The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb

[Squatch]

Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

<snip>

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

<snip>

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Link

[endarkenment]

1. Fear terra terra must nuke Iran now.

Thanks for playing their tunes for them.

[400Years]

2. where's the "frightening" part?

[Squatch]

3. Ask the country of Israel.

[countryjake]

8. Ask them what? Why they feel it's necessary to have "the bomb"?

Same reasons might apply to both nations, wouldn't you say?

[liberalhistorian]

9. Why should we fight Israel's battles

for it? The Israeli lobby pushed for the invasion of Iraq and now they're pushing for us to destroy ourselves by attacking Iran, which is total, pure craziness. I, for one, resent that. I will not have my son fighting Israel's battles for it.

[FormerRepublican]

21. Israel has actually said they want the Iran thing handled diplomatically.

They have talked about contingency plans, however, where THEY would attempt to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities.

In the run up to Iraq, they said more than once that they didn't want Iraq invaded because it would destabilize the region.

I'm not sure Israel is behind the Bush war mongering, despite the wacko far right extremist PNACers. Any respectable Israeli would condemn what the whacks have done. They elected moderates this time around, didn't they?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

43. Right. Israel is always truthful, aren't they?

[liberalhistorian]

65. Yep. And

always right, pure and holy no matter what, too.

[leveymg]

59. That's called a hedge. If Israel were against it, they wouldn't have

proceeded to try (quite successfully) to prod the Bush Admin. into an aggressive policy vis-a-vis Iraq and Iran.

If they really were against the neocon policies, they would have helped the FBI shut down the espionage ring being run out of AIPAC. But, they didn't do that, did they?

The Israeli Right-wing is guilty as sin on this one. Don't BS yourself.

[converted_democrat]

22. I agree with you.. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

46. Because evil Christians have fashioned the world such that...

... there's only ONE place on the planet that's DESIGNATED to be safe and welcoming of Jewish people. That's worth fostering, imo.

Can we do all sorts of things better en route to that goal? Of course. Does the Israeli lobby need to be reined in in America? No argument.

But don't for a second let that distract you from the fact that the goal is a completely worthy one.

My $.02.


EDIT: And I'm not even remotely close to being Jewish, if anyone is inclined to wonder.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Israel does NOT want us to hit Iran. They know they'll be sucked

in if we do. They had no problem with us taking out Saddam because they knew he was toothless.

Iran will not do a first strike against Israel with nukes, because Jerusalem is the 3rd holiest city in Islam. A pilgrimage to a radioactive slagheap doesn't quite have the sense of fulfillment that a pilgrim looks for.

If we bomb Iran, it's because PNAC says so.

[converted_democrat]

57. I don't know whose idea it was originally, but I do know that Israel was

on board when Sharon was alive.. The attacks were supposed to happen in the beginning of March.. Sharon went and had that stoke, and the plans got backed up.. I don't know if it was the PNAC'ers that originated the plan, or if it was Sharon, but they had plans to strike in the beginning March.. The only reason it didn't occur was because of Sharon's stroke.. I knew about in the beginning of October of last year..


edited for clarity- (When I say "on board" I'm talking about the plan to strike Iran..)

[converted_democrat]

69. And BTW..

By "alive" I mean, cognizant and aware.. I know he isn't "dead", but there isn't anything left but his body.. What I'm getting at is I know he isn't technically dead, but there isn't anything left but a shell..

[liberalhistorian]

68. Of course they had no problem with

us taking out Saddam. Because we were doing their fighting for them. And now they want us to do the same thing in Iran. No fucking thank you.

And PNAC is greatly influenced by the far-right Israeli lobbyists. Not the Labor party or Sharon's new moderate party or the majority of those in Israel who don't agree with Likud. Unfortunately, they don't appear to have much influence with PNAC.

[cali]

54. Oh please,

bushco's adventures are not because he's being manipulated by Israel. It's because he has the meglomaniacal idea that he can remake the Middle East into a compliant pro western entity. It's hyperbole of the silliest sort to make remarks like; "I, for one, resent that. I will not have my son fighting Israel's battles for it." Put the blame for the Iraq war squarely where it belongs: on bushco and the members of Congress who gave him the IWR.

[Emit]

70. Not manipulated by, but perhaps alligned with

This is an interesting report that shows the Bush doctrine as closely alligned with Israel’s right-wing. This paper provides a detailed perspective when examining PNAC and US Foreign Policy, as well as the other groups and people involved. What initially interested me was the Figure 1 on page 11. (I can't get the Figure 1 to copy, so try the link.) It is a simple, yet adequate example illustrating the influences of our current foreign policy.

U.S. Policy Towards Iraq: Unraveling the Web
Laurence A. Toenjes

Executive Summary

When the United States began transporting troops to the Persian Gulf in the fall of 2002 it was evident that the war against Iraq was underway. This paper was begun in an attempt to answer the question: How did the war against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda become the war to depose Saddam Hussein?

The effort to understand this change in U.S. policy led to a picture of a relatively small group of persons associated with certain think tanks and other organizations achieving disproportionate influence over the policy formulation process. The activities of fourteen organizations were coordinated by individuals who comprised a web of interlocking memberships...

~snip~

The main contribution of this paper is the attempt to quantify the inter-linked nature of the 14 organizations by cross-tabulating individuals with memberships in two or more of them. Examples: Richard Perle was associated with 10 of the 14, Jeane Kirkpatrick with 7, James Woolsey with 6, John Bolton with 4. Altogether 223 links were found between the 14 groups, where a link is defined as the association of a single individual with two organizations. Although over 650 individuals associated with the 14 organizations included in the study were analyzed, just 9 individuals formed 121 of the inter-group links, accounting for over half of the total. This concentration of the inter-group linkages suggests that a small number of individuals could effectively influence and coordinate the foreign policy impact of these organizations.

~snip~

Attention in this section will be restricted largely to the five identified formally as comprising the largest clique within the total network. However, the other non-clique members linked to JINSA also will be discussed, as they, together with JINSA, bring into play an element not otherwise considered, but generally thought to be a significant part of the development of U.S. policy towards the Middle East in general, namely the Israeli connection. Descriptions of the organizations linked to JINSA will help in understanding the Israeli connection.

~snip~

In his book Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics Michael Lind summarizes the foreign policy of the second Bush administration in a single sentence:

“The three pillars of the Wolfowitz-Bush Doctrine were American unilateralism, pre-emptive war, and the alignment of American foreign policy with that of Israel’s right-wing leader Ariel Sharon.”

All three of these elements are clearly contained in, in fact are central to, the interconnected web of relationships among the various organizations shown in Figure 1 above. What Lind terms “the Wolfowitz-Bush Doctrine” is explicitly spelled out in the PNAC publication Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, and later substantially incorporated into the Bush administration’s “National Security Strategy” published in the fall of 2002. The CLI was established in the fall of 2002 for the express purpose of helping to sell the pre-emptive war against Iraq at a time when U.S. public opinion for unilateral action was flagging.

PDF:
http://www.opednews.com/toenjes_IraqPolicyWeb_withTables_July19.doc

[Tesha]

10. The guys with (estimated) *200* nukes? (NT)

[Clark2008]

11. I did - they told me they already had enough fire power to

scare all their neighbors.

Why can't Israel be scared, but it's OK for Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan to live in fear?

[liberalhistorian]

18. Shhhhh! You don't want

to be smeared with the "anti-semitism" label, now, do you?

[Squatch]

24. Has Israel called for Iran to be wiped from this earth?

Speaker
Background
Statement

Iranian Leader Khamenai
(2 October 2000, Radio Tehran)
“In principle, Israel has a plundering character. Real peace can only be implemented if no side has imperialistic desires and only the real owners of Palestine will rule it, Jews, Moslems or Christians. The recent events have proven that this regime (Israel) conquered the territories by a campaign of murders…. A regime based on force might last a certain period, but it will fail in the end… the Palestinians struggle and the Moslems' support for them will bring us to good results and will eliminate the enemy.”

(22 October 2000, Khabar TV )
“The countdown for the Zionist regime has begun.”

In a meeting with Syrian Premier, upon his visit to Tehran (23 November 2000, Iranian TV in Persian )
“Certainly the region will witness the day when the Zionist regime will cease to exist … the new Intifada of the Palestinian people will not stop despite all the oppressive steps … and just as many events that seemed impossible occurred, the establishment of a Palestinian State and the destruction of Israel will certainly occur.”

In a Friday sermon, (15 December 2000, Iranian TV )
“This is another reason for saving Palestine and destroying the Zionist government. For this reason, Iran and all those supporting freedom view the struggle with Israel as a means for securing the interests of the Moslem states… Iran's position which was first expressed by the Imam and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region. The formula for solving this problem is simple and very humane – that Palestine's inhabitants, not the inhabitants who immigrated to Palestine, return to their land from the refugee camps and from wherever they are and will decide for themselves what the nature of the regime will be. Of course it is natural that no Palestinian, nor Moslem (most of whom are such), as well as the minority – Christians and Jews – will accept the fact that there will be those from London or Moscow or the US who arrive in their country and set up a regime and rule them. The truth is that no Zionist regime at any time will be able to survive on Palestine's soil .”

In a meeting with the organizers of the International Conference for Support of the Intifada (15 January 2001, Iranian TV )
“The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region . Palestine is Islamic land that was conquered by an anti-Islamic enemy, and according to Islam, one must oppose the Zionist regime. The support for the Palestinians is a religious decree.”

In a meeting with the heads of the Palestinian opposition organizations (26 April 2001, Iranian TV in Persian )
“One must not think that the elimination and destruction of the Zionist regime , despite the powers' support and their advanced arms, is an impossibility .”


In a Friday sermon

(7 December 2001 Iranian TV in Persian )
“The Islamic world must stop being lax and use all its available means to protect Palestine… the Zionist regime is immersed so deep in mud, that it does not know what to do! It is clear that exploitation, lies and murder will not have a good end. These things were destined to take place, and the Zionist regime still faces difficult days … by the participation of the Palestinian youths in the struggle against the occupiers, the Intifada's flames of honor and fire will climb higher, and when sooner or later the occupiers of Palestine are destroyed , this piece of land will be governed by the Palestinians.”


In the Protection of Palestinians Conference, (31 Dec 2001, Khabar TV )
“The present generation will witness the liberation of Palestine… many of the problems of the Islamic World result from the presence of the cancerous tumor in the body of the Islamic World – the Zionist Regime… any compromise on the Palestinian subject would be in complete opposition to Iranian national interests, and our present prestige, honor and national interests are based on our steadfastness vis-a-vis this cancerous tumor.”


In a Friday sermon (5 April 2002, Khabar TV )
Support for suicide bombings and the weakening of Israel – Khamenai praised the behavior of the Palestinian mother who sends her child on a suicide mission and Arafat's statement that he wants to become a Shahid, and he expressed hope that he will stand by his commitment. He emphasized that in light of the Palestinian opposition and by the “march on the road of the Shahids, Israel is slowly disappearing”. By this method, the Palestinians caused an increase in the emigration rate from Israel (“the cancerous growth”) amongst the immigrants, and stopped further immigration to it.

Iranian President Khatemi
In a conference on the subject of the Koran in Iran,

(24 October 2000, Khabar TV )
“In the Koran God commanded to kill the wicked and those who do not see the rights of the oppressed and murder them, and today we must all hear the sound of the cries of our oppressed brethren in Palestine and mobilize to protect them… refraining from making an effort to save the Palestinian people will be a mark on the foreheads of those who not only did not make an effort, but even helped and help the enemies of Islam. If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic World for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime… if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill.”

In an interview during a visit to Japan
(1 November 2000, ISNA )
“We do not recognize Israel, since its existence is based on the conquest of Palestine lands and the imposition of its policy on all the area's inhabitants. We believe that all of Palestine's inhabitants – Moslems, Christians and Jews together can decide democratically on the sovereign framework under which they wish to co-exist.”

A letter from Khatemi read out to the participants of a conference under Iranian Foreign Ministry auspices, (19 November 2000, Iranian TV in Persian )
“The Zionist regime is an undesirable entity in the Middle East, its leaders are imperialists that adopt methods of mass massacre and are attempting to impose artificial peace by force…more than a hundred years have elapsed since the racist idea of establishing the Zionist regime was first raised, following which a violent and criminal regime was established in Palestine … it is hoped that it will be possible despite all difficulties to solve the current crisis in the Middle East and bring about a just peace.”

Near the time of his meeting with Syrian Prime Minister in Tehran, (22 November 2000, Khabar TV )
“The Zionist regime continues its illegal existence with the support of the great powers , and it is now clear that the joint position of Iran and Syria against the Zionist regime was the correct one. The Zionist regime defies any logic.”

In the “Palestine Conference”

(24 April 2001, IRNA )
“One must listen to the voice of Jerusalem and stand firm vis-a-vis a policy which has turned this holy channel into its altar of racism and violence …how did the ancient co-existence between Moslems, Christians and Jews turn into an altar of racism and intolerance of Zionism … the dangerous phenomenon of Zionism is what is behind the military clashes and the current political conflicts… Zionism has turned the holy religion of Moses into a game of its Satanic desires … the Zionist establishment is based on self-glorification and on trampling on the rights of others, and the same erroneous basis has created a state which is the most despotic ever in history in its violence and brutality, in trampling on the most basic of human rights… the exploits of valor of the Intifada are a pillar of hope for the people's faith and bravery, and for removing the rule of force and violence … whoever wants the spreading of liberty, justice and defense of human rights and honor… cannot but support the Intifada. ….the Islamic Revolution in Iran, from its very outset until the various phases of its victory and consolidation, espoused the slogan – ‘today Iran – tomorrow Palestine' – this is the perpetual cry of our holy martyrs (Shahids)… the exploits of valor in south Lebanon and in Intifada II have disproved the myth that the Zionist regime is invincible, and have opened a clear future of struggle and victory for the Palestinian people.”


In a speech on the occasion of Iranian Armed Forces Day (18 April 2002, IRNA )
Khatemi called the Islamic states to unite “in order to topple the Zionist Regime” – not necessarily by military means (“without firing a single bullet” – so as to reinstate the rights of the Palestinians).

Head of the Expediency Council and Former President, Rafsanjani
In a Friday sermon, (14 December 2000, Khabar TV )
“ The Jews should expect a ‘reverse exodus', because one day, the tumor will be removed from the body of the Islamic World, and then millions of Jews who moved there will become homeless again . And when will that be? We shall have to discuss it another time”… “If one day, a very important day, of course, the Islamic World will also be equipped with the weapons available to Israel now, the imperialist strategy will reach an impasse, because the employment of even one atomic bomb inside Israel will wipe it off the face of the earth, but would only do damage to the Islamic World . It is not unreasonable to consider this possibility… the people who have no choice but to sacrifice themselves will not be intimidated by the violence. After all, they have nothing to lose. How can a man lose something when he believes that by blowing himself up, one moment he is in the material world and in another moment he is in a divine heaven, borne by the wings of God's angels . And when he comes there, he shall sit by the Prophet and God's offspring, in a welcoming ceremony honoring the Shahids.”

Iranian Foreign Minister, Kharazi
An interview during a visit in Lebanon

(21 March 2001, Al Safir )
“The Lebanese people suffered a great deal from the Israeli occupation and we in Iran have stood by this people, and by the Islamic resistance in the battle for liberation of the land, and we shall also stand by its side until the full liberation and the defeat of Israel . The Iranian-Syrian-Lebanese cooperation, which led to the IDF withdrawal from south Lebanon, will also lead to the liberation of Palestine.”

Deputy Foreign Minister

Mohammad Sadr
In an open conference held in the Interior Ministry in Tehran by the Iranian party umbrella organization

(7 May 2002, IRNA )
Apparently in response to claims that Iran's position on this subject does not serve its national interests, the deputy foreign minister claimed that the support for the Palestinians is effectively preserving the national interest, and therefore it heads the order of priorities. This, since the Palestinians are fighting Iran's enemies, Israel and the US, and as long as the Intifada continues, it means that the “enemy is busy” and cannot find time to attack Iraq, and possibly Iran afterwards. Thus, Iran will support the Palestinians and the Intifada as long as this position does not in any way threaten its interests and security. The chairman of the Majlis Foreign and Defence Committee, Miradmadi, stated that although Iran believes that “Israel must not continue to exist” in the new circumstances which have developed “it must consider and see to what extent this slogan can be implemented. He said that if most of the Palestinian people agreed to some sort of solution to the conflict, the slogan of Israel's destruction will no longer serve the Iranian interest and in such a case, Iran “will not be able to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians”.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Asafi
(19 December 2000, Radio Tehran )
“The entire Palestinian people has entered the arena of struggle with the Zionist regime and wants realization of all its rights, including the right to determine its fate and the right of return. The return to the negotiating table ignores the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. The only way to restore calm to the region is the destruction of the root of the crisis and implementation of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”

Presidential Advisor and Head of the International Conference in Support of the Intifada, Muhtashemi Pur
In a conference on the subject of Jerusalem in Lebanon

(29 January 2001, Radio Tehran )
“The Moslem nations must support the Palestinian people by supplying arms and funds and fulfilling its Jihad needs ...”


(29 January 2001, Radio Tehran )
“The Zionist entity is a dangerous cancerous tumor in the Islamic and Arab body and by means of its tentacles, it threatens world and human peace, therefore it must be uprooted.”

[Clark2008]

56. Well, you have to admit, they haven't exactly been welcoming

neighbors.

Unless you think rounding up Palestinians, killing them, putting the living ones in refugee camps, refusing to give them land, allow them livlihoods or give them any liberties is just their idea of Welcome Wagon.

I'm not saying either side is blameless - in fact, I'm saying both sides have blood on their hands and what's good for one should be good for the other.

[liberalhistorian]

58. Exactly,

what she said! They uprooted and drove out Palestinians in order to make room for themselves. That's not exactly something to endear you to your neighbors.

[Phx_Dem]

84. your post is not the least bit accurate nt

[liberalhistorian]

87. Like hell. Try reading some

non-biased history.

[Phx_Dem]

88. OK, like what?

[Clark2008]

52. LOL - that would be funny since the love of my life is Jewish

And - while we're on it, my ex husband is Arabic, which is also Semitic and my son by that union is half Arabic (half-Semitic).

I roll over laughing and bust a gut when I get called anti-Semitic. It's funny.

:hi:

[Phx_Dem]

86. live in fear of what exactly? nt

[LSK]

15. you mean that country with over 25 nukes??

Wheres the frightening part again?

[liberalhistorian]

20. Well, my friend, that works both ways.

Maybe Iran is afraid of the ACTUAL NUCLEAR weapons that Israel has, espcially since it's years away from actually developing a real one itself. But I guess that doesn't count, does it, since they're just Arabs?

[Squatch]

26. Don't call me "friend" when you are insinuating

racism on my part.

"But I guess that doesn't count, does it, since they're just Arabs?"

[Terran1212]

64. I wish Israel could explain why it has the Bomb

[nebula]

4. Iran takes a look at what happened to IRAQ

and realizes that if they do disarm like Iraq had done, then Bush WILL invade for sure.

Having the bomb is the only deterrent/defense against US invasion.

Disarming is a sure fire way to get attacked.

[liberalhistorian]

5. Oh, please! This is just

more MSM repuke spin-machine fear-mongering, just like with Iraq. Iran is at least ten years away from actually developing even ONE nuclear bomb. At least TEN YEARS. There is NO cause for alarm right now, none. And Iran is not Iraq. Iraq had a weak military, a weak infrastructure, and posed no threat militarily once they were attacked. But Iran is an entirely different story, much stronger militarily.

Meanwhile, not being content to destroy one ME country and get us into a horrendous quagmire that's become a deathtrap, Dim Son is once again rattling the sabers threatening strikes against Iran. Such an action will have indescribably horrendous consequences for us, the ME, and the world. It's crazy to even think about considering it. But not to him. He wants his legacy to be, as he's put it, "saving Iran." He believes that a strike against Iran would give the population the courage to "rise up and overthrow their government" and that we'd be greeted as "heroes." Stop me if you've heard all this shit before. The same shit that's so far cost the lives of over two thousands American soldiers, and god knows how many Iraqi civilians.

[Squatch]

14. Why build when you can buy?

MOSCOW -- On April 3 the Russian journal Novaia Gazeta reported that 250 nuclear warheads with a total yield of 20 megatons were not returned by Ukraine to Russia.

Novaia Gazeta suggested the warheads could have been sold to a third country, possibly Iran.

The 200-kiloton warheads were due to be returned to Russia in 1992 after Ukraine declared itself a nuclear-free zone following a payment by Moscow to Kiev of approximately $500 million. The missing warheads were inventoried on papers Ukraine submitted to Moscow that were officially accepted by Russia.

Link

[LSK]

19. wasnt Russia and Ukraine bickering about Natural Gas lines?

:shrug:

[Sinti]

60. We could just bomb every country the Ukraine had contact with

until we find the one with the bomb. Kind of like playing Minesweeper.

Why is the irony of nuking someone because they might have or want to have nukes not appreciated at all?

[liberalhistorian]

62. Because it's against Arabs and ME

countries and, apparently, it's perfectly acceptable against "those" people. Never mind that Israel has nuclear weapons and that might not make its neighboring countries feel too safe.

[Lexingtonian]

6. thanks for buying into the distraction

But if you actually read the cards held and on the table, these are all machinations and ploys by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the Iranian leadership whose true object and stake is American loss of control and defeat in Iraq.

[pointblank]

7. See

Its this kind of shit that scares me.

Over the past 3 years, I have heard countless dems/libs/anti-shrubbers say that it should have been IRAN or NORTH KOREA and not Iraq that we invaded. I must admit, I fell into that category.

Now that we are knee deep in the clusterfuck that is Iraq, I do feel that countries that have always historically hated us, like Iran, ARE seeing somewhat of an opportunity to try and de-stabalize us...and in many ways after the crimes we have committed...rightfully so.

However now that our "global street cred", if you will, is shit, we are in a really bad place.

let's be realistic. Do I think that Bush is a nutjob...HELL YEA...I can't fucking stand him....but if Clinton were president right now, and 9/11 HAD happened (assuming it wasn't LIHOP or even worse MIHOP)and we were NOT in Iraq right now...I believe that Clinton would be talking tough on Iran too.

Any thoughts?

[liberalhistorian]

16. He'd be talking tough, but he wouldn't be

crazy enough to consider a nuclear strike, which would be total madness. According to some in the WH in the know, they are attempting to provoke Iran into an action against us which will then justify our attacking them. Pretty fucking crazy. And Dim Son has this thing about starting Armageddon, which will bring on the Rapture. Maybe he really is the anti-Christ.

[pointblank]

25. OK

Good point. But the question I have is ...What do we do about it?

On one hand we have a crazy fuck as our leader who is trying to provoke a war, and on the other we probably really DO have at least a seni-real enemy in Iran...now many heere will disagree with that statement that Iran is our enemy, but I believe, and believe justifiably so, that they truly DO hate us and want to see us go down.

Now, I love my country and I love my way of life and I DO see that the reason that Iran, and most of the middle east for that matter, hates us is by our own doing...but I choose to look forward and am a realist. Would I like to see us get the hell out and stop relying on their oil...sure, but it aint gonna happen overnight and we need to deal with the problem at hand...and that is that we have a few hundred million enemies who hate us over there and borders that are so porous that Osama Bin Laden could probably walk right through.

Scary shit, we're damned if we do we're damned if we don't. Its mind boggling.

[liberalhistorian]

31. I don't doubt that Iran hates us

and not only for reasons entirely of our own doing, either. But I don't think it has anywhere near the power it wants the world and us to think it does and that hysterical people here are claiming it does. It's putting on a good show, but it's really just that, a show.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. "they are attempting to provoke Iran into an action against us..."

"..which will then justify our attacking them"

Maybe, but somehow I think it's the exact opposite -- Iran is trying to goad the US into attacking them with no good basis, hence isolating it further from the rest of the world.

[Swamp Rat]

83. Exactamundo Fonzarelli!

Heyyy!!! :thumbsup:

[Inland]

39. I agree.

I think Iran is trying to get a bomb, should be stopped, but we have to look at where we are today, which is weak.

That Clinton might have been in a position to organize a world wide coalition and threaten military action doesn't mean that Bush is, or that it's SO UNFAIR that we should just close our eyes to our current position. It's just a fact that Iran could make Basra revolt with ten mullahs on soundtrucks, as someone said for Hersh's NY article.

We have to look at the best plan going forward and it ain't military.

[pointblank]

61. Thank You.

You said what I wanted to get across very eloquently...We are not in a good position here...Hell No we shouldnt go to war...but we can't even sabre rattle without looking like a bunch of fucking war mongerers anymore. We already proved we'll actually go through with it, so Iran is like a cornered animal right now...., but the sad thing is we can't even put our money (troops, trillion dollar debt) where our mouth is, so we look even crazier. Bush's "tough on terror" has backfired. The mystery is gone you could say....He really IS fucking nuts!!

[leveymg]

12. Their religious fanatic is as batshit crazy as our religious fanatic

So, what does that prove? Overthrow both of them -- but, it makes more sense to start with Bush, as he's our batshit crazy religious fanatic, and doing so will avoid the war which both loonies want.

[enigma000]

13. Pay no attention - this is not important

Turn on your TV and watch some sitcom show.

[GDAEx2]

17. 'scuse me but...

your "facts" are coming from an opinion piece.
Sounds to me that this author is shilling for Israel, Bush or both.

[liberalhistorian]

23. Shilling for Israel. Now,

geez, whoever heard of such a thing, especially in this country? :sarcasm: :eyes:

[tuvor]

27. The author appears to look down his nose at anti-bush demonstrators.

November 18, 2003, 11:02 a.m.
The London Streets
Who are these anti-Bush people?
By Amir Taheri

(SNIP)

But why are these people taking to the streets?

One reason is that the parties, groups, and individuals involved have consistently failed to find a place in the normal institutions of British democracy.

The 60 or so leftist and Islamist groups involved in this odd enterprise have never managed to win more than one half of one percent of the votes in any British general election. Nor have they succeeded in winning a single seat in parliament or a majority in a single municipal council.

Those who can never win elections, always take to the streets. Street politics enables them to escape debate on complex issues that cannot be reduced to a few simplistic slogans.

Britain's participation in the war against terrorism was the subject of four exhaustive debates in the House of Commons in 2001 and 2002, each followed by a vote that Prime Minister Tony Blair won.

Street politics is for those who wish to abolish individual political judgment, the cornerstone of democratic life. Street politics encourages the irrational tendencies of crowds that could turn into hunting packs or lynch mobs. Power won in the streets produces only ochlocracy (rule by the worst).

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/taheri200311181102.asp

[Bridget Burke]

28. The author, Amir Taheri, is a member of Benador Associates....

Benador Associates is a public relations firm and speaker's bureau that promotes expert writers and speakers focusing primarily on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly those from a neoconservative point of view.

Benador Associates describes its areas of specialization as "media applied to politics, conflict resolution, the dialogue of civilisations, foreign policy, national security, anti-terrorism, defense of human rights and freedom of religion, among others."

The CEO and founder of the firm, Eleana Benador, is a Peruvian-born linguist-turned-publicist whose client list of prominent and influential neoconservatives includes Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board; former CIA director James Woolsey; Daily News columnist A.M. Rosenthal; American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Michael Ledeen; National Review contributing editor Frank Gaffney Jr.; former Washington Times editor in chief Arnaud de Borchgrave; former Secretary of State Alexander Haig Jr.; and Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya, a Brandeis professor who advocated the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benador_Associates

Since the source is Wikipedia, anyone with conflicting information ought to let us know!

[liberalhistorian]

30. I don't believe anything from Wikipedia

unless I can independently research and verify it. Anyone can write anything on there, so there's no way to know its accuracy unless you rsearch it yourself.

[Bridget Burke]

35. The author is definitely a member of Benador associates....

At least, according to their website: www.benadorassociates.com/taheri.php

Here's another description of the group:

Benador Associates is a public relations firm that was founded by Eleana Benador, the former director of Daniel Pipe's Middle East Forum, a hard-line think thank whose members have urged for wider U.S. intervention in the Middle East. Benador's list of experts reads like a who's who of heavy hitters in the neoconservative advocacy world. Clients include Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, and James Woolsey.

Writes journalist Jim Lobe of Benador's work: "When historians look back on the United States war in Iraq, they will almost certainly be struck by how a small group of mainly neo-conservative analysts and activists outside the administration were able to shape the US media debate in ways that made the drive to war so much easier than it might have been. . . . But historians would be negligent if they ignored the day-to-day work of one person who, as much as anyone outside the administration, made their media ubiquity possible. Meet Eleana Benador, the Peruvian-born publicist for Perle, Woolsey, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney and a dozen other prominent neo-conservatives whose hawkish opinions proved very hard to avoid for anyone who watched news talk shows or read the op-ed pages of major newspapers over the past 20 months."

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/2826

As I said, feel free to post conflicting opinions.

[LSK]

36. weak response

Then debunk it. Here let me help you:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Benador+Associates&btnG=Google+Search

And why is it so hard to believe an Iran nuke propaganda piece would come from a right wing/neocon thinktank??? Like that has never happened before.... :sarcasm:

[liberalhistorian]

40. Oh, no, you misunderstood

me, I have no problem at all believing that and it doesn't surprise me in the least that a RW neo-idiot think tank produced such a piece. I have nothing but contempt for such "think" tanks, especially their eagerness to get us into perpetual war and conflict with the rest of the world, damn the cost. It was just that I don't use Wikipedia as an information source. And I'm at work, so my research ability is rather limited right now.

[LSK]

42. ok

But it does look like in this case its a right wing think tank.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNN0LHI]

34. How can I forget. They got their talking points from the NYT n/t

[Shakespeare]

37. I can't fucking believe I'm reading this here.

You beat those drums, Squatch.

[tjwash]

38. Oh jeez...

...

I started a thread last week going into much detail of WHY Iran was NOT going to nuke us in 16 days.

I had people coming out of the woodwork to flame me for not giving DU'ers enough credit to see through all the propaganda, and march-to war, get-em-before-they-get-us, with-us-or-against-us, smoking-gun-in-the-form-of-a-mushroom-cloud bullshit that the media keeps shoving down our throats.

Don't buy into the propaganda, OK?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. Bull. More rightwing talking points to support an attack on Iran....

...have you already forgotten the NeoCon propaganda used to justify an attack on Iraq? Do you see any similarities, and if not, why not?

[acmejack]

51. The primary difference is that it doesn't have a Judith Miller byline.

Otherwise it is remarkably similar

[porphyrian]

44. "Iran" doesn't want the bomb.

The fundamentalist minority government does. Most Iranians want peace.

[Malikshah]

45. And if you add the numerical values of the letters in Ahmadinejad's

name together, divide by 12 (for the 12 Imams) add 8 (Khomeini's favorite number, as everyone knows), and then multiply by square root of the average weight of a southern traveling hippopotamus on steroids you'll end up with 7734 (hehheheh--turn it upside down) ;)

In other words---This is complete hogswallop and fear-mongering.

By the way-- send this message to 10 others and you'll achieve eternal bliss...;)

[leftstreet]

50. ....

:spray:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. I haven't been this terrified since...

Iraq was forty five minutes away from attack the US with WMDs.

[ShortnFiery]

49. Lookie! They'll be coming out of the horizon ...

in their balsa-wood planes. :P

[liberalhistorian]

53. Accompanied by their escort,

an entire fleet of U.N. black helicopters! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[walldude]

55. Booga Booga Booga!

They'll have nukes in 16 days!!! Gimme a fucking break.

[Terran1212]

63. Iran doesn't want a bomb and we could stop them in instants if they tried

[baby_mouse]

66. zzz...nt

[liberalhistorian]

67. Wake up!

Don't you know we're all doomed within the next 16 days by them there A-rabs? What kind of an American are you, anyway? :sarcasm:

[baby_mouse]

71. I'm from Scotland. Nobody ever bombs Scotland. Not even terrorists.

I think everyone should just become Scottish, eh? :silly:

[liberalhistorian]

73. Well, I guess a country

where the men run around in skirts all day and play an instrument that sounds like a Jack Russell Terrier being neutered by a cat with nine-inch claws isn't exactly frightening to terrorists or anyone else, for that matter. :silly: :evilgrin:

[baby_mouse]

82. BAIT! BAIT, I'll be damned!

Well it's better than a country where the beer tastes like diluted fairy-piss and is responsible for Pee Wee Herman! :D so there!

[TheBaldyMan]

72. the source is 'The Torygraph', a notorious RW paper in Britain, that paper

still thinks it was a jolly bad show that the fuzzies kicked us out of the empire. Reading the Telegraph is like entering a timewarp when there was a British Empire and the UK was the most powerful country in the world.

[The Stranger]

74. Iraq. WMD. No doubt. Yellowcake. Sarin. Disarm. Mushroom Cloud.

Lies. Bloodlust. Mass Murder. Shock and Awe. Torture. Hatred. "Islamist". "Terrorism". Guantanamo Bay.

[BoneDaddy]

75. Liberal naivete

I got your attention.

First of all I am a liberal and I want to work this situation out with Iran with all diplomacy and tact that we can muster.

See the problem is this. As much as I despise the republicans and GW Bush for accelerating and "catapulting the propaganda", I also think that in the case of Iran and N. Korea, there is some substance to it. Iraq was toothless compared to these people. And I do not mean all muslims in Iran, I mean the people in power fueling the rhetoric on the other side.

There are some crazy whack jobs in Iran that are as nuts, if not more, than the shithead we have as president. That is a reality. People do not blow themselves up simply cause they want to. They are desperate people bound to a dogma that justifies their actions.

What makes you think that they wouldn't risk getting nuked if they could do some serious damage to Israel and the US??? Essentially it would be like a suicide bomber on a much larger scale. If their reward lies in death, what could we possible do to change that?

What I meant by my title, liberal naivete, is that often we look at situations coming from a more (dare I say) enlightened position, where we are able to use words to diffuse dangerous situations and come to some sort of negotiation without using force. Some heads of state (our own included) never think like that and use the gun first. I just think we need to be prepared, careful because these people are dangerous as well.

[The Stranger]

79. "these people" . . . "whack jobs" . . . "blow themselves up" . . .

What web site am I on?

[BoneDaddy]

80. This is the liberal naivete I am talking about

I am not speaking about the entire muslim world. I work with, enjoy and celebrate the Islamic faith and the muslims I know.
Funny thing is you most likely have no problem with labeling the Christian fundie nut jobs in this country, but you cannot or will not address the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism as if they are for some reason untouchable in your mind and should not be criticized. As far as I am concerned BushCo and the political hierarchy of Iran are not much different. BOTH are dangerous and need to be dealt with with extreme caution.
So when I am talking about naivete, I am referring to the hands off approach and refusal to see fundamentalism on all levels as dangerous.

[The Stranger]

81. Your language and tone seem to betray what may be more than an innocuous

little post trying to wake up us naive progressives.

No one, but no one, is saying Iran is run by Mother Theresa, John Lennon and Ghandi. Everyone knows about the leadership of that country. Nor is this really a point that has to be made, much less paraded as "liberal naivete."

The real fact of the matter is that the mass media is demonizing an entire nation of sane people by using terms like "these people," "whack jobs," "suicide bombers" and "blowing themselves up." An entire nation is being grouped into "whack jobs" and other clear stereotypes.

This nation being discussed has not attacked any other nation, yet it is being publically and stridently threatened by the most powerful nation in history, which is in the process of having just illegally invaded a neighbouring country and committed numerous war crimes there, including torture.

Now then. Was someone talking about "naivete"?

[BoneDaddy]

85. Yeah I still am too.

If you read my posts, i say nothing of the people of Iran, regardless of what you have placed in my mouth.

If you read my posts, I directed my "insane" labeling to the powers that be, including GW Bush and company in it.

What I called for was caution because I think that Iran's leadership is capable of doing something very very stupid, which will result in a catastrophic retatliation.

I am all for negotiation, but being aware and careful is necessary.

[LunaC]

76. Not buying it

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

The NPT gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes…No state has successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to an NPT inspection regime.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty

[newspeak]

77. okay, here's my rant

for those with short term memories. Iran's government was becoming more moderate before the selection of this war crazed administration. Women do not cover their faces, women drive and women vote, unlike our ally Saudi Arabia!!!! Yes, people actually elect their officials in Iran!!! What would you do if you watched a country, that was basically defenseless being attacked preeminently? Would you vote for a hawk or a dove? What would you do when a country fingers you as an enemy? How many remember when N. and S. Korea marched together in the Olympics? How many remember the little talk Bush had with the President of S. Korea? This administration is all about war, making profits from war, it is not about freedom-- Not your freedom or theirs. I hold this administration responsible for the foreign policy screw up that we have today. A bunch of chicken hawks who have never had to hold a loved one while they died in your arms because of being blown away or shot. Those who want power or wealth from war, but have never had to sacrifice for it!!!! Our government has sowed the seeds of distrust and hatred, and I fear of what we shall reap from it. For you cannot watch your children and other members of your family murdered and not know hatred or revenge. For every action there is an opposite or greater reaction. The PNAC agenda is a piece of paper covered in blood--their blood and our blood. A true sociopath disregards other's pain and death, as long as they get what they want--as long as they meet their agenda. This administration has stirred the pot of discontent and they and their corporate friends are reaping monetarily on our blood and their blood. It's all about the corporate bottom line and POWER.

Oh, by the way, Iranians are Persians not Arabs.

[mmonk]

78. Only George can protect us.

We must not miss this opportunity to take care of things. We must attack them now and win the clash of civilizations. We must not wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

[cynatnite]

89. I've heard a few commentators say they wanted it for stature...

it puts them on the international stage as a player and more countries will be forced to deal with them. They'll gain a lot internationally being a nuclear power.

I'm not sure how correct that is, but it does make some sense.