?

Quote:

...its considered the most severe option short of military action in the playbook.

And yet, it's the very FIRST option you ran to. And you say you're not a warmonger and that you love all human life... ;)

Quote:
Iran's economy, already on weak footing, would simply shut down in a matter of days likely resulting in massive social unrest and violence.

Do you get this stuff from the same brain trusts who brought us the brilliant post-invasion Iraq planning? You know, the guys who claimed the war would cost $17 billion, tops?

Quote:

Iran would be forced to respond militarily, which is why the option has not been used. Once used military confrontation is inevitable.

Of course, if military confrontation with Iraq is what you really WANT, it's a brilliant plan. Just don't try to say that you don't want that, okay? And don't try to lay all the blame on them, if you lay out a plan that you yourself have said would leave them no choice but to take military action.

To get an import embargo on gasoline, you have to get China on board. So far, they aren't. In fact, they really aren't on board with much of anything in the way of punitive measures against Iran, which is one of their key trading partners. In short, a U.S. embargo of Iran is about as effective as a U.S. embargo of Cuba has been. It inconveniences the country that's under embargo, but it in no way collapses them. We think we've isolated Cuba, but we've only isolated ouselves from them, not them from the world. Believe it or not, the world really DOESN'T revolve around America! :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:54 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Go back to your mosque and jump off the minaret.

Nice. :(

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 1:21 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Dated, but on point and interesting article

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/those-tricky-irania
ns-are-now-threatening-to-coope.aspx

THOSE TRICKY IRANIANS ARE NOW THREATENING TO COOPERATE
NEW YORK October 05, 2009
The confusion over Iran’s nuclear program mounts as accusations and denials intensify.
In an effort to browbeat Iran into nuclear submission, the US, Britain and France staged a bravura performance of political theatre last week by claiming to have just `discovered’ a secret Iran uranium enrichment plant near Qum. On cue, a carefully orchestrated media blitz trumpeted warnings of the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and `long-ranged missiles.’

In reality, the Qum plant was detected by US spy satellites over two years ago, and was known to the intelligence community. Iran claimed the plant will not begin enriching uranium for peaceful power for another 540 days. UN nuclear rules, to which Iran adheres, calls for 180 days notice.

But Iran cast suspicion on itself by hastily alerting the UN’s nuclear agency, IAEA, right after the `revelation’ of the Qum plant and inviting inspection. Iran may not have been actually guilty of anything, but it looked guilty – in western eyes.

Iran can hardly be eager to reveal the locations of its nuclear sites or military secrets given the steady stream of threats by Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear plants and the beating of war drums in the United States. Iran also recalls Iraq, where half the UN `nuclear inspectors’ were actually spies for CIA or Israel’s Mossad. This may explain some of Iran’s secretive behavior.

The US, Britain, France and Israel have been even less forthcoming about their nuclear secrets. Israel and India reject all outside requests for information.

Iran’s test of some useless short ranged missiles, and an inaccurate 2,000-km medium ranged Shahab-3, provoked more hysteria. In a choice example of media scaremongering, one leading North American newspaper printed a picture of a 1960’s vintage SAM-2 antiaircraft missile being launched, with a caption warning of the `grave threat’ Iran posed to `international peace and security.’

Welcome to Iraq déjà vu, and another manufactured crisis. US intelligence and UN inspectors say Iran has no nuclear weapons and certainly no nuclear warheads and is only enriching uranium to 5%. Nuclear weapons require 95%. Iran’s nuclear facilities are under constant UN inspection and US surveillance.

The US, its allies, and Israel insist Iran is secretly developing nuclear warheads. They demand Tehran prove a negative: that is has no nuclear weapons. Iraq was also put to the same impossible test, then attacked when it naturally could not comply.

Now, the US government is again leaking claims that Iran is working on a nuclear warhead for its Shahah-3 medium-ranged missile. Iran says the data supposedly backing up this claim is a fake concocted by Israel’s Mossad. Forged data was also used to accuse Iraq.

Israel is deeply alarmed by Iran’s challenge to its Mideast nuclear monopoly. Chances of an Israeli attack on Iran are growing weekly, though the US is still restraining Israel.

The contrived uproar about the Qum plant was a ploy to intensify pressure on Iran to cease nuclear enrichment – though it has every right to do so under international agreements. The problem is that Iran has many good reasons for developing nuclear weapons for self-defense even though Tehran insists it is not.

More pressure was applied at last week’s meeting near Geneva between the Western powers and Iran. The Iranians then fooled everyone by actually agreeing to ship a good part of their enriched uranium to Russia for safekeeping, thus taking the wind out of the sails of the war party in Washington, London and Paris – at least for a while.

You could almost hear the outraged neocons in Washington yelling, `hey you sneaky Iranians, fight fair!’

Why does Ahmadinejad antagonize the West and act belligerent when he should be taking a very low profile? Why would Iran face devastating Israeli or US attack to keep enriching uranium when it can import such fuel from Russia?

Civilian nuclear power has become the keystone of Iranian national pride. As noted in my new book, `American Raj,’ Iran’s leadership insists the West has denied the Muslim world modern technology and tries to keep it backwards and subservient. Tehran believes it can withstand all western sanctions.

In my view, Iran appears to be very slowly developing a `breakout’ capability to produce a small number of nuclear weapons on short notice - for defensive purposes. Iraq’s invasion of Iran cost Iran one million casualties. Iran demands the same right of nuclear self defense enjoyed by neighbors Israel, India and Pakistan.

