Bush the Liar Escalates War Threats Against Iran

[quirk]

by Larry Everest

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Bush clashed over Iran, highlighting just how extreme tensions are and the danger of a U.S. attack (as well as the sharpening imperialist rivalry between the U.S. and Russia overall).

Putin, on the first visit to Iran by a Russian head of state in over 60 years, denounced U.S. threats, declaring, “We should not even think of making use of force in this region…. Not only should we reject the use of force, but also the mention of force as a possibility.” Putin, who has so far resisted U.S. demands for more punitive sanctions against Iran, also stated there was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons.

Two days later, President Bush hit back and took the war threats to a new level: “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War 3, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” The White House tried to downplay Bush’s remark, claiming it was just “a rhetorical point.” But the threat of world war was out there (implicitly directed at Russia as well!). And Bush was clearly demanding that Russia go along with his insistence that Iran be prevented from having even a nuclear energy program (which is legal under current treaties), because the technology needed could be used for weapons.

The Bush-Putin clash comes as the Bush regime, with support of most of the U.S. ruling class, has increasingly targeted Iran as the main obstacle to its Middle East agenda, and may be preparing for war. The administration has orchestrated a propaganda campaign centered on accusations that Iran is building nuclear weapons and directing attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. The House and Senate have both passed resolutions labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a “terrorist organization”—potentially a war trigger. The Bush regime is waging a “financial war” on Iran and trying to get other big powers to tighten economic sanctions. Nearly half the U.S.’s warships have recently been stationed near Iran. The Pentagon has been drawing up military plans for striking Iran for over a year. Earlier this month, the New Yorker magazine’s Seymour Hersh reported that “There has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning.”

U.S. Allegations Against Iran: Lies, Hypocrisy, and a Cover For An Imperial Agenda

What of U.S. charges that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and attacking U.S. forces in Iraq?

First, there’s the enormity of U.S. hypocrisy. The U.S. already has thousands of nuclear warheads, and while the Bush regime condemns Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, it refuses (in its negotiations with Russia) to accept any limits on the number of nukes the U.S. can build.

The U.S.—not Iran—illegally invaded and occupied Iraq. Yet Bush and company denounce Iran for “interference” in Iraq. Meanwhile, the U.S. is funding and organizing covert military and political operations inside Iran!

So the imperialist logic at work here is that only the U.S. has the right to threaten the world with nuclear weapons (and have more than anyone else), and to intervene and wage war against other countries.

Second, the U.S. has produced no conclusive evidence for its charges. Secretary of State Rice recently declared that Iran was “lying” about its nuclear program, but she offered no proof. People should remember that these are the same proven liars in the Bush regime who knowingly spread the lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD before the Iraq war.

After many inspections, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If, however, it is the case that Iran’s reactionary Islamic Republic wants to build nuclear weapons, and they are concealing such a program, who is the U.S. to declare itself the global enforcer of nuclear restraint? The United States is the only country in the world to have used the atomic bomb—twice, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—to massacre civilians. And why does the U.S.’ massive current arsenal of nuclear weapons give it the right to threaten or carry out military aggression against Iran?

And what about Iran’s involvement in attacks on U.S. forces?

The U.S. military has held press conference after press conference displaying Iranian weapons allegedly found in Iraq. But none have provided any firm evidence that these weapons came from Iran, that they were used to attack U.S. forces, or that the Iranian government was directly involved. The captured weapons could have come from old Iraqi stockpiles or the region’s extensive arms black market. Former chief U.S. arms inspector David Kay told Hersh that his team had been astounded at “the huge amounts of arms” it found in Iraq right after the 2003 invasion, including “stockpiles of explosively formed penetrators” or “EFPs.” These are the weapons the U.S. has been claiming could only have come from Iran.

On the other hand, if it is the case that Iran is providing weapons to forces in Iraq, who is the United States, the country that has illegally occupied the whole country, to use Iranian interference in Iraq as a cause for war on Iran? It is as if someone carried out a home invasion robbery, ransacked a home, raped and brutalized the inhabitants, and continued to terrorize the people there. And then, because they suspected that someone else, in the house next door, was trying to steal from the house they were terrorizing, they threatened to go on and attack and carry out another home invasion of the house next door.

Nor is the U.S. being driven by its feigned concern for the very real suffering of the region’s people at the hands of Islamic fundamentalism, Iran’s Islamic Republic in particular. The U.S. sees Islamic fundamentalism as a major obstacle to their ambitions not because the U.S. imperialists have a problem with the repressive and obscurantist program of the Islamic fundamentalists. They work with and through such forces where they can do so in a way that fits their needs. But the problem the U.S. has with the Islamic fundamentalists is that they present a widespread counter-force and threat to what the U.S. is trying to impose on the world, and—to the U.S. imperialists—an intolerable threat to their interests.

Any U.S. Aggression Against Iran Is…
Aggression

Even if the Iranian regime is attempting to build nuclear weapons, or is behind some of the attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, or further intensifies its oppression of the Iranian people—none of this would justify any U.S. war on Iran. Such a war would make things much worse for the people in the region (and the world), including because it would further fuel Islamic fundamentalism and strengthen the current nightmarish framework in which imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism are held forth as humanity’s only choices. Any U.S. war would not be aimed at ending oppression or freeing the people; it would be aimed at perpetuating their enslavement—under a strengthened U.S. domination over the whole region.

This is not to say that the U.S. doesn’t have real—imperialist—concerns about Iran. Far too many people are downplaying the danger of a U.S. attack on Iran because they think Bush is too unpopular to launch another war, or too bogged down in Iraq, or not “crazy” enough to risk a regional conflagration. Or, that the stresses and strains on the U.S. “alliance” (including the withdrawal of British troops from Basra, and the increasing tension between the U.S. on the one hand, and Russia on the other) will deter the U.S. from launching an attack on Iran. Or they think the U.S. is simply making things up about Iran out of sheer arrogance or irrational belligerence.

Bush is certainly unpopular and a proven liar, and the U.S. is definitely bogged down in Iraq. Even many in the ruling class worry that attacking Iran could end up greatly weakening the U.S. position in the Middle East and the world (and these divisions may be one reason war hasn’t yet taken place). And there are both strains in the U.S. “alliance,” and increasing contention with other powers in the region.

