This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Would You Support an Iran War If …
Would you support a war against Iran if you knew that:
- Iran has one of the largest Jewish populations in the world, and the second-largest in the Middle East behind Israel
- Jews are protected by the Iranian constitution, and are guaranteed seats in the Iranian parliament
- The CIA admits that the U.S. overthrew the moderate, suit-and-tie-wearing, Democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. He was overthrown because he had nationalized Iran's oil, which had previously been controlled by BP and other Western oil companies. As part of that action, the CIA admits that it hired Iranians to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its prime minister
- If the U.S. hadn't overthrown the moderate Iranian government, the fundamentalist Mullahs would have never taken over. (Moreover, the U.S. has had a large hand in strengthening radical Islam in the Middle East by supporting radicals to fight the Soviets and others)
- The U.S. armed and supported Iraq after it invaded Iran and engaged in a long, bloody war which included the use of chemical weapons. Here is former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, several months after Saddam had used chemical weapons in a massacre:
- The U.S. has been claiming for more than 30 years that Iran was on the verge of nuclear capability
- The U.S. helped fund Iran's nuclear program
- The U.S. has been actively planning regime change in Iran - and throughout the oil-rich Middle East and North Africa - for 20 years
- The decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11
- America and Israel both support a group designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization which is trying to overthrow the Iranian government
- Top American and Israeli military and intelligence officials say that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear bomb
- Top American and Israeli military and intelligence officials say that - even if Iran did build a nuclear bomb - it would not be that dangerous, because Israel and America have so many more nukes. And see this
- American military and intelligence chiefs say that attacking Iran would only speed up its development of nuclear weapons, empower its hardliners, and undermine the chance for democratic reform
- The people pushing for war against Iran are the same people who pushed for war against Iraq, and said it would be a "cakewalk". See this and this
- Well-known economist Nouriel Roubini says that attacking Iran would lead to global recession. The IMF says that Iran cutting off oil supplies could raise crude prices 30%. War with Iran would kill the American economy. And see this and this
- China and Russia have warned that attacking Iran could lead to World War III
»
- advertisements -
I would support a war with Iran if:
The politicians and the generals were the first in....
The CEOs, CFOs, COOs of the military-industrial-financial complex went next...
All the rest who wanted it went to fight it.
And it lasted long enough for all the above to get wiped out.
PS George, I am surprised at you. You left out the part how Regan sold high-tech anti-tank missles to Iran, to use against Iraq, while giving Iraq satellite intelligence info on where the Iranian troops were (sending them both to sluaghter). Oh, and how many of the anti-tank missles were transferred to Iran via the Israelis. Now why would Israel sell sophisticated anti-tank weapons to Iran on behalf of the US? I guess its just business.
Can you send Ollie North and saen hannity too?
Also strap Paneful to the first bomb, ala Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove.
America is full of pretend cowboys and armchair rambo's begging for a fight so they have something to jack off to
I'll jack off to that !
Podgy arm chair generals that can live vicariously the soldiers portrait by the media.
GW - I saw you had 18 votes with an avg. of only 3.6. So I had to log in and vote this up.
I can't believe this represents the opinion of the ZH community.
Login and vote this post up if you are opposed to new war in the ME, this time begining w/ Iran.
Thanks GW.
Solution: Invoke the Amsterdam Air Force to shovel out 20 million hits of 'E' over Tehran. Better than an Israeli EMP burst above the Alborz mountains and more huggable, too.
That 'e' would be better used over the greater DC metro area
The mullahs disbanded the army after the revolution as an enemy of the people. They thought the same way as thomas jefferson, that a standing army is dangerous. They only re armed after being attacked unprovoked by saddam hussein.
And I still dont understand how so many people here think that spending our money and blood protecting a small apartheid country in the middle east that refused to sign the non proliferation treaty is in our national interest.
The US has been plotting and executing regime change in Iran since 1953. Is it any surprise that they don't trust us over there?
game changer for sure! afterall pre the evil zionistas the middle east really wasn't the most war ridden violent place on earth, I read it on the internets.
aslam alekem brother.
well, actually it wasn't if by pre zionistas (i.e. pre late 19th century) you mean say the preceding say 400 years. the middle east was an oasis of relative tranquility and peace versus most of the rest of the world for centuries prior to the (coincidental) arrival of the zionists. perhaps that's what drew them in part.
by the early 1500's the ottoman turks had united the entire area under their rule which lasted until the european great war (1914-18) washed up on their shores with a little late colonialism (can't let a crisis go to waste). read it here on the internets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East
Thanks, GW. We need to drastically scale back the U.S. war machine and put a halt to invasion of other countries, including "Black Ops", Drone attacks, etc. on the soverign soil or airspace of other countries. Who the fuck do we think we are anyway? If these countries did the same to us they would be smoldering glass.
