War against Iran

[Cidwind]

Originally Posted by royster

It's discouraging that people are even considering swallowing the "WMD card" again. It's a perfect example, though, of the culprit pointing a finger outward toward the "terrorist".

Let us remember back to the Bush Administration: Iran was being set up for this very play. How convenient it comes directly after the Iraq oil pipeline was completed (and thus we can end the war). And what was said back then?

"Iran sits on the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world".

Was the public given a chance to read Ahmadinejad's letter? No: Condi Rice called it "ridiculous" and the media played it down.

Read the letter for yourself. Come to your own conclussion. And when one considers the attrocities israel has committed, why wouldn't neighboring countries want to arm themselves, particularly when they know they're on the hit list?! Review the WHOLE build up to the Iraq conflict. This is Act II.

Fool me once: shame on me. Fool me TWICE...

The Letter of May 2006 from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to George W. Bush

Thanks for the link to that letter. Back in 08' I was looking for it and was never able to find it. It sounds a lot more like a Jehovah's witness than a militant threat to me...

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Cidwind

I'm all for war when its necessary, but fear of what maybe might happen is not justification for losing/killings thousands.

I think almost all of the wars that the U.S. indulged in post WWII could have been avoided.

[Cidwind]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I think almost all of the wars that the U.S. indulged in post WWII could have been avoided.

I'd agree.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I think almost all of the wars that the U.S. indulged in post WWII could have been avoided.

I would argue that they were actively pursued.

[royster]

The U.S. just approved a military budget of a couple billion dollars. I'd like to know what enemy is such a threat as to warrant such expenditures without accountability.

Not meaning at all to derail the thread, but in fact to support a few peacenik posters, please allow me to post a letter to the editor I wrote some time ago. (Yes, it was published). The facts and figures have no doubt increased since its writing.
_________________________________________
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Northern Virginia Daily July 14, 2009
Sir:
Regarding Karen Hill’s July 10 letter;
The war machinery I refer to is also called the “Military Industrial Complex”. At this point in history, it is composed primarily of several huge corporations which provide goods and services to the Pentagon.
The U.S. owns 11 aircraft carriers at a cost of $45 billion each, a yearly operating cost of $160,000,000...that’s $438,356.00 per day, each. We have in service 89,129 military aircraft with an additional 29,700 helicopters, all needing fuel and maintenance. There are 8,800 tanks, depending on whose numbers you believe. All have parts that wear out. All of the above required research, development, testing, upgrading, transportation costs and yearly makeovers. America claims 737 military bases worldwide, but that number rises well past 1,000 when secret bases are taken into account. They had to be built, maintained, people fed and clothed (military), provided computers, desks and pencils. Regarding the secret bases; prison hardware, “interrogation facilities”, electricity and water, heating and cooling (for the interrogators).
Approximately 1,840,062 U.S. military personal worldwide make up the manpower of the above machinery. All must be fed, housed, clothed, transported, educated, trained, and some require bullets. Tomahawk missiles at $1.5 million each require expensive launchers. The research and development of weaponry alone is in the billions.
The electronic aspects are staggering, with NORAD and Global Hawk technology fed into several million computers and defense mechanisms. Infra-red gizmos and gadgets adorn our soldier’s lives in varying aspects, and then there are radar facilities and satellite manufacturing. A variety of simulators for a variety of training needs.
There are corporations who, like General Electric, have shifted entirely to the needs of the defense industry. Halliburton and Northrop are household words, and during the Bush years, privatization of military supplies increased.
World peace would bring this manufacturing to an abrupt end, irritating corporate interests.
If all this “defense” is designed to keep us safe, 24/7, under most any variant an enemy could possibly dream up, I have only one question, Ms. Hill:

Where was this Defense industry for two hours on the morning of September 11, 2001?

Roy A. Stokes

[Frisky]

Originally Posted by royster

The U.S. just approved a military budget of a couple billion dollars. I'd like to know what enemy is such a threat as to warrant such expenditures without accountability

You sure you dont mean trillion?? Cause a couple of billion actually sounds cheap

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I would argue that they were actively pursued.

Have a look. Does a country, even a superpower (not sure how much that term applies anymore) has to engage in over 100 military operations throughout the world in 60 years? And for what purpose?

Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

Have a look. Does a country, even a superpower (not sure how much that term applies anymore) has to engage in over 100 military operations throughout the world in 60 years? And for what purpose?

Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm allowed to put on my Historian hat, I would say that the reason for all this military engagement stems from a sense of "mission" that is quintessentially American.

One of the most influential books I read in college was Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History. Although it focuses on events in the 19th century, Frederick Merk really knew well the American mindset that pervades all of American history, specifically in terms of that sense of "mission" that most Americans have. Basically, we consider ourselves destined to be that "shining city on a hill" that Ronald Reagan liked to talk about. We're crusaders, bent on saving the world from its own destruction.

At the same time, however, we like our politics, and we like our money, which means that both play a role in military matters. Currently, the big dollar item globally is oil, and it comes as no surprise that America's "interests" now focus on the oil-rich middle East. First with Kuwait, then Iraq, and now Iran (all while staying friends with Saudi Arabia, and not to mention the latest endeavour in Libya), the United States has worked to keep the oil flowing, and not even to itself, necessarily. Iran really poses no military threat to the United States, even if it did have nukes. But, well, we've got to have our mission, ostensibly to protect the world from a nuclear Iran, when in all likelihood, it's probably all simply about oil.

[royster]

About a year or two into the Iraq war, the Washington Post ran a large article about a camp there. It stated "This is all about oil" and showed photos of the roads around the encampment: "Exxon Way", "Standard Oil Street" and other such deliberate ironies. I wonder if it could still be found in the Post's archives? The soldiers talked about their mission there, which was first and foremost to protect the oil. Dick Cheney's instructions, as the sabres were being rattled and before any soldiers left for Iraq, were that protecting the oil fields was the #1 priority.

The insanity of the Military Industrial complex is: where does it ultimately go? As some have intellectualised and obligatorily bemoaned...yet supported...war with Iran, they failed to see a bigger picture. We just got out of a 10 year elective war, supposedly for WMD's and a cruel dictator, but in reality, long enough to secure an oil pipeline to, among other things, Israel. And those posting with a sigh how sad-war-is-but-let's-send-troops have failed to remember even mainstream details of the history spanning the Iraq occupation. Lots of "1984" catch-phrases sure come to mind, but the war-bemoaners can't see them for the denial it requires to "doublethink".

My sincere applause to those who have the courage to post the above truths with conviction. It says a lot about your spirit.

And memory.

[royster]

Originally Posted by Cidwind

Thanks for the link to that letter. Back in 08' I was looking for it and was never able to find it. It sounds a lot more like a Jehovah's witness than a militant threat to me...

Serendipity.Li has proven to be an enduring and reliable resource for just such archival treasures, including 9/11 facts. Contrary to some local accusations, you see there are an abundant number of cross-referrences and publically-available records.

[cacheborn]

I understand. It's the American mindset.

What needs to be realized is

1. The World does not need saving any more. Not at least by way of invading countries and engaging in war.

2. For most part U.S. creates the enemies and then proceeds to destroy them, in the way creating more enemies. They backed Saddam against Iran, when he got ambitious they had to fight him. The U.S. foreign policy needs a major rethinking and it's high time that they began thinking about the rest of the world as well.

Originally Posted by Beingist

If I'm allowed to put on my Historian hat, I would say that the reason for all this military engagement stems from a sense of "mission" that is quintessentially American.

One of the most influential books I read in college was Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History. Although it focuses on events in the 19th century, Frederick Merk really knew well the American mindset that pervades all of American history, specifically in terms of that sense of "mission" that most Americans have. Basically, we consider ourselves destined to be that "shining city on a hill" that Ronald Reagan liked to talk about. We're crusaders, bent on saving the world from its own destruction.

At the same time, however, we like our politics, and we like our money, which means that both play a role in military matters. Currently, the big dollar item globally is oil, and it comes as no surprise that America's "interests" now focus on the oil-rich middle East. First with Kuwait, then Iraq, and now Iran (all while staying friends with Saudi Arabia, and not to mention the latest endeavour in Libya), the United States has worked to keep the oil flowing, and not even to itself, necessarily. Iran really poses no military threat to the United States, even if it did have nukes. But, well, we've got to have our mission, ostensibly to protect the world from a nuclear Iran, when in all likelihood, it's probably all simply about oil.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I understand. It's the American mindset.

What needs to be realized is

1. The World does not need saving any more. Not at least by way of invading countries and engaging in war.

2. For most part U.S. creates the enemies and then proceeds to destroy them, in the way creating more enemies. They backed Saddam against Iran, when he got ambitious they had to fight him. The U.S. foreign policy needs a major rethinking and it's high time that they began thinking about the rest of the world as well.