But there are actual imperialist necessities and concerns driving the U.S. rulers. And some of the reasons that people don’t believe there will be a war on Iran are actually reasons why the U.S. rulers do see a need to attack Iran. They cannot, for example, just let other powers perceive their alliance as crumbling, and let their rivals of any kind make a move on “their” global domination. They cannot be perceived as having their asses kicked by the Islamic fundamentalists, any more than a big time mobster can let people see a small time gangster get away with defying his authority.

The US “war on terror” is not about ending “terror” as they claim, or “bringing democracy to Iraq” or anywhere else. It is essentially a war for greater empire. This war is focused on defeating Islamic fundamentalism and those who support or fuel it. It’s a war with many targets, employing many means. The Bush regime feels that victory would enable the U.S. to transform the Middle East-Central Asian regions, cut the ground from under anti-U.S. jihadism, and solidify and deepen U.S. control.

For decades, control of the Middle East—for its strategic location at the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe and its vast oil reserves—has been a key component of America’s imperialist superpower status. Today, the U.S. rulers view the control of these regions as even more critical to perpetuating their status as global overlords, and to the future of their empire and rule at home. So for them, the stakes really are enormous.

It is this agenda, not “stopping terrorism,” that was behind the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, as a springboard to further asserting U.S. domination of the Middle East and crushing, or subordinating, Islamic fundamentalist forces that they perceive to be in their way. But things aren’t going as the Bush regime planned. Iraq has become a potential debacle that is tying down thousands of U.S. troops. Pro-Iranian forces have considerable influence in the Iraqi government. Iranian influence in Iraq is growing (last week Iraq signed a contract with Iran and China to build power plants, much to the Bush administration’s dismay). Islamic fundamentalism has been fueled across the region. As a sharp expression of the point that U.S. imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism both oppose and reinforce each other, one product of the ongoing U.S. occupation of Afghanistan has been the re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pro-Iranian forces could become dominant in Lebanon. In sum, the geopolitical “playing field” in the Middle East seems to be tilting against the U.S., and Iran stands to be the beneficiary—whether it is directly behind any particular development or not. And a nuclear-armed Iran would be an even bigger obstacle to U.S. regional hegemony and military dominance.

So the U.S. establishment—including both the hardcore around Bush and Cheney as well as the Democrats and others—is largely united on the need to confront Iran and roll back its influence, one way or another. (In a forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton writes, “If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.”)

For now, the U.S. is at the very least pursuing a full-court press of diplomatic, economic, political and military pressure against Iran designed to force the Islamic Republic to cave in to U.S. demands, and/or to trigger internal upheaval and the regime’s collapse. Britain’s Telegraph reported on September 16, “Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.” And many in and out of the Bush administration—particularly Vice President **** Cheney and his allies—are aggressively pushing for strikes on Iran, which, according to Hersh, Bush is actively considering even as he claims to be striving for a diplomatic solution.

In any event, should the U.S. full-court press fail—and Putin’s visit to Iran apparently represented a blow to U.S. plans—the rulers may be forced to confront the choice “between the devil and the deep blue sea,” as the saying goes; a choice between seeing Iran emerge strengthened, seriously undercutting their entire “war on terror” and all its objectives, or “escaping forward” by rolling the dice of escalation.

A U.S. war on Iran might not even be a fully conscious, much less unanimous, decision of ruling class strategists. The huge U.S. buildup of warships in the Gulf, along with the presence of U.S. operatives inside Iran, has created a situation where war could break out by accident.

In early September, Israeli aircraft reportedly carried out an attack on Syria, which has a defense treaty with Iran. Commentators speculated on whether, and how, this attack might be connected to an Israeli attack on Iran, including whether Israel was testing new Russian anti-aircraft weapons recently acquired by Syria as part of assessing a possible air route for an Israeli strike on Iran. While Israel has its own distinct agenda, the larger framework for Israeli military aggression (and for the very existence of Israel) is the furtherance of U.S. interests. Israel is financially, politically, and militarily sponsored by the U.S. as its “trigger-happy cop” in the region, and it is highly unlikely that this raid on Syria took place outside overall U.S. strategic planning for a war on Iran. Shortly after the raid, Newsweek magazine reported that former Cheney Middle East adviser David Wurmser told a small group several months ago that Cheney was considering asking Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. And Newsweek added that a military response by Iran could give Washington an excuse to then launch airstrikes of its own.

But regardless of the “trigger,” regardless of the particular role of Israel, and regardless of whether such a war was the result of an unplanned accident, or a conscious decision, a U.S. war on Iran would be an outgrowth of U.S. aggressive actions. It would still be an expression of U.S. imperial interests. And in the event of such an “accidental” war, even bitter opponents of the Bush regime within the ruling class like Zbigniew Brzezinski—who has said that he thinks such a war would be a disaster—have said that they would feel compelled to support it once begun.

The U.S. rulers have shown in Iraq that they are willing to destroy the lives of millions in pursuit of their reactionary ambitions. Those ambitious are unjust, oppressive, and in the service of a world of exploitation and oppression. They are not the interests of the people of the world, including people in this country, and it is the special responsibility of people in the United States to build a movement to oppose any attempt by the U.S. to attack Iran, under any pretense. The development of such a movement will inspire people all over the world, including in the Middle East, to see beyond the so-called “alternatives” of Islamic fundamentalism and U.S. imperialism.

http://www.rwor.org/a/106/iran-alert-en.html

[OCoinnigh]

Maybe China will quite lending the US money. That will end the wars.

[ciaranxavier]

we should be worried more about china a 250 million man standing army plus reserves ready to go......thats a scary thought.

[broche]

250 million bit of a exagerration surely

[ciaranxavier]

no exageration at all if china went to war right now theyd have 250 million men on the front line and reserves in training instantly

[OCoinnigh]

They might not have much of a navy (China), but they could move thousands of troops around in those containers full of stuff we're all importing.
and nobody would even know they were coming.

[ciaranxavier]

They might not have much of a navy (China), but they could move thousands of troops around in those containers full of stuff we're all importing.
and nobody would even know they were coming.

now thats funny and true. i have never thought about that.

[OCoinnigh]

Military manpower

Availability males ages of 18-49: 342,956,265

female age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)

Fit for military service males age 18-49: 281,240,272

female age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

Active troops 2,250,000 (Ranked 1st)

Total troops 7,024,000 (Ranked 3rd)

Paramilitary force 1,500,000

Reaching military age annually males: 13,186,433

females : 12,298,149 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures

Dollar figure official $44.94 billion (unofficial estimates $60-90 Billion)

Percent of GDP unknown

[Daithí]

Yes China could indeed put forward 250m men, perhaps as a human shield but nothing else. They are'nt trained. They are fit for military service but untrained.

Back to Iran, I reckon they'd have a good chance against the US, apart from the Air Force. However good the F14 Tomcats maybe, they can't get parts for them.

[ciaranxavier]

Military manpower

Availability males ages of 18-49: 342,956,265

female age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)

Fit for military service males age 18-49: 281,240,272

female age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

Active troops 2,250,000 (Ranked 1st)

Total troops 7,024,000 (Ranked 3rd)

Paramilitary force 1,500,000

Reaching military age annually males: 13,186,433

females : 12,298,149 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures

Dollar figure official $44.94 billion (unofficial estimates $60-90 Billion)

Percent of GDP unknown

thank you everyone asks for links but i see most my stuff through documentarys on tv. i cant bother to take the time to pick through the whats real or not on the net.

[quirk]

Yes China could indeed put forward 250m men, perhaps as a human shield but nothing else. They are'nt trained. They are fit for military service but untrained.

Back to Iran, I reckon they'd have a good chance against the US, apart from the Air Force. However good the F14 Tomcats maybe, they can't get parts for them.

In a conventional war the US will walk over any country. Its hardware is decades beyond anyone else's. How can you defend against a cruise missile? However it would end up with them facing another insurgency which they wont be able to defeat.

[OCoinnigh]

Yes China could indeed put forward 250m men, perhaps as a human shield but nothing else. They are'nt trained. They are fit for military service but untrained.

Back to Iran, I reckon they'd have a good chance against the US, apart from the Air Force. However good the F14 Tomcats maybe, they can't get parts for them.

All long as other country's keep lending the US money they are unstoppable.

[Daithí]

In a conventional war the US will walk over any country. Its hardware is decades beyond anyone else's. How can you defend against a cruise missile? However it would end up with them facing another insurgency which they wont be able to defeat
That's the thing. I would hope that Iran would abandon conventional warfare and disappear into the hills.

All long as other country's keep lending the US money they are unstoppable.
Unstoppable? The US could'nt defeat **** at the end of the day, as long as it was a geurilla.

I would see a proxy war using Israel as more likely.

[ciaranxavier]

Yes China could indeed put forward 250m men, perhaps as a human shield but nothing else. They are'nt trained. They are fit for military service but untrained.

Back to Iran, I reckon they'd have a good chance against the US, apart from the Air Force. However good the F14 Tomcats maybe, they can't get parts for them.

actually china is one of the most advanced countrys on earth, just because you dont see their military hardware doesnt mean they dont have it. they are also well trained if youve ever seen the asian countrys train their armed forces youd be amazed at the resilience and steadfastness of their soldiers. they have blind loyalty something america could never say about their forces.

[Daithí]

actually china is one of the most advanced countrys on earth, just because you dont see their military hardware doesnt mean they dont have it. they are also well trained if youve ever seen the asian countrys train their armed forces youd be amazed at the resilience and steadfastness of their soldiers. they have blind loyalty something america could never say about their forces.

China or Asian countries in general?

Realistically I don't think China is a major threat to world security.
The US is however.

[broche]

there is no way on earth that in the unlikely event of china having the capability to put 250 million into a war there is no way that they could be properly trained or have any training at all besides china lack aircraft carriers and are certainly not to the same level of hardware as the us, besides its mostly a conscript army

[ciaranxavier]

there is no way on earth that in the unlikely event of china having the capability to put 250 million into a war there is no way that they could be properly trained or have any training at all besides china lack aircraft carriers and are certainly not to the same level of hardware as the us, besides its mostly a conscript army

they are right up along the us with hardware.

[quirk]

The US spends more on its military than all the other NATO countries, Russia and China combined. No one approaches it even in hardware.

[broche]

$439.3 Billion ,US defence budget

estimated chinese budget betweenUS$85 and US$125 billion
as published by chinese government $45 billion

[Daithí]

they are right up along the us with hardware.

No.

As Quirk said, and is most imporant in anti-terrorism by the US, is to abandon conventional warfare, and submerge into the countryside.
In my opinion it's the only way.

[ciaranxavier]

$439.3 Billion ,US defence budget

estimated chinese budget betweenUS$85 and US$125 billion
as published by chinese government $45 billion

as published by the chinese government.....do you think that with an economy that hot and an army that large that those figures are accurate.

[broche]

no thats why i said 'as published' the US estimate is above, not that i'm confirming thats true and reme,ber it is still mostly a conscript army

[ciaranxavier]

no thats why i said 'as published' the US estimate is above, not that i'm confirming thats true and reme,ber it is still mostly a conscript army

that is true. whats americas standing army??? trained ones im just curious ive never known.

[Daithí]

About a million. Useless in my opinion.

[ciaranxavier]

only a million that actually surprises me. so 250 million men would pose a threat untrained or trainged.

[quirk]

But they dont have 250 million. That is the number of men in the country of military age. If they all joined the army who would build the weapons or carry on the economy? The number at military age in the US is also much higher than the size of their army.

[quirk]

Military China
Military branches:
People's Liberation Army (PLA): Ground Forces, Navy (includes marines and naval aviation), Air Force (includes airborne forces), and Second Artillery Corps (strategic missile force); People's Armed Police (PAP); Reserve and Militia Forces (2006)

Military service age and obligation:
18-22 years of age for selective compulsory military service, with 24-month service obligation; no minimum age for voluntary service (all officers are volunteers); 18-19 years of age for women high school graduates who meet requirements for specific military jobs (2007)

Manpower available for military service:
males age 18-49: 342,956,265
females age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 281,240,272
females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males age 18-49: 13,186,433
females age 18-49: 12,298,149 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:4.3% (2006)





Military United States

Military branches:
Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard; note - Coast Guard administered in peacetime by the Department of Homeland Security, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy

Military service age and obligation:
18 years of age; 17 years of age with written parental consent (2006)

Manpower available for military service:
males age 18-49: 67,742,879
females age 18-49: 67,070,144 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 54,609,050
females age 18-49: 54,696,706 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males age 18-49: 2,143,873
females age 18-49: 2,036,201 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:4.06% (2005 est.)

[ciaranxavier]

But they dont have 250 million. That is the number of men in the country of military age. If they all joined the army who would build the weapons or carry on the economy? The number at military age in the US is also much higher than the size of their army.

the women and the ones who cant go to war. im not saying that its going to happen im just saying everyones worried about the middle east when we should keep our eyes on asia. the north koreans are much deadlier then the iranians and have proven they have nuclear capabilities the combined power of those two countrys has the possibility of starting a third world war.

[Daithí]

the women and the ones who cant go to war. im not saying that its going to happen im just saying everyones worried about the middle east when we should keep our eyes on asia. the north koreans are much deadlier then the iranians and have proven they have nuclear capabilities the combined power of those two countrys has the possibility of starting a third world war.

North Korea is on the decomissioning process.
China I doubt will start any agression towards the US.

It's the US everyone should be worried about.

[ciaranxavier]

North Korea is on the decomissioning process.
China I doubt will start any agression towards the US.

It's the US everyone should be worried about.

i actually agree with that. run by a gun toting yankee.

[OCoinnigh]

Why would anyone worry about the US. They only go to war for profit. The average person in the the US doesn't give a sh*t about IRAQ. I don't think Ireland is next on their list either. So I wouldn't worry about them unless you live in Iran.

[ciaranxavier]

Why would anyone worry about the US. They only go to war for profit. The average person in the the US doesn't give a sh*t about IRAQ. I don't think Ireland is next on their list either. So I wouldn't worry about them unless you live in Iran.

They only go to war for profit.

thats exactly whats scary Americas in a recession with all their wars on "terrorism" theyre stirring up the bees nest so to speak. Theyre not a direct threat theyre the ones who will start the next great war if anyone out there is going too. thats whats scary.

[Hildy]

What do you think that Iran would do with a nuclear weapon if they were left to develop one? Perhaps finish what Hitler started, a second holocaust without the "ovens" maybe? Nuke the Jews with an atomic annihilation. Can we let that happen?

Thought this article to be very compelling, it dispells different theories but what is most interesting, is the the author Hannan was against the war in Iraq, but is frightened by the fact that Iran has the potential as a nuclear threat, and agrees that military action may be necessary if dialogue isn't! And this is not just the U.S.'s problem, this is a problem for the international community in not letting this happen.

Iran wants the Bomb so it can use it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=EB4IY24GVVECVQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/11/05/do0503.xml)
Telegraph co.uk
By Daniel Hannan
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 05/11/2007

One of the many tragic consequences of the Iraq war is that it has made it harder to act against Iran. The geographical and alphabetical proximity of the two countries tempts us into false comparisons. Look at the mess the neo-cons made in Iraq, we think. We surely can't let those clots try the same failed strategy against Iran. Nor do you hear this argument only from tousled students.

click to read the rest of the article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=EB4IY24GVVECVQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/11/05/do0503.xml)

[Nijinsky]

Hildy: What do you think that Iran would do with a nuclear weapon if they were left to develop one? Perhaps finish what Hitler started, a second holocaust without the "ovens" maybe? Nuke the Jews with an atomic annihilation. Can we let that happen?

Do you actually believe that as being a realistic probability?

[quirk]

Why would Iran want to nuke the Jew? There is nothing to suggest this. Indeed Iran has Jews happily living within its borders who refused to return to Israel despite massive bribes by the Israeli government a few months ago. They said their identity as Iranians isnt for sale.

Even if Iran had nuclear weapons who the hell are the USA to say the shouldn't after all they are the only nation ever to use such weapons and against civilian targets also.

[Hildy]

Hildy:

Do you actually believe that as being a realistic probability?

YES I DO! The Ayatollah's mind set is not rational, they are a "death cult" when it comes to "little satan",i.e., Israel, and would love nothing more than to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth! Why do you think they hate the america so much? Did you read this article, even Hannan says there is nothing that would stop the Mullahs from atomic annihilation of Isreal!

[Nijinsky]

YES I DO! The Ayatollah's mind set is not rational, they are a "death cult" when it comes to "little satan",i.e., Israel, and would love nothing more than to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth! Why do you think they hate the america so much? Did you read this article, even Hannan says there is nothing that would stop the Mullahs from atomic annihilation of Isreal!

I totally disagree. I have yet to see anything that they would want to do so or think it would be beneficial for them to do so. I would like the state of Israel wiped off the face of the earth - that is different to nuking it or nuking "Jews" - just as I would the six county statelet

[quirk]

YES I DO! The Ayatollah's mind set is not rational, they are a "death cult" when it comes to "little satan",i.e., Israel, and would love nothing more than to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth! Why do you think they hate the america so much? Did you read this article, even Hannan says there is nothing that would stop the Mullahs from atomic annihilation of Isreal!

Why are they not rational in your mind? I see by your reference to "wiping Israel of the face of the earth" you have swallowed all the lies. Fact is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said that. What he did say was that the regime in Israel should be wiped from the pages of history. Indeed in saying that he was quoting a previous speech by Ayatollah Khomeini.

On the issues of nuclear weapons the current Iranian leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who would have the ultimate decision has made a fatwa against such weapons claiming that they are unIslamic.

[quirk]

The following is a good article - Does Irans president want Israel wiped off the map and does he deny the holocaust? (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm)

Of course the answer to both questions is no yet this hasn't stopped the mass media and politicians from stating otherwise.

[Daithí]

It is important that one reads from as many news outlets as possible. It's truely amazing how words are manipulated.

[ciaranxavier]

The following is a good article - Does Irans president want Israel wiped off the map and does he deny the holocaust? (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm)

Of course the answer to both questions is no yet this hasn't stopped the mass media and politicians from stating otherwise.

in his latest meeting in america he said that the holocaust wasnt as bad as presented and that being gay is a western problem and there are not homos in iran.

[quirk]

in his latest meeting in america he said that the holocaust wasnt as bad as presented and that being gay is a western problem and there are not homos in iran.

Again that is not the case. I watched the speech he gave which you are referring to. In relation to gays if you had watched it you would have seen that he said that as a joke. Also he never said that the holocaust wasn't as bad as presented but he had two points to make concerning it. These were that historians should be allowed to debate it as much as any other historical event and his second point was that the Palestinians had no part in it so why should they be the ones that suffer.

[Hildy]

The following is a good article - Does Irans president want Israel wiped off the map and does he deny the holocaust? (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm)

Of course the answer to both questions is no yet this hasn't stopped the mass media and politicians from stating otherwise.

Ok, Quirk.....after reading that article, I agree that the western media is looking to demonize Iran and Ahmadinejad. If you really look at what he's said, there is little substance at all. Yet, he still made the nebulous statement and has said more than once "That Israel should be wiped off the map, and that the Holocaust is an overblown fairytale." Now face it, that kind of talk scares a lot of people, whether he meant it literally or not.

On this same website, there is a full unedited interview that Mike Wallace conducted with Mr. Ahmadinejad.......Click here (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14547.htm)

Where he states; "Very clearly, I will tell you that I fully oppose the behavior of the British and the Americans," Ahmadinejad tells Wallace. "They are providing state-of-the-art military hardware to the Zionists. And they are throwing their full support behind Israel. We believe that this threatens the future of all peoples, including the American and European peoples. So we are asking why the American government is blindly supporting this murderous regime."

and in the next breath, Wallace tried to ask him about Hezbollah's use of missiles, rockets furnished by Iran, but he wanted to talk about Israel's attacks with American bombs.

"The laser-guided bombs that have been given to the Zionists and they're targeting the shelter of defenseless children and women," the president said.

"Who supports Hezbollah?" Wallace asked. "Who has given Hezbollah hundreds of millions of dollars for years? Who has given Hezbollah Iranian-made missiles and rockets that is making — that are making all kinds …" he continued as he was interrupted.

In addition, regardless of your views on Israel, the Iranian President doubts that the Holocaust even took place saying that "further investigation" was needed. He believes Britain and the US control the UN Security Council on which France, China and Russia all sit as permanent members with veto power. In the last five years France and Russia have scuttled US requests to the UNSC numerous times.

You know, all of us that live in the U.S. can criticize Bush and the government, make protests against any issues or any politician that we want, we can attend rallies, protests and boycotts. We can listen to and watch any movie, television show, worship in any church, temple or synogogue, have the right to use and own firearms, have as much freedom as anywhere else on earth........can the Iranians do that?

And yet, Ahmadinejad has the balls to lecuture us on employment and healthcare?????

Tell me, why are Iranian journalists and civil rights activists routinely persecuted, imprisoned, and occasionally executed? Would it not be more appropriate for Mr. Ahmadinejad and his superiors to tend to their domestic problems first, instead of lecturing other governments or arming Hezbollah?

Those of you that are speaking out so supportingly of the Iranian President is much more dangerous and threatening than Bush or his administration will ever be! It worries me that people seem to be blind to that.


Cheers, Hildy

[quirk]

Ok, Quirk.....after reading that article, I agree that the western media is looking to demonize Iran and Ahmadinejad. If you really look at what he's said, there is little substance at all. Yet, he still made the nebulous statement and has said more than once "That Israel should be wiped off the map, and that the Holocaust is an overblown fairytale." Now face it, that kind of talk scares a lot of people, whether he meant it literally or not.

But the point of the article is that he didn't make such claims but rather the media purposely distorted his words. Calling for the regime in Israel to be wiped from the pages of time is no more calling for Israel to be wiped of the map than calling for an end to the Bush regime is calling for an end to the USA. Also where are you getting it that he said it more than once? He said it once (that the regime in Israel should be wiped from the pages of time) although the amount of times the story has been carried might make people think he is constantly saying it. That is propaganda for you.

Where also has he said the holocaust is a fairytale? This is certainly not the case. He has made two points about the holocaust:

1)Why should it be off limits to further academic research?
2)What role had the Palestine's in it that they should suffer?

Both these questions are justified in my opinion but if you can see something wrong with them please point it out.

What he did say about the holocaust was that "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth." This is not referring to the holocaust itself as a myth or denying it but is a reference to how it has been used to crush dissent of Israel and also that it has been elevated to a position which no other event in history has whereby academic research into it is forbidden and illegal unless it is in line with the prevalent view.

In his recent speech at Columbia university he said the following:

I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not (the ?) judgement that I'm passing here. I said in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people?LINK (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/202820.php)

Note his words I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. Really this should leave no question in any right thinking persons mind that he is not in fact denying the holocaust and it should also make them question the people who are using it as a political tool to attack Iran. They are the people really showing disrespect for the millions who died.

In addition, regardless of your views on Israel, the Iranian President doubts that the Holocaust even took place saying that "further investigation" was needed. He believes Britain and the US control the UN Security Council on which France, China and Russia all sit as permanent members with veto power. In the last five years France and Russia have scuttled US requests to the UNSC numerous times.

Once again he does not doubt that it has taken place as I have shown above. He didn't say that further research was needed to verify that it happened but simply that further research was needed. I agree with him. Just like any other event in history we will never know every detail and as long as this is the case (which will be forever) further research is indeed needed. Do you think we should not research the holocaust any further?

I also think that US has massive sway at the UN which it has used in the past and has more power than other nations although I would disagree with him that they control the UNSC but why is it a big deal if he thinks this?

You know, all of us that live in the U.S. can criticize Bush and the government, make protests against any issues or any politician that we want, we can attend rallies, protests and boycotts. We can listen to and watch any movie, television show, worship in any church, temple or synogogue, have the right to use and own firearms, have as much freedom as anywhere else on earth........can the Iranians do that?

Can you? I think the case of Jose Padilla is evidence that freedoms in the United states are not all they are made out to be.

Iranians can worship in any Mosque, Synagogue or church they like to and do. They can watch any TV programme they like. Most countries don't allow use of firearms and many people would think that is a good thing (I don't). You also can criticise the ruling class in your country but like in Iran if you are part of the masses of people you cannot have any real influence on the political process. A bourgeois dictatorship exists in both countries.

And yet, Ahmadinejad has the balls to lecuture us on employment and healthcare?????

Should the US government not be criticised yet you believe the Iranian one should? Not only is it criticised but complete lies are told about it and that should be more acceptable than him raising legitimate problems within the US system.

Tell me, why are Iranian journalists and civil rights activists routinely persecuted, imprisoned, and occasionally executed? Would it not be more appropriate for Mr. Ahmadinejad and his superiors to tend to their domestic problems first, instead of lecturing other governments or arming Hezbollah?

Yes Iran has many many problems which should be pointed out and struggled with and on this I agree with you. However we should be struggling with it based on real issues such as this and not fabricated ones which suit the imperialist agenda and were invented simply with that purpose in mind. The Iranian regime needs to be overthrown but not by a foreign power but rather the Iranian people themselves. A lot more opposition has been organised in the past couple of year and I believe this will grow.

But when that regime speaks up for the Palestinians or for Hizbollahs right to defend itself then despite how reactionary it is that doesn't detract from the fact that it is telling the truth.

Those of you that are speaking out so supportingly of the Iranian President is much more dangerous and threatening than Bush or his administration will ever be! It worries me that people seem to be blind to that.

Who has spoken out in support of him? I certainly haven't. However I still will point out lies being used against him as it is important to get to the truth. Also these lies are part of an agenda which is attempting to prepare peoples minds for an invasion of that country and that must be opposed at all costs.

Contrary to what you believe the Bush regime is much more dangerous to the people of Iran and the world. A US invasion will cause many hundreds of thousands if not more deaths just as has happened in Iraq. Has Iran invaded or even threatened to invade another country? Is it Iran that is making up lies about another country as a pretext for invasion? Has Iran supported coups such as the one the US backed in Venezuela recently? Is Iran setting out to reshape the world in its image and ensure its global dominance?

[Nijinsky]

Hildy: Those of you that are speaking out so supportingly of the Iranian President

Who has done so?

[ciaranxavier]

Again that is not the case. I watched the speech he gave which you are referring to. In relation to gays if you had watched it you would have seen that he said that as a joke. Also he never said that the holocaust wasn't as bad as presented but he had two points to make concerning it. These were that historians should be allowed to debate it as much as any other historical event and his second point was that the Palestinians had no part in it so why should they be the ones that suffer.

he said it as a joke? sure.

[quirk]

Yes he did. Did you watch the speech?

[ciaranxavier]

Yes he did. Did you watch the speech?

no i didnt he doesnt really interest me. in fact i have little interest in the middle east altogether. i have no time for little family factions fighting each other to see who gets to lead the country for the next little while till some other little family faction can kick them out.

[quirk]

Well then how were you able to comment that he didn't say it as a joke? He did but in saying that I am not trying to excuse him or the Iranian regime for their awful position on homosexuals. He probably thinks they are evil or degenerate but he doesn't think they don't exist.

[ciaranxavier]

Well then how were you able to comment that he didn't say it as a joke? He did but in saying that I am not trying to excuse him or the Iranian regime for their awful position on homosexuals. He probably thinks they are evil or degenerate but he doesn't think they don't exist.

thanks for clarifying that. medias a load of **** always taking one thing and making it huge. i was watching a documentary on the underground lifestyles of homosexuals in iran because they get arrested if they are discovered. isnt that weird.

[BunyipDude]

One thing I will say about the Holocaust...have you ever noticed how frequently Holocaust deniers are censored, or even locked up, for preaching their beliefs? On the one hand, we criticize the Islamists for their intolerance of Christianity and Judaism (and rightfully so), yet there is a remarkably similar intolerance for Holocaust deniers. It's not that I believe they're right; but if they are wrong, then they should simply be ridiculed, not censored.

[Nijinsky]

One thing I will say about the Holocaust...have you ever noticed how frequently Holocaust deniers are censored, or even locked up, for preaching their beliefs? On the one hand, we criticize the Islamists for their intolerance of Christianity and Judaism (and rightfully so), yet there is a remarkably similar intolerance for Holocaust deniers. It's that I believe they're right; but if they are wrong, then they should simply be ridiculed, not censored.

Strange as it is for me to say but .... I agree with Buny:redface:

I dont believe in such censorship. If people want to deny the holocaust let them, but show them up for the assholes that they are

[Hildy]

Who has spoken out in support of him? I certainly haven't. However I still will point out lies being used against him as it is important to get to the truth. Also these lies are part of an agenda which is attempting to prepare peoples minds for an invasion of that country and that must be opposed at all costs.

Contrary to what you believe the Bush regime is much more dangerous to the people of Iran and the world. A US invasion will cause many hundreds of thousands if not more deaths just as has happened in Iraq. Has Iran invaded or even threatened to invade another country? Is it Iran that is making up lies about another country as a pretext for invasion? Has Iran supported coups such as the one the US backed in Venezuela recently? Is Iran setting out to reshape the world in its image and ensure its global dominance?

Quirk, you have some good points....all I'm saying is that I don't trust him, nor the power broker behind him which is the Khomeni! Nothing Iran has ever done in their past has shown me that they would not try to develop a nuclear weapon and use it if they wanted to. Now whether I trust them or like them is irrelevant.

However, that does not mean that I agree that the U.S. and Israel, or India and Pakistan, for that matter, should be able to have nuclear weapons either....... but you can't put the "genie back in the bottle", and Iran signed the NON PROLIFERATION TREATY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty) at a time when they were considered an "axis of evil"......in my opinion, Iran wants and needs a nuclear weapon because they feel threatened. The hypocrisy does not escape me! Iranians have as much right to protect their country as Israel does.


So now, all the apologists, can get their head out of thier a** and agree, that what is really worrisom and disturbing is this.............

if ONE group of Extremists, i.e., radical Islamic zealots for example, controls the power to use this weapon they COULD and WOULD, (whether they are in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, anywhere), based on their belief of matrydom, paradise and 42 virgins.......they do not cherish life, but rather death and the ever-after......Whereas, Israel and U.S. use their nukes as a deterrent, and do cherish life on earth........the very essence of this radical terrorism, today is based on suicide bombings where large numbers of civilians are killed!

So until the radical elements of these countries are replaced with more stable, non-radical elements, I will not trust them or condone them having nuclear weaponry!

[ciaranxavier]

One thing I will say about the Holocaust...have you ever noticed how frequently Holocaust deniers are censored, or even locked up, for preaching their beliefs? On the one hand, we criticize the Islamists for their intolerance of Christianity and Judaism (and rightfully so), yet there is a remarkably similar intolerance for Holocaust deniers. It's not that I believe they're right; but if they are wrong, then they should simply be ridiculed, not censored.

its the same reason the israelis were handed a country after WW2.

[OCoinnigh]

if ONE group of Extremists, i.e., radical Islamic zealots for example, controls the power to use this weapon they COULD and WOULD, (whether they are in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, anywhere), based on their belief of matrydom, paradise and 42 virgins.......they do not cherish life, but rather death and the ever-after......Whereas, Israel and U.S. use their nukes as a deterrent, and do cherish life on earth........the very essence of this radical terrorism, today is based on suicide bombings where large numbers of civilians are killed!

So until the radical elements of these countries are replaced with more stable, non-radical elements, I will not trust them or condone them having nuclear weaponry!

WTF, the only country in the world to nuke the sh-t out of someone was the U.S. The sad thing is the Japanese were gonna surrender anyway. The Americans just wanted to test that f-cker out. The Israelis cherish life???
WHO'S LIFE??? The Palestinians would have to disagree. Also Hildy, have you ever been to Lebanon??? The Christian community's in the south that the Israelis bombed the sh-t out of last year would disagree too. I don't want argue though. You just keep on not making any sense.

[OCoinnigh]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI

Israel

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5NfHbBZELtcl

[Takeshi]

WTF, the only country in the world to nuke the sh-t out of someone was the U.S. The said thing is the Japanese were gonna surrender anyway. The Americans just wanted to test that f-cker out. The Israelis cherish life???
WHO'S LIFE??? The Palestinians would have to disagree. Also Hildy, have you ever been to Lebanon??? The Christian community's in the south that the Israelis bombed the sh-t out of last year would disagree too. I don't want argue though. You just keep on not making any sense.

Can you provide any sources for the claim that the Japanese were willing to surrender, or that the US has stated that the sole reason for dropping the atomic bomb was to test it? I know that there were some discussions ongoing in Japan prior to the dropping of the first atomic bomb, but at that point the Japanese military were totally against the idea of surrender. The dropping of the atomic bomb was seen as a better option than an invaision which would have cost the lives of millions.

As for the Israelis cherishing life. They don't bring their children up in a death cult, encouraging them to kill themselves and murder as many innocent people in the process. There isn't any proof of the Israeli government specifically targetting noncombatants. There are instances when noncombatants have been killed, but when the terrorists are using their own people as cover to attempt to murder Israeli civilians, there is always the risk of civilian deaths.

[OCoinnigh]

Can you provide any sources for the claim that the Japanese were willing to surrender, or that the US has stated that the sole reason for dropping the atomic bomb was to test it? I know that there were some discussions ongoing in Japan prior to the dropping of the first atomic bomb, but at that point the Japanese military were totally against the idea of surrender. The dropping of the atomic bomb was seen as a better option than an invaision which would have cost the lives of millions.

As for the Israelis cherishing life. They don't bring their children up in a death cult, encouraging them to kill themselves and murder as many innocent people in the process. There isn't any proof of the Israeli government specifically targetting noncombatants. There are instances when noncombatants have been killed, but when the terrorists are using their own people as cover to attempt to murder Israeli civilians, there is always the risk of civilian deaths.

A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes or crimes against humanity and/or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

U.S. News and World Report: 68-71, 15 August 1960



Unlike the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were at least partially intended to force Japan to capitulate immediately, fire-bombing, which killed more civilians in total, was carried out as a long-term strategy to destroy Japan's ability to produce war materiel as well as to undermine the Japanese government's will to continue the war. In the context of total war, the large number of Japanese civilians killed by strategic bombing was seen as acceptable by the American administration. When reflecting on the campaign after the war, some expressed doubts about the morality of the firebombing.

Curtis LeMay later said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." He felt, however, that his bombings were saving lives by encouraging Japan to surrender earlier. LeMay also thought that if he had been allowed to continue his bombing technique, a ground invasion would have been considered unnecessary because of the tremendous damage that he inflicted. Former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoe's statement that, fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s, lends support to this view. More recently, however, historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa argued in Racing the Enemy (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2005) that the principal factor for Japan's decision to surrender was not the atomic bombs and the fire-bombings of Japanese cities, but the Soviet renunciation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact and declaration of war on Japan.

The Soul Of Battle by Victor Davis Hanson

You can't kill women and children???????????????? WTF, that is a war crime.
At least GOD keeps score.

[quirk]

Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. ... I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face". The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.
General Dwight D EisenhowerThe White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (Doubleday, NY, 1963), pp.312-3

Here also is a link to a primary document (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf), a declassified document (marked ultra secret) from the US war department who had broke the Japanese codes stating that Japan wanted to surrender. This document would have been read at the highest parts of US government yet they decided to drop the bomb anyway. The reason they dropped it was to attempt to send a message to and scare the Soviet Union.

[broche]

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm

Operation Downfall

[quirk]

Quirk, you have some good points....all I'm saying is that I don't trust him, nor the power broker behind him which is the Khomeni! Nothing Iran has ever done in their past has shown me that they would not try to develop a nuclear weapon and use it if they wanted to. Now whether I trust them or like them is irrelevant.

Well I don't trust him either or the Iranian regime. You say there is nothing to show you they wouldn't develop and use a nuclear weapon but that is really not the question you should be asking but rather is there any evidence to suggest that they would apart from the lies of the US imperialists? The answer to that question is no. Can you give any examples for instance of Iran since 1979 launching any wars against another country? Again the answer is no. I would be very interested Hildy to hear on what you base your belief that 1) they want to develop a nuclear bomb and 2) they would use it.

However, that does not mean that I agree that the U.S. and Israel, or India and Pakistan, for that matter, should be able to have nuclear weapons either....... but you can't put the "genie back in the bottle", and Iran signed the NON PROLIFERATION TREATY at a time when they were considered an "axis of evil"......in my opinion, Iran wants and needs a nuclear weapon because they feel threatened. The hypocrisy does not escape me! Iranians have as much right to protect their country as Israel does.


But these other countries you have mentioned do have nuclear weapon and although you disagree with it why are you not claiming that war should be launched against these countries while you are suggesting that it should be launched against Iran for merely inspiring (in your opinion) to have a nuclear weapon? I am sure Iran does feel threatened and rightly so but I still dont think they would want a nuclear weapon. I am sure they have learned many lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and are aware that the best way to fight against a US invasion will not be by use of conventional weapons but rather guerilla warfare. The non proliferation treaty is not adhered to by Britain, the US or Israel to name a few yet Iran is allowed to develop civilian nuclear technology under it. It is hypocritical in the extreme to use this treaty to try to attack Iran.


So now, all the apologists, can get their head out of thier a** and agree, that what is really worrisom and disturbing is this.............

if ONE group of Extremists, i.e., radical Islamic zealots for example, controls the power to use this weapon they COULD and WOULD, (whether they are in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, anywhere), based on their belief of matrydom, paradise and 42 virgins.......they do not cherish life, but rather death and the ever-after......Whereas, Israel and U.S. use their nukes as a deterrent, and do cherish life on earth........the very essence of this radical terrorism, today is based on suicide bombings where large numbers of civilians are killed!

So until the radical elements of these countries are replaced with more stable, non-radical elements, I will not trust them or condone them having nuclear weaponry!

What about the christian fundamentalists in the US. There is much more probability of them coming to power than the people you talk about in some of these other countries. While the ruling class in most of these Islamic countries struggles against the kind of fundamentalists you speak of the US ruling class embraces its own fundamentalists and indeed those fundamentalist make up a substantial section of that ruling class and have influence far beyond their size.

Truthfully the only country who has used nuclear weapons is the USA and they are the only nation I could envision using them again. I am sure you have heard that tactical nuclear strikes against Iran have already been considered in the pentagon. US imperialism is the single greatest threat to world peace and all progressive people should be opposing it rather than falling for its lies and propaganda such as that about Iran.

[BunyipDude]

Well I don't trust him either or the Iranian regime. You say there is nothing to show you they wouldn't develop and use a nuclear weapon but that is really not the question you should be asking but rather is there any evidence to suggest that they would apart from the lies of the US imperialists? The answer to that question is no. Can you give any examples for instance of Iran since 1979 launching any wars against another country? Again the answer is no. I would be very interested Hildy to hear on what you base your belief that 1) they want to develop a nuclear bomb and 2) they would use it.

Iran's counter-attack against Iraq developed into an invasion. Obviously, they did not start the Iran-Iraq War, but they were willing to send huge human attack waves which killed hundreds of thousands of young boys just to try and cross minefields. I'd hate to see something like that happen again.

They haven't launched any wars in the region recently because (A.) They're on good terms with Syria and Southern Lebanon, (B.) Iraq, their largest regional opponent, was conquered for them by us, and (C.) An attack on Israel would be too devastating. However, we do know that Iran has armed militant groups, especially the Hezzies.


What about the christian fundamentalists in the US. There is much more probability of them coming to power than the people you talk about in some of these other countries. While the ruling class in most of these Islamic countries struggles against the kind of fundamentalists you speak of the US ruling class embraces its own fundamentalists and indeed those fundamentalist make up a substantial section of that ruling class and have influence far beyond their size.

How much influence do you think fundamentalists have exactly? America is not a fundamentalist nation, and people like Jerry Falwell (when he was still alive) were usually seen as annoyances by the majority of Americans. Furthermore, these people are not necessarily the ones who have the expansionist agenda...the neo-cons (who are mostly secular, former liberals) are.


US imperialism is the single greatest threat to world peace and all progressive people should be opposing it rather than falling for its lies and propaganda such as that about Iran.

U.S. imperialism is certainly dangerous (not to mention immoral), but it is not the "single greatest" threat to world peace. Islamism is an equally large threat to world peace, and all progressive people should be opposing it just as readily as American imperialism. Its values - religious fundamentalism, contempt for democracy, persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, and anti-secular theocratic rule - are everything progressives should be against. That is why I laugh at Hugo Chavez for supporting Iran instead of the PMOI, the Islamic socialist resistance movement in Iran. I think too many progressives have a knee-jerk reaction to America's adversaries...if they oppose us, they must be good. If you truly believe the American government is "fascist", then you should be equally concerned about Islamist regimes.

[quirk]

Iran's counter-attack against Iraq developed into an invasion. Obviously, they did not start the Iran-Iraq War, but they were willing to send huge human attack waves which killed hundreds of thousands of young boys just to try and cross minefields. I'd hate to see something like that happen again.

They haven't launched any wars in the region recently because (A.) They're on good terms with Syria and Southern Lebanon, (B.) Iraq, their largest regional opponent, was conquered for them by us, and (C.) An attack on Israel would be too devastating. However, we do know that Iran has armed militant groups, especially the Hezzies.

But my point was simply that they haven't invaded any countries and with this in mind on what was Hildy basing her claim that they were a danger as it certainly was not their history.

I basically agree with your points about why this is but it is the case nonetheless. It is Ironic that the US who sought to extend their power in the middle east have actually strengthened that of Iran as a regional power by removing its two enemies the Taliban and Saddam.

How much influence do you think fundamentalists have exactly? America is not a fundamentalist nation, and people like Jerry Falwell (when he was still alive) were usually seen as annoyances by the majority of Americans. Furthermore, these people are not necessarily the ones who have the expansionist agenda...the neo-cons (who are mostly secular, former liberals) are.

But these fundamentalists do exist in the US and have access to the halls of power. They have as much power as extremists in some of the other countries which Hildy mentioned yet I just though it was a bit hypocritical to use this as a reason these countries shouldn't have such weapons while ignoring the fundamentalists within the US.

U.S. imperialism is certainly dangerous (not to mention immoral), but it is not the "single greatest" threat to world peace. Islamism is an equally large threat to world peace, and all progressive people should be opposing it just as readily as American imperialism. Its values - religious fundamentalism, contempt for democracy, persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, and anti-secular theocratic rule - are everything progressives should be against. That is why I laugh at Hugo Chavez for supporting Iran instead of the PMOI, the Islamic socialist resistance movement in Iran. I think too many progressives have a knee-jerk reaction to America's adversaries...if they oppose us, they must be good. If you truly believe the American government is "fascist", then you should be equally concerned about Islamist regimes.

I am equally concerned about the Islamic regimes throughout the world and I do oppose them fully. I do disagree with you however on Islamists being equally as dangerous as the US. This has nothing to do with intent but rather the capabilities of the US compared to such groups.