Finally just because we CAN do these things operationally doesn't mean we SHOULD and that's why I say at a time when we're borrowing constantly to pay our base expenses, scale down the military and stop messing in other nation's business.
War is NOT the answer, only love can combat hate (Marvin Gaye).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8
Sorry George. We have to attack Iran because its in the dollars interest.
Bingo, petrodollahs. Some of us are old enough to remember the ouster of the pro-US Shah of Iran.
We train them and install them, but when they go rogue or are toppled we have to invade in the name of price stabeeleety.
Love ZH pieces like this one. Shit for research, biased and cherry picked data, that brings out all the imbeciles who think sitting in a cafe and babbling with their imbecile lemming friends constitutes knowledge.
Of course, would any of these imbeciles ever think of moving to said country or region?
Of course not, the mere language used in this blog would bring the peoples, politicians and cultures they are defending to cut the imbeciles' hands and heads off.
Funny how the pacifists and anarchists suffer the same delusion of the world being filled with peaceful people who mean them no harm but see the US as run and filled with men of evil seeking their ruin...
Cent - Look, this is as close as you got to making an argument. "biased and cherry picked data".
So why not select a specific example and make a counter argument? Because it's obvious to me that GW is making perfect sense.
Yeah, I'd like to move there, but I lost my job. It was sent to Iran by Donald Rumsfeld's company along with thirty-five other jobs from the same company. You must still be working. Ask Bunnypants Bush, that fearless warrior of the Vietnam War who...Oh, I forgot, his daddy got him out of it. Well, anyway, maybe Clinton, Obama and you can get our jobs back from those evil Eyerainians and we can all live happily ever after.
Do you actually have any counterarguments or do you just engage in name calling?
i specifically remember opposing the vietnam war because i wanted to move to vietnam. and learn vietnamese.
Name calling is much more effective.
Aslam Alekem Abdul, Mohammed et al,
Iran really hasn't been waging war against the US for decades,
arming and funding attacks against the US via hezbollah, the sunnis in Iraq, Hamas et al,
are all imaginary.
Kind of like Al Qaeda, they are all really evil zionista attacks on itself.
I read it on the internets.
Now don't you all have some stoning to go to or something?
Aslam Alekem Brothers.
Shalom,shlomo.Wanna have some latke with sour cream?
When did Hezbollah and Hamas attack the United States, did I miss something?
Beyond the US embassy and barracks bombings in Beirut, the TWA plane hijacking and I am sure more that aren't immediately coming to mind.
Most recently? I know the Shi'ia in Iraq were trained, armed and funded via magic.
but i thought beirut was in lebanon. it's in the u.s.? so anywhere the u.s. puts soldiers, if anyone resists, they're attacking the u.s.? bet they're terrorists too. defending their country from an invading army. what would george washington (the eighteenth century version) have thought? oh wait.
a technicality : Us Embassy territory abroad is deemed US soil as per international conventions. Apart that, I don't question your take.
it's not about the oil. our dependance on oil is temporary. it's about debt slavery. that my friends is for eternity. clearly we need to go into Iran to install OUR central bankers. like we just did in Libya. they must now serve their banking masters for all time. did u really believe the middle east was about oil?
its working in greece. and they have enslaved america, carry on.
but not working very well, imo.
The biggest disconnect of elite war mongering re Iran is the fact that we have never done the same for N. Korea who was and is run by demented psychos. I liken it to the absence of plane wreckage in the PA and Pentagon 9/11 attacks; doesn't meet the smell test.
A united Korea is not in the best interests of the USA. It would be a very large and powerful country.
And destroy the garlic market
1. Iran's Jewish population was 100,000 - 150,000 in 1948 and it now 10,000 - 25,000; indicating massive, anti-Jewish hostility in Iran. To call it "one of the largest Jewish populations in the world" is to obscure the fact that Iran's Jewish population is nearly gone - as well as ignoring the forced exile of most Jews from Muslim lands.
2. Lots of people are protected in theory by lots of constitutions - but that doesn't mean they aren't oppressed. Having constitutional protection is great as long as you have a civilization which actually bothers to obey its own laws. The Irananian government does not do this and Iran's Jews are only "protected" as long as the thugs ruling Iran don't care to massacre them.
3. Yep, the CIA just walked in to Iran and forced the Iranians to overthrow their Prime Minister and return the Shah to power. The poor, little Iranians simply had no choice...presumptively because the CIA has magical powers which can make people do things they don't want to do. Furthermore, it was double clever to get the Iranians to restore the Shah to power given that the Shah was never out of power...he was Shah of Iran continually from 1941 until 1979, so it just shows the amazing prowess of the CIA that it has made the whole world believe that the Shah was out of power and needed to be restored to power by overthrowing the Prime Minister the Shah had appointed.
4. Yeah, it is too bad that we created all those Islamist radicals. After all, until we blundered on the scene and started being all Zionist, those little Muslims were just the most peaceful, liberal people in the whole, wide world. All that talk about Muslim slave trade continuing in to the 20th century; all that keeping women in harems; all those massacred people and sacked cities over the centuries...just didn't happen. Clearly all made up by the Zionist Oppressors to justify their cruel and wicked attacks on the Religion of Peace.
5. I've can obtain a picture of Neville Chamberlain shaking hands with Hitler...does that mean Chamberlain supported Hitler's regime? By your evidence, it does.
6. It isn't a claim that Iran was on the "verge" of nuclear weapons, just a common-sense notice back in the 1970's that the Shah's regime was shopping around for nuclear technology. Then the Mullah's stopped the program for a while - now they've restarted it and while one can argue this or that, the plain fact of the matter is that a bankrupt nation which lives by the oil trade has no business wasting resources on peaceful nuclear projects...so the only logical reason for doing so is because someone wants a nuclear weapon.
7. I wish we were planning on Iranian regime change for the past 20 years. Goodness, if only we were as clever as all that!
8. If the decision to bomb Iran was made prior to 9/11, why haven't we done it?
9. I fail to see how its bad for us to support armed opponents of Iran when the Iranians support armed opponents of the United States.
10. Would that be the same sort of cracker-jack intelligence sources which you denigrate in relation to Iraq?
11. The complication of Iranian nukes is not that Israel cannot vaporize Iran should Iran use nuclear weapons against Israel, the complication is (a) that if the Iranian government decided to go ahead an do it, only two or three nuclear bursts over Israel brings that nation to an end and (b) under a nuclear umbrella, Iran could conquer the Persian Gulf.
12. Hey, either intelligence says Iran has given up on nukes or it hasn't; you can't say in one bullet point that itel says "no nukes" and then say "if we attack, nukes much faster". Pick your position - either they are or they aren't building nukes? Presuming you come down on the side of "if we attack, nukes much faster", I observe that blowing up Iran's nuclear facilities cannot enhance productive capability.
13. The military operation against Saddam's regime was a cake walk. A military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be a cake walk, as well. As it turns out, trying to build a democratic Iraq became a drawn out and probably fruitless exercise. Lesson learned: if we do have to fight Iran, we leave the craters and go home.
14. The global economy is already dead; adding a military strike to Iran won't change that fact.
15. Russia and China are just blustering - they like having an insane Iran to screw up the middle east and be a permanent thorn in our side. When they say "World War III", what they mean is "please don't be sensible about this and take out our cat's paw".
Wow! ... we need to find out how they did this ... copy it ... right across the planet!! ... shit should be in the sewer.
Excellent post, Mark. Great analogy with Hitler and Neville.
Good to remind everyone that GW is full of half-truths and half-baked theories. One of his best is still that we helped crush Libya because they were prepaing to get a pan-African currency going cuz you know, teaming up with Zimbabwe and Sudan is a sure-fire way to have a currency powerhouse.
GW somehow thinks that letting "Uncle Tom Moishe" have a seat in the parliament suddenly makes Iranian a free and equal society. He'd be tearing up a western country for doing the same thing but then again, conspiracy theorists don't care if they're wrong or being hypocrites. You see, we're supposed to see their genius and accept the fact they're always right and when they're blatantly proven wrong, we're just supposed to forget and wait and salivate for their next genius conspiracy theory.
As a Catholic I know all too well that anyone who wants to attack Catholicism can trot out one or two "Catholcis in Name Only" to bolster their case...such it is with those few, rather pathetic Jews who allow themselves to be conscripted in an anti-Jewish cause.
anti zionist. not anti jewish. http://www.ijsn.net/home/
forced exile from their lands? oh, kinda like all the palestinians from PALESTINE. yup, said the word of the place that existed but never really existed....
Well, there were about 75,000 Jews in Egypt in 1948, today there are 100; 150,000 in Iraq, today 100; 30,000 in Syria, today <100...on and on it goes as Muslim State after Muslim State went about the task of making their nations Jew-free. I always keep this in mind when someone tries to argue that the Jews have treated the Palestinians badly...there are 5 million or so Muslims living in the old British Mandate (now Israel, West Bank and Gaza)...there are fewer than 10,000 Jews living in all Muslim lands from Morocco to Iraq. You tell me - whom has treated whom better?
Riddle me this Batman....does Israel have nukes? Why does that subject NEVER come up in the MSM? Makes me wonder (until one realizes that nearly every single media outlet is Jewish owned and/or run). If Israel wants to start a war with Iran, let them bleed for it. We have bled enough over the last decade. And are BROKE and in DEBT. Time for the Isrealis to shed some blood and treasure, being "allies" and all. The brainwashed-rapture-is-coming-anyday-now "religious right" is the only thing left blindly supporting them. Many others are FINALLY waking up, and have had enough. Iran is not Iraq (ask Saddam).
Of course Israel has nukes - when you are surrounded by nations which have pledged your destruction and they outnumber you in military manpower more than 20 to 1, you have to have nuclear weapons just to ensure you aren't destroyed in a war of attrition.
Nothing like having every right but yet not being part of the global community. Sounds like spoiled fucks to me...
I'm fucking tired of my tax dollars going to the hole there.
The US pledges the destruction of all the ME countries on a regular basis, and has actually done so!
Go ahead and give us one of those pledges you speak of. Dollars to donuts it's really stating that it's Israel's fucked up govt that needs to be eliminated. Gee, what a shock! People would like to see fucked up govts go bye-bye!
Oh, I believe they use terms like "Zionist entity" and such - only from time to time will someone actually say they want to murder all the Jews, as individuals. Things like that are best kept out of the papers until they are an accomplished fact, after all...but, you can't get rid of the "Zionist entity" until you have a non-Zionist entity army occupying Tel Aviv. Now, it is true that a person can, if they wish, believe that if, say, a Hamas-style army was in Tel Aviv that the Jewish population would be safe...you can also believe that the Moon is made of green cheese, if you like.
did the african national congress defeat the south african army? did gandhi defeat the british army? did the u.s. (or ukrainian or estonian) army defeat the u.s.s.r. army? no hamas army needs to be in tel aviv (and were it, it would be in greater danger than the jewish population) for hamas (or its descendants) to win. but you know that.
Israel is always mentioned in main stream media as having nukes.
You are right, Iran is not Iraq. Israel has already blown up nuclear sites in Iraq and the alleged one in Syria. Kinda forgot about that one, huh.
Feel free to ignore all their help in the Cold War too and say it's time for them to finally do something.
As for American support of Israel, you may wish it was dwindling but more people are visting Israel than ever and more American businesses are trading with Israel and even opening up plants and research facilities.
Shalom!!!!!!
"the old british mandate"? is that the zionist term for PALESTINE now? thanks for the laugh. what next, some more fake history where king david hands palestine over to the British in 70 AD until the brits eventually hand it back to the (european) zionists? the level of self delusion is uncanny.
Just a term used to describe not just Israel or the West Bank, but the whole territory. If I had written "Israel" people would have mentally crossed out the West Bank and Gaza; if I had written "Palestine" people would have mentally crossed out Israel. If you like, I could have called it "the old Sanjak's of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre"...but most people are unfamiliar with Ottoman territorial divisions.
The bottom line is that there were about 1.3 million non-Jewish people in the area in 1948 and there are about 5 million non-Jewish people in the same territory today. If the Jews have been busily forcing non-Jews out, why has there been a 390% increase in the non-Jewish population? Why, at the same time, was there 99.99% reduction in the Jewish population of Egypt? What do these statistics portend?
reply to mark noonan's "if the Jews have been busily forcing non-Jews out, why has there been a 390% increase in the non-Jewish population? Why, at the same time, was there 99.99% reduction in the Jewish population of Egypt? What do these statistics portend?"
i'm no demographer but i'd say that if the native american population had increased 390% after 1776 (or 1492) the story would have been a whole lot different over here. for, cruel as the israelis have been to the muslims in the occupied territories, and as much as the israelis learned from their nazi persecutors, they clearly weren't cruel and bloodthirsty enough if they expected to establish a jewish state in "greater israel" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
what it portends is that there will be many more muslims than jews in the disputed area and, over time, the "jewish state" will cease to be jewish or a state or both. more your choice than mine.
y'all came too late to colonization and, in your defense, are too conflicted about it to make it stick forever. the nazi parallels (or at least the afrikaner) will become too obvious (and the muslim world too rich and powerful). sanctions anyone?
again, not today and not tomorrow. but soon and for all time.