I agree wholeheartedly (they also funded Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen with weapons in Afghanistan against the Russians).

The only trick is to get anyone to listen.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I understand. It's the American mindset.

What needs to be realized is

1. The World does not need saving any more. Not at least by way of invading countries and engaging in war.

2. For most part U.S. creates the enemies and then proceeds to destroy them, in the way creating more enemies. They backed Saddam against Iran, when he got ambitious they had to fight him. The U.S. foreign policy needs a major rethinking and it's high time that they began thinking about the rest of the world as well.

If one were particularly cynical, one might say that 2. stems from 1. The US sees its place in the world (and how it earned superpower status) as being the world police, or at least the police of the western world. There are no more villains to police. Therefore, in order to maintain the status quo, the US needs to make up more villains to fight lest it loses its status.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by aelle

If one were particularly cynical, one might say that 2. stems from 1. The US sees its place in the world (and how it earned superpower status) as being the world police, or at least the police of the western world. There are no more villains to police. Therefore, in order to maintain the status quo, the US needs to make up more villains to fight lest it loses its status.

That's part of the equation. It's part of what get sold to the public, often with a huge religious slant (even ignoring media outlets like Fox News, consider the amount of times Bush mentioned things like "God's will").

But there's also the economic interests: the American corporations that profit from the wars and have massive control over the political system because of that economic might (it's in many ways another side of the same problem OWS was addressing--that in America, money is political influence at this point, and most of anything else is just for show).

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by aelle

If one were particularly cynical, one might say that 2. stems from 1. The US sees its place in the world (and how it earned superpower status) as being the world police, or at least the police of the western world. There are no more villains to police. Therefore, in order to maintain the status quo, the US needs to make up more villains to fight lest it loses its status.

True but I don't think it's done intentionally. The appalling effects of the U.S. foreign policy make sure that there are always new ghosts to fight. In any case, in today's world, unrest seems to be the status quo. It's foolish on the part of U.S. to assume that they can free every country in the world from dictatorship and terrorism. (In any case, they won't invade China or North Korea.)

There are many real challenges that the World is facing right now. Green house effect, helping drought affected nations in Africa, eradicating diseases like malaria, small pox, preserving wild life and so on. Shooting bad guys like they do in Western movies is not the way to make the world a better place. There are many missions for the Americans to take on if they wish to do so but of course there is no profit to be gained here for the weapons industry or the reconstruction contracts.

[Brutha]

I meant the United States. Maybe I should have put it as U.S.

Oh dear.
The US is an idea. royster is part of "the US". Snerp is part of "the US". Beingist is part of "the US".

Are you suggesting that they all have some sort of hidden agenda when it comes to the middle east that I don't know because I'm European?
I don't think that's the point you want to make.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

There are many missions for the Americans to take on if they wish to do so but of course there is no profit to be gained here for the weapons industry or the reconstruction contracts.

Precisement.

Like I say, we Americans like our politics, and our money.

[royster]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Oh dear.
Are you suggesting that they all have some sort of hidden agenda when it comes to the middle east that I don't know because I'm European?

Quite the opposite: Europeans have a better honesty about world affairs, and aren't afraid to speak openly about them. Much of the news in Europe is sensored here in the U.S.. America's #1 export is Denial.

Cache, M.T. and Beingist are pretty much expressing the crux of the matter, but to put it bluntly: U.S. weaponry industries depend on conflict, and as an industry, intends to stay in business. A constant stream of 'customers' insures a constant 'business'. It's my view that the C.I.A. is little more than the marketing department that creates disharmonies so that weaponry is in constant demand.

A story in yesterday's local paper reports the last F-22 rolled off the assembly line...$140 million per plane.

Another story reports of a lost $20 million prison 'contract' here in Virginia, forcing the prison industry to close down the prison. On both accounts, the first mention is of job loss...not human loss or the suffering at the bottom of the profit pyramid. Need I mention that "prison" should not be an economically~feasable industry that perpetuates itself? The only difference prisons have from factory farming is that we don't eat prisoners...but the system sure feeds off of them, for-profit. And while called "Corrections", they only stand as an institution of suffering.

Yes, the U.S. creates enemies as we plod along to secure other country's resources, and that's part of the plan. The hypocracy of justifying force to rid the world of dictators is appalling. Understanding this, and seeing it clearly, makes it even more stunning that people would take mainstream events and simply agree with them. The fact is, we can do very little outwardly to change this military cancer that has been polluting the world for several decades.

I am glad people are talking openly about it, here. At this point in my existance, I can only strive to not be that Military Industrial Complex within myself. If 10 billion people did the same, we would see s significant change. The good news is: there ARE 10 billion people doing this .

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Oh dear.
The US is an idea. royster is part of "the US". Snerp is part of "the US". Beingist is part of "the US".

Are you suggesting that they all have some sort of hidden agenda when it comes to the middle east that I don't know because I'm European?
I don't think that's the point you want to make.

True but if you notice, it has been used that way in the same thread by others as well. I try to follow the punctuation rules as far as possible, but if there is a lapse such as this one, I find it easier to extrapolate from the context.

[Vibration]

I tend to agree with Ron Paul on Iran: just leave them alone, and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. So what if they arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Just about everyone else has. They have a right to do as they wish, and to bear the consequences. If Iran attacks Israel, Israel is the best country to respond. For some reason, everyone underestimates Israel, even though they've done nothing but kick ass every time they've been involved in a military conflict in the region. If I were Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I would take a lesson from history and leave Israel alone, least I have my ass handed to me in a paper bag and Israel redraws its borders again... half way into my own damn country.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by Vibration

I tend to agree with Ron Paul on Iran: just leave them alone, and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. So what if they arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Just about everyone else has. They have a right to do as they wish, and to bear the consequences. If Iran attacks Israel, Israel is the best country to respond. For some reason, everyone underestimate Israel, even though they've done nothing but kick ass every time they've been involved in a military conflict in the region. If I were Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I would take a lesson from history and leave Israel alone.

Absolutely right! One of the main reasons I will be voting for Dr. Paul.

[JSB]

The thing is, if the US pulls back its military and stops buying so many weapons, those regions where a US military presence was providing "stability" (i.e. maintaining a local balance of power) will now find themselves in a state flux where local nations, factions, client states and sponsor states will scramble to gain the upper hand, or at least prevent "the other guy" from gaining the upper hand. (Not necessarily a bad or good thing, just a shifting around until a new equilibrium is found). So, they will all have to arm themselves, meaning the defense contractors will still have plenty of customers, though they will need to compete with European, Russian, and Chinese military-industrial complexes to make their sales.

My point is, there's always someone who's looking to blow someone else up, and there's always a market for things that go boom. No need to shed a tear for the defense contractors!

Originally Posted by royster

Quite the opposite: Europeans have a better honesty about world affairs, and aren't afraid to speak openly about them. Much of the news in Europe is sensored here in the U.S.. America's #1 export is Denial.

Cache, M.T. and Beingist are pretty much expressing the crux of the matter, but to put it bluntly: U.S. weaponry industries depend on conflict, and as an industry, intends to stay in business. A constant stream of 'customers' insures a constant 'business'. It's my view that the C.I.A. is little more than the marketing department that creates disharmonies so that weaponry is in constant demand.

A story in yesterday's local paper reports the last F-22 rolled off the assembly line...$140 million per plane.

Another story reports of a lost $20 million prison 'contract' here in Virginia, forcing the prison industry to close down the prison. On both accounts, the first mention is of job loss...not human loss or the suffering at the bottom of the profit pyramid. Need I mention that "prison" should not be an economically~feasable industry that perpetuates itself? The only difference prisons have from factory farming is that we don't eat prisoners...but the system sure feeds off of them, for-profit. And while called "Corrections", they only stand as an institution of suffering.

Yes, the U.S. creates enemies as we plod along to secure other country's resources, and that's part of the plan. The hypocracy of justifying force to rid the world of dictators is appalling. Understanding this, and seeing it clearly, makes it even more stunning that people would take mainstream events and simply agree with them. The fact is, we can do very little outwardly to change this military cancer that has been polluting the world for several decades.

I am glad people are talking openly about it, here. At this point in my existance, I can only strive to not be that Military Industrial Complex within myself. If 10 billion people did the same, we would see s significant change. The good news is: there ARE 10 billion people doing this .

[Brutha]

True but if you notice, it has been used that way in the same thread by others as well.

You still don't notice that my point had nothing to do with punctiation and whether you format it as US, U.S. or USA?

Okay, then my make my point more directly:
There are a lot of people in the US. They have all sorts of different interests and persue all sorts of agenda's.
If you say "the US has a secret agenda" then you should be able to specifiy about which of those people in the US you are speaking.

Why is this valuable? Merging all those different interests together into a single ideal actor that's called "the US" is a simplification. That simplication prevents you from seeing how political decisions get made.
Understanding how political decisions get made is the basis for understand motivations for decisions.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You still don't notice that my point had nothing to do with punctiation and whether you format it as US, U.S. or USA?

Okay, then my make my point more directly:
There are a lot of people in the US. They have all sorts of different interests and persue all sorts of agenda's.
If you say "the US has a secret agenda" then you should be able to specifiy about which of those people in the US you are speaking.

Why is this valuable? Merging all those different interests together into a single ideal actor that's called "the US" is a simplification. That simplication prevents you from seeing how political decisions get made.
Understanding how political decisions get made is the basis for understand motivations for decisions.

Funny, I didn't take it that way at all, and I've been a U.S. citizen my entire life.

As far as I'm concerned, whenever anyone says, "the U.S.", unless they stipulate otherwise, they mean the powers-that-be, or the U.S. government. Nothing much anyone can do about them, anyway.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You still don't notice that my point had nothing to do with punctiation and whether you format it as US, U.S. or USA?

Okay, then my make my point more directly:
There are a lot of people in the US. They have all sorts of different interests and persue all sorts of agenda's.
If you say "the US has a secret agenda" then you should be able to specifiy about which of those people in the US you are speaking.

Why is this valuable? Merging all those different interests together into a single ideal actor that's called "the US" is a simplification. That simplication prevents you from seeing how political decisions get made.
Understanding how political decisions get made is the basis for understand motivations for decisions.

In these kinds of discussions, I believe it is understood that when I say the US is planning to attack Iran, I don't mean a forum member from US is planning to attack Iran. I mean Obama and his advisers have taken a decision to attack Iran. Also, I don't mean Obama is personally going to attack, the actual attack will be done by the army. Obviously that means the hidden agenda refers to the politicians and the parties that are interested in those decisions.

I don't think anybody else participating in this thread have any trouble in understanding the context. Look at any newspaper how they refer to this matter. You have to take the context into account.

Here is a headline that I picked at random.

It’s time for the U.S. and Europe to act on Iran

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Funny, I didn't take it that way at all, and I've been a U.S. citizen my entire life.

As far as I'm concerned, whenever anyone says, "the U.S.", unless they stipulate otherwise, they mean the powers-that-be, or the U.S. government. Nothing much anyone can do about them, anyway.

Well stated. Most US citizens I know, do not get any information other than the news (for folks in other countries) this means we only know what they try to pass off as truth. We have as citizens have no "input" as to what we prefer to happen.

We vote, for politicians who lie to us. They'll say one thing to one location and say something else to another location (i'm refering to when we vote for presidential candidates here). Our congress makes decisions based on funding they'll get. Yes, we can make a stink about things, but only if we know about those things, which often times is conveniently left out of the news or is misleading or slanted in the reporting. Just because our government does something does not mean the people are behind them or even have a clue to what's going on. Some do, sure, but most do not.

Brutha, IMO most people in the US have no clue how those political decisions are made, or the process involved, myself included. Governments and corporations are essentially separate from citizens in decision making.

[javed]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

I'm a little torn on the issue. While I think any kind of military action against Iran is a bad idea, I don't believe that they should be allowed to become a nuclear power.

Why NOT???

[javed]

Originally Posted by Frisky

The world doesnt need more nukes though, it needs less of them

YES. So why not to start from disarming the armed ones?

[Brutha]

I believe it is understood that when I say the US is planning to attack Iran, I don't mean a forum member from US is planning to attack Iran. I mean Obama and his advisers have taken a decision to attack Iran.

According to that definition for the agentship of countries you wouldn't say that the UK is attempting to assassinate Gaddafi when the MI6 tries to organize an attack that would blow up his car without seeking permission from the UK prime minister and his advisors.

From the Libyen perspective it however was an attack for which the UK was responsible.

Brutha, IMO most people in the US have no clue how those political decisions are made, or the process involved, myself included. Governments and corporations are essentially separate from citizens in decision making.

If you understand that you have no clue how decisions are made you should stop saying that you know whether or not there a "hidden agenda".

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by javed

Why NOT???

I answered that in this post:

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

The difference is that Iran is a violent theocracy that considers human rights to be subservient to adhering to an extremist and backward interpretation of the religion of Islam.

By its very existence as an Islamic Republic it is waging jihad, which is an aggressive stance, not a defensive one. Therefore they should definitely be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.