But Iran’s multi-level leadership is also split over the question of whether or not to actually build nuclear weapons. Iran is just as fearful of an Israeli nuclear attack as Israel is of an Iranian nuclear attack. For the record, President Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be `wiped off the face of the map,’ but quoted an old Imam Khomeini speech calling for Zionism to be wiped away and replaced by a state for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

What Iran really wants is an end to 30-years of US efforts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The US is still waging economic warfare against Iran and trying to overthrow the Tehran government. Like North Korea, Iran wants explicit guarantees from Washington that this siege warfare will stop and relations with the US will be normalized.

As Flynt and Hillary Leverett conclude in their excellent, must-read 29 September NY Times article about Iran’s nuclear program, détente with Iran will be bitterly opposed by `those who attach value to failed policies that have damaged America’s interests in the Middle East…’

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 1:34 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Welcome to Iraq déjà vu, and another manufactured crisis. US intelligence and UN inspectors say Iran has no nuclear weapons and certainly no nuclear warheads and is only enriching uranium to 5%. Nuclear weapons require 95%. Iran’s nuclear facilities are under constant UN inspection and US surveillance.

Not surprised, and figured as much. Seems like there's a strange agenda to try to destabilize the middle east.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 1:48 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Welcome to Iraq déjà vu, and another manufactured crisis. US intelligence and UN inspectors say Iran has no nuclear weapons and certainly no nuclear warheads and is only enriching uranium to 5%. Nuclear weapons require 95%. Iran’s nuclear facilities are under constant UN inspection and US surveillance.

Not surprised, and figured as much. Seems like there's a strange agenda to try to destabilize the middle east.

Or to promote the Nuclear issue to act against anyone not under the control of ... who ever orders these policies up

It would be a long scary thread to examine who actually forms US foreign policy and why, and once you get into the real power of the Israeli lobby groups, the CFR and how they have shaped policy, and all the other weird little clubs and cronyisms required to rise this field it would start to look like a PN post....

not everthing he says ( even some of the wacky shit ) should be dismissed out of hand

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 2:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm old enough to remember when The Trilateral Commission was invoked to explain everything wrong with the world. Just a few years ago it was The Carlyle Group. Just a few months ago the imminent collpase of the entire global economy was being blamed on AIG (London).

It's not that these groups don't exist. It's not that they don't manipulate policies and businesses as far as they are able. But none of them is running the entire show. And all together, they share a common thread that we could break - if we wanted to. We just have to want to.

***************************************************************

And to answer directly on-topic: nothing. This is not a US problem.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 4:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's not that these groups don't exist. It's not that they don't manipulate policies and businesses as far as they are able. But none of them is running the entire show. And all together, they share a common thread that we could break - if we wanted to. We just have to want to.

Ding Ding Ding, you win the kewpie doll.

Yep, all we have to do is stop listening to, and supporting their bullshit, without fools willing to execute their will for em, they got nothin.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 6:52 PM

DREAMTROVE

Kathy

yes and no.

True, there are many special interest think tank groups, but also, many of these groups are the same people rebranding themselves. The CFR *is* the Trilateral commission in large part.

The Carlyle group is a mislead. That's because Michael Moore doesn't really know what he's talking about. The Carlyle group is a corporation of war profiteers. They have no master plan or globalist agenda. They're in it for the money. They belong with Halliburton and Blackwater Security, whatever it's calling itself. But that's not the same animal as the Wendell Willkie one-worlders. Sure, there are many derivations, all of which boil down to groups of manipulators who think "and then it will all be *mine* muahahahahah" and a group of starry eyed followers who think "And then we'll have world peace."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 2:42 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Of course if your sanctions aren't working, your methods of starving people into submission aren;t aggressive enough

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8405020.stm

Egypt starts building steel wall on Gaza Strip border
By Christian Fraser
BBC News, Cairo

A Palestinian smuggles a sheep into Gaza through a tunnel under the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, November 2009
There are thought to be hundreds of tunnels along the border

Egypt has begun constructing a huge metal wall along its border with the Gaza Strip as it attempts to cut smuggling tunnels, the BBC has learned.

When it is finished the wall will be 10-11km (6-7 miles) long and will extend 18 metres below the surface.

The Egyptians are being helped by American army engineers, who the BBC understands have designed the wall.

The plan has been shrouded in secrecy, with no comment or confirmation from the Egyptian government.

The wall will take 18 months to complete.

For weeks local farmers have noticed more activity at the border where trees were being cut down, but very few of them were aware that a barrier was being built.

'Impenetrable'

That is because the barrier, made of super-strength steel, has been hidden deep underground.

The BBC has been told that it was manufactured in the US, that it fits together in similar fashion to a jigsaw, and that it has been tested to ensure it is bomb proof.

It cannot be cut or melted - in short it is impenetrable.

Intelligence sources in Egypt say the barrier is being sunk close to the perimeter wall that already exists.

They claim 4km of the wall has already been completed north of the Rafah crossing, with work now beginning to the south.

The land beneath Egypt and Gaza resembles a Swiss cheese, full of holes and tunnels through which the Palestinians smuggle the everyday items they are denied by the blockade.

But the Israelis say the tunnels are also used to smuggle people, weapons, and the components of the rockets that are fired at southern Israeli towns.

The wall is not expected to stop all the smuggling, but it will force the Palestinians to go deeper and it will likely cut the hundreds of superficial tunnels closer to the surface that are used to move the bulk of the goods.

getting more pro Iran by the day

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 2:56 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
The Egyptians are being helped by American army engineers, who the BBC understands have designed the wall.

Wha-? ...

Oh.

My.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Oh, shit...

Gotta...

Catch...

My....

Breath...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH!!!!!!

I foresee the Gaza strip being flooded within 2 years. ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 3:30 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

So, how much did the US spend to do this?

I'm pretty sure they would be the ones footing the bill

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=113271§ionid=351020502

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE