- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Friday, September 21, 2007

Iran: We'll fight with oil and nukes


Alt Tv/Fleet FM Breakfast News Comment
Iran: We'll fight with oil and nukes
Iran, responding to Western debate about the possibility of war over its nuclear plans, said yesterday that it would use any means to defend itself if attacked and could bomb Israel if the Jewish state launched a strike. Its latest swipes came despite French efforts to row back from a comment by its Foreign Minister that publicly raised the spectre of war over Tehran's disputed nuclear activities. Let’s be very clear, only a madman would agree to bombing Iran, the sheer volume of hatred that would be exploded out towards the west by furious Muslims around the planet would be too much to contain, there is no strategic value to starting a culture war other than to sell more guns and erode civil rights under the rule of martial law. Iran has every right to be suspicious of America, the CIA helped bring to power the Shar in a coup America supported in the 1950s, which was so repressive the people of Iran chose radical isalm over the American puppet regime while America simply started backing Saddam in a murderous war with the Iranians, we forget this but they don’t, and now America has 160 000 troops across the border from them, they have everytright to feel threatened which in turn can be inspiring the desire for a nuke on their behalf. Yes Iran is a repressive state with crap human rights, but so is Saudi Arabia and we love to trade with them, and no one is suggesting that we bomb Saudi Arabia for human rights. There isn’t a military solution to this, there is only a diplomatic solution because the ramifications of bombing are simply too dire to consider.

19 Comments:

At 21/9/07 7:28 am, Anonymous sdm said...

Serious question.

Can Diplomacy work without the fear of consequences? If it is all carrot and no stick, how do you ever get progress?

(Do not read this as me advocating anything)

 
At 21/9/07 7:47 am, Blogger bomber said...

...
Good question - I think you have to use consequences, I think things like the Olympics, investments, speaking rights at the UN, things that carry symbolisim and has real impact on their ability to generate wealth are the best ways to create incentives to abide by global mandates and dialogue. I'm as angry about what Iran does to homosexuals as I am about any injustice, it's just that there is no hope of being able to reslove that bigotry when American weaponry is reigning down on you for the purpose of taking your oil.

disinvestment is a very strong way of sending a signal that has effects, look at how it was used with the North Koreans and look at the resolving of tensions there.

 
At 21/9/07 8:40 am, Anonymous sdm said...

So what do you do? Threaten to impose Sanctions? Well the lessen in the 90s with Iraq was that the only people those hurt are those at the bottom.

Someone yesterday was advocating developing alternatives to oil to decrease dependancy on the middle east - great idea. See I wonder if part of the problem has been the fact that, in countries like Saudi Arabia, there is this perception amoungst the ruling elite that "the west needs us more than what we need it" and so that allows them to basically avoid international criticism because ultimately they hold the Ace. If the west has the option of differing fuel sources, and the middle east oil is only one player in the market, then perhaps "other" criteria will have to be met by those looking to sell oil.

But the alternatives would have to be viable - ie compete on price, for it to work.

As for Iran - the most interesting point hasnt been made here. On October 16 Putin is going to Tehran. The Iranians want to get Russian weapons. The Americans are shitting themselves. Its a power play by Russia, brought on largely by perceived US weakness - something that hasnt exsited since the end of the cold war.

The Russians have named their price to the americans, and its high. To quote Stratfor

"In the Caucasus, they want the United States to withdraw support for Georgia and force the Georgian government to reach an accommodation with Moscow. Given Armenian hostility to Turkey and closeness to Russia, this would allow the Russians to reclaim a sphere of influence in the Caucasus, leaving Azerbaijan as a buffer with Iran.

In Ukraine and Belarus, the Russians will expect an end to all U.S. support to nongovernmental organizations agitating for a pro-Western course.

In the Baltics, the Russians will expect the United States to curb anti-Russian sentiment and to explicitly limit the Baltics' role in NATO, excluding the presence of foreign troops, particularly Polish.

Regarding Serbia, they want an end to any discussion of an independent Kosovo.

The Russians also will want plans abandoned for an anti-ballistic-missile system that deploys missiles in Poland.

In other words, the Russians will want the United States to get out of the former Soviet Union"

Washington has a very big decision to make....we live in interesting times.

 
At 21/9/07 10:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think maybe people should just leave the whole thing alone, they are not a threat unless we make them one, people are just scared cause they think IRAN will hold the world to ransom with OIL.

WELL FUCK ME if IRAN DONT DO IT THEN AMERICA WILL GREED GREED GREED AND MORE GREED.

 
At 21/9/07 10:02 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think american need to worry about the global ecomony cause china will soon be the world super power "Look I walk away"

like the cleaning product add on tv fucken good add

 
At 21/9/07 1:36 pm, Anonymous Legio X said...

So Will Iran only use nukes if nuked?

Or will they use them if traditional weapons are used on them?

If the latter they are asking to be slammed big time by Israel and friends and damm the consequences.

If my neighbor said " no matter what you do to me I'll nuke your people" I would be going preemptive on their arse.

 
At 21/9/07 3:28 pm, Blogger IAblogger said...

The “Why Would the U.S. Attack Iran” website - http://www.whyattackiran.com/ - has been updated to represent the current government.

There is not the slightest actual evidence that the Iranian nuclear program has anything to do with creating nuclear weapons [1] and even if it did have a weapons program it would pose no threat to the United States [2]. Nevertheless, the United States has been constantly and deliberately misrepresenting these realities [3] in order to create the false impression that there is some valid reason for us to attack Iran.

So why is the political leadership of the United States falsifying evidence to justify a war against Iran, a war that would make the current war in Iraq look like a cakewalk [4]?

“… it's the threat against Israel,”[5]

Although the vast majority of Americans are opposed to a U.S. attack on Iran [6] – a fact that has been a problem for many leaders of the Israel Lobby [7] – roughly 71% of Israelis actively support the idea of the U.S. attacking Iran [8]. The “Why Would the U.S. Attack Iran?” website - http://www.whyattackiran.com/ - shows this in detail, illustrating the current leadership (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, Speaker of the House, House Majority Leader, and House Minority Leader) standing before AIPAC [9] declaring their willingness to go to war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Further, recent news stories – primarily from pro-Israel sources – are listed on the left side of the site clearly illustrating the issue. There is no mystery or conspiracy about the fact that the pro-Israel lobby is leading the charge for war on Iran, it is all quite out in the open and freely admitted.

To learn more about the push for war against Iran and why, please visit the “Why Would the U.S. Attack Iran?” website at: http://www.whyattackiran.com/ If you find it useful, please be sure to pass it along to others.



Notes:

[1] Mark Heinrich, "Western talk of Iran war premature 'hype': IAEA head," Reuters, 17 September 2007, http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-09-17T151816Z_01_L17903337_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-IAEA-COL.XML

[2] Robert Burns, "Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran," Associated Press, 17 September 2007, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_go_ot/abizaid_iran;_ylt=AoPcm9.sCbgOW.nDG7s0XqQDW7oF

[3] BBC Staff, "US Iran report branded dishonest," BBC News, 14 September 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm

[4] Paul Rogers, "Iran: Consequences of a War," Oxford Research Group, February 2006,
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/iranconsequences.php

[5] Quote given in context of Iraq, not Iran, but holds true in both cases. Philip Zelikow, former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and executive director of the 9/11 Commission. Statement made at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002 http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

[6] For a collection of recent polls, see: PollingReport.Com http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

[7] James D. Besser, "Jewish Leaders Caught In Iran Bind," The Jewish Week, 31 August 2007, http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14460

[8] Aluf Benn, "Poll: 71% of Israelis want the U.S. to strike Iran if talks fail," Ha'aretz, 18 May 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860903.html

[9] AIPAC, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, http://www.aipac.org/

 
At 21/9/07 5:05 pm, Anonymous lol said...

Yeah its all the fault of those damn joos...

 
At 21/9/07 6:09 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...the sheer volume of hatred that would be exploded out towards the west by furious Muslims around the planet would be too much to contain"

yeah whatever. All these anti-war middle east experts have continually trotted out this line about the rage of the arab for the past 4 years but events have proved there full of shit.

And if you haven't noticed there is a distinct difference between Iran and Saudi. One sees itself as a revolutionary force and wants to arm itself with nuclear weapons while the other simply wants to maintain the fat cashflow from its oil. So which is more dangerous?

J

 
At 22/9/07 10:41 am, Blogger Omar Cruz said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 23/9/07 10:01 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you want to free the world a lunatic Assassinate Bush.

Muslims extremists are just as fucked up, it is a sick religion, sick practices which be should destroyed.

Hated By Most

 
At 23/9/07 6:52 pm, Anonymous nznative said...

you should learn your history inadequate j .

Perhaps you could tell us what the good ol usa has done to iran and its people over the past 30 odd years.

.......... and then tell us what iran has done against the usa.

That should show you just which country is the 'agressor'.

But as you still seem to support the abortion of a 'mission accomplished' it seems your a real s...l....o.....w learner

 
At 23/9/07 10:58 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL
Why don't you actually use the internet to find out some facts. I have noticed in your posts that even if someone spoon feeds you known facts you merely ignore them and regress into hysteric anti semitic cant. It's actually quite easy to find out the terrorist attacks that Iran has perpetrated but it is somehow beyond you to use google.

It is utterly pointless to engage in any kind of dialog because you simply cannot comprehend rational argument. Anyone who views your posts would agree to you are nothing but a moron and that you add nothing to this board. You can't even string together a proper sentence. However I'm beginning to suspect that you're nothing but a sick joke who isn't meant to be taken seriously, could anyone really be so stupid? And if so why you they place it on public display.

 
At 23/9/07 11:40 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm afraid my google only finds allegations (of misconduct by Iran) coming out of pro-Bush think tanks in the U.S.
Perhaps you would like to post some real evidence for us sick people?

 
At 23/9/07 11:53 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, you you also like me to hold you dick while you take a piss. On second thought I retract that offer.

J

 
At 24/9/07 8:34 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adrian Hamilton: The eerie familiarity of these preparations for war
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/adrian_hamilton/article2979860.ece

 
At 24/9/07 1:58 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Feeling I'm Being Had
Dilbert.Blog

By Scott Adams

I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom of speech.

I hate Ahmadinejad for all the same reasons you do. For one thing, he said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Scholars tell us the correct translation is more along the lines of wanting a change in Israel's government toward something more democratic, with less gerrymandering. What an ass-muncher!

Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." Fuck him! A myth is something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and act accordingly. It's not as if the world created a whole new country because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it does. That's Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me.

Most insulting is the fact that "myth" implies the holocaust didn't happen. Fuck him for saying that! He also says he won't dispute the historical claims of European scientists. That is obviously the opposite of saying the holocaust didn't happen, which I assume is his way of confusing me. God-damned fucker.

Furthermore, why does an Iranian guy give a speech in his own language except for using the English word "myth"? Aren't there any Iranian words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present? He's just
being an asshole.

Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do
not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of bullshit. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the launch codes for nuclear weapons.

The worst of the worst is that Ahmadinejad's country is helping the Iraqis kill American soldiers. If Iran ever invades Canada, I think we'd agree the best course of action for the United States is to be constructive and let things sort themselves out. Otherwise we'd be just as evil as the Iranians. Those fuckers.

Those Iranians need to learn from the American example. In this country, if the clear majority of the public opposes the continuation of a war, our
leaders will tell us we're terrorist-humping idiots and do whatever they damn well please. They might even increase our taxes to do it. That's called leadership.

If Ahmadinejad thinks he can be our friend by honoring our heroes and opening a dialog, he underestimates our ability to misinterpret him. Fucking idiot. I hate him.

September 22, 2007

 
At 24/9/07 8:38 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

J

Still using my own hand to piss and waiting for those links.

 
At 26/9/07 5:22 pm, Blogger karlos said...

Fucking war-mongering americans and israelis.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home