No, Russia and especially China would be very content to see us waste another few trillion for nothing. The neo-cons are hastening the end of the American Century-- and surprising the end of the Jewish privileged state in Israel/Palestine.
the media is not pushing this war they are pushing facts. israel is sabre rattling, they are just reporting it. Obama won't be duped THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH IRAQ. WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN AN ALLY THE OKAY FOR A STRIKE BASED ON INNUENDO BECAUSE WE DID THE SAME THING, HOW CAN WE TELL THEM NO
This post is ridiculous on so many levels, go play with your chickenhawks in your party dude and don't worry about Obama and what his willpower is to resist. you go help your party with their will, we got this homeboy. we good
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, we might be leading a UN supported, mulitlateral, NATO, Arab League, and Israeli coalition into Iran. Instead, we have our traditional allies not wanting to join us, and the arab states avoiding us.
really dude you need to stop going to the greenwald card as truth. Iran has threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz
He said, she said. I am sure it is an election year in Israel and the ruling party needs to ramp up its national defense image. We've heard this spiel before, circa 2005 when Iran first announced the oil bourse. Now we are hearing it again as Iran and China dispute the price of Euro priced oil, obviously stemming from the European Union financial crisis and the Greek bailout. I have seen news reports attempting to turn the dispute into a dispute over Iran's nuclear policy. Since Iran became a country, after overthrowing the Shah, they have been invaded by their neighbor, had sanctions imposed by the US, have had the US invade their neighbors to the east and west, and have been threatened to be bombed by Israel. I can't for the life of me understand why they are acting so agressive to all those actions.
lastly the real threat they pose is to block off oil supply. if we build the Keystone XL pipeline we won't have to worry as much about crap like that.
I don't think Israel will attack Iran without full US support. The Israeli Jericho missile effectiveness is likely to be reduced due to the distance it would need to travel (limits the warhead) . Plus any jetfighters used in the campaign would also have to fly a very long distance needing extra fuel tanks. The US has bases in almost every country surrounding Iran, they are in a way better strategic attacking position, especially to tackle the underground facilities. IMO Iran has really exaggerated its abilities to respond to an attack. Its funny that everyone thinks its Iran that will probably act irrationally, but based on news reports it seems like its going to be the other way around. This hysteria of Iran being a threat "to the world" and may "target New York" or Israel is just hogwash nutty crazy talk. I don't think the Iranians are willing to be sent back to the stone age, if they were to do something they'd have all of the Western world dropping bombs. I say give Saudi and Iran a couple WMD..... call it even.
I truly don't know what I would do glynch. I will probably still vote for him for the same reasons you mention. But I probably won't campaign.
no. its. not. preemtive war is wrong. 100% wrong. totally. period. you dont go around attacking countries b/c you think at some point in the future they may be a threat and might attack you. thats 100% wrong. totally. insane. immoral. dangerous.
The way oil markets have reacted so far, few influential people in the anti-Iran crowd believe that the Iranians are capable of closing the strait for long. NPR:
And once again I cite British history. Why did they fight in Europe against Napoleon? Why did the United States fight in Korea, and why did they protect Western Europe and Japan when they were utterly devastated in the aftermath of the Second World War? Like I said, it's not a doctrine to be used irrationally or hastily. It's one that has to be used carefully, and we failed to do so with Iraq. But to go the opposite extreme that the United States only, and only when it has been directly attacked is just the opposite extreme. Can you imagine what the world would have been like if the United States would have followed such an inane rule and refused to intervene anywhere during the 20th century?
That still doesn't make it ok. Other than being directly attacked, there are pretty much only a couple of more relevant possibilities: - Foreign interests attacked. - Foreign ownership attacked. In those cases where attacks take place towards US foreign policy interests or assets, those are attacks on the international community rather than an attack on the United States because they threaten the expansion of countries outside their territories. Global terrorism is a problem for everyone, and it threatens everyone's foreign interests and assets. The volume of such attacks against the US being so high (if that's true) has absolutely no bearing on whether any country can on its own make a rational decision about tackling global terrorism in a way that is best for all, and not detrimental to other innocent parties. In fact, the US frustration should be with those organizations which should theoretically be responsible for dealing with these alleged overzealous attacks. Had there been in existance a neutral Nato-like force, they would theoretically be responsible for not only rectifying situations which deal with such global terrorism, but also with disciplining the US for threatning regional stability far away from its territory by taking matters into its own biased hands. Yes I understand this is an idealistic scenario, but I'm just using it to clarify the role the US is playing in these conflicts. It's playing the role of self-appointed chief mediator, or self-certified self-defender, knowing full well that it is biased, and that there still exists a tremendous amount of (not only American) bias in the United Nations, WTO, IMF, NATO, etc, mostly in its favor. Furthermore, you are completely ignoring the possibility that the US is intentionally or unintentionally the root of at least some attacks that take place against its interests or assets, therefore there is a 3rd possibile solution: re-adjust behavior abroad (which would incidentally be devastating to profitability abroad). The problem you imagine, that of irrational crazy whole countries willing to destroy America, is a mythical one, and a mythical one which many countries use against America, and unfortunately one that the American media abuses Americans with. It's precisely because most lenses in the world are biased towards American interests or assets that many feel these attacks on American interests or assets are out of the blue or just due to craziness, but no one (in the world) is willing to admit that their own media will make them look better than they do during the act of murdering people in war.
I'd like to clarify this, as I frankly don't get what you mean by the second one. And I would say instead of "foreign interests,", it's the possibilities of "OUR interests on foreign soil that are attacked that I am referring to. The thing about it is that you believe that the US has some sort of responsibility to an imaginary "community of nations" when it makes decisions across the world. I don't. The US has responsibility only to itself, and to do what is best for itself. Not to mention, if global terrorism really is a problem for everyone's foreign materials and interests, then why has nearly everyone done nothing serious to tackle it? Of course, the same applies for every nation-state across the world, as they will attempt to work in their own selfish interests. That is the nature of this world, and I would argue that any leader whom is more loyal to the people of other countries as opposed to his own is a fool at best. As I have observed, I am perfectly capable of understanding why Iran wants nukes and that they have pretty good reasons for doing so, and that they won't actually nuke the US if they go them. Doesn't matter. Iran having nukes is not in American interests for a myriad of reasons, and so while I don't support invading Iran, I do support all sorts of things to keep the pressure on it. I never said "destroy America", and I've acknowledged here that Iran getting nukes is not a direct threat to the United States in and of itself, which is largely I do not support an invasion. But the idea that there are countries across the globe which seek a major reduction in American power and influence across the globe so they can substitute with their own? That's more than rational. It would be irrational if the other countries DIDN'T do it. And that's the problem.
Glen Greenwald is much closer to the truth than Fox of the mainstream media which basically acts like a press secretary for whoever is president..
Interesting graphic as to why Iran might feel threatened...each star on the map represents the location of a US military base.
