Yes, we are going to attack Iran. The reason given to the public will probably be something along the lines of how it's a breeding ground for terrorists, but the actual reason will be much more subversive. It's about creating large financial benefits for the world's richest and most powerful. See, although the war in Iraq has cost the US government around 3 trillion dollars, individual corporations such as BP and Halliburton (and many, many more) have profited from this war by privatizing Iraq's economy, right down to it's water system. The heads of these corporations are getting filthy rich, and the US government is bending and creating laws that are helping them do just that, because the individual politicians stand to personally benefit from it come election day. Iran's economy is next on the list to be privatized by these corporations. Iran is being positioned in the news as a threat slowly but surely in order to gain support (or at least less criticism) for the imminent war. However, the real reason behind it has nothing to do with the safety of the US or Israel or the world. It's about individual corporations, political leaders, and CEOs enjoying a large financial gain by creating chaos. Depressing? Yes. But sadly, disaster capitalism is very, very real, and because of that, so is a future war with Iran.
Here's a nice summary of how disaster capitalism works, for those that are interested.
And don't forget, that attacking Iran could help to bring victory to McCain. I'm not even sure, whether there are influential people, who are eager to see Armageddon in their lifetime. Think about Rev. Hagee!
Yes, we are going to attack Iran in the near future. The US has already condemned Hizbollah as a terrorist organization, and after what has been going on in Lebanon and Israel recently I think that war with Iran is closer than you may believe.
I definitely must agree. How can we be in Iraq freeing them from an already-defeated terrorist regime when an alive and well terrorist regime is only hours away? Especially when the terrorists in Iran are sending weapons and money to the militant rebels in Iraq.
"Terrorist regime." That's a nice phrase to throw around carelessly. Did you forget that the CIA carried out a military coup against the Shah of Iran in the 1950s? Terrorism is a matter of perspective. The reason fundamentalist groups in the Middle East hate America is because they are tired of us occupying their holy land and destabilizing governments. Do some independent research before you endorse what you hear in the mainstream media. Google is your friend.
Supporting Evidence:
the CIA plot
(www.nytimes.com)
Posted 203 days ago
Au contraire, I believe you are the one that needs to do your research. If you deny the fact that the extremist government in Iran is worthy of being called a terrorist regime, you should be the one to look on Google for a few things. The military coup carried out by the CIA on the Shah of Iran was not only 50 years ago, but perhaps you have forgotten about the revolution that occured there in 1979 overthrowing the U.S.-friendly Shah and establishing a radical extremist government bent against all western civilization. Want evidence? Go fill up on gas. Iran is known for its advocation of increasing the price of crude oil to countries like the U.S., unlike Saudi Arabia, which actually advocates keeping the prices nearer where they need to be. And as far as occupying their holy land and destabalizing their governments, I believe that I do need some more clarification on that one. Last time I checked, their "holy lands" in the middle east are Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, and we are certainly not occupying any of those regions. And all the destabilization going on in the Middle East seems to me to be from radical terrorist groups trying to take over their own countries.
Szechuan never said the CIA coup was 50 years ago, he said that it was in the 1950s, (1953) whats wrong with that? also he was giving an example of what many(maybe excluding Americans) would consider terrorist activity he didn't need to mention the overthrow of the US placed Shah decades later. Szechuan makes a good point that terrorism is a matter of perspective for many people in different countries America's actions to over throw governments is terrorism just on a larger scale. Yes Iran is increasing its oil prices but why shouldn't it? I agree i don't like paying the gas prices but America doesn't own that oil so America is at the mercy of the market and Iran. Isn't it considered that natural resource deposits are owned by the country they reside in? Also destablization in the middle east is caused by more than just terrorist groups, unless you are considering the actions that the US and other foreign nations to be terrorist.
Yes because: 1. We want their oil 2. It'll slow global warming 3. It'll reduce the terrorist threat and rush hour traffic 4. Their men have homosexual tendencies 5. They follow the wrong religion 6. They aren't pro-U.S. 7. It's easier to let God sort them out 8. The media needs something new to write about 9. They are enriching Uranium 10. We don't need a new map of present day Israel There. Did I offend everyone? -j
Do you have facts for some of these claims? How will invading Iran slow global warming? If we attack there for oil then not only will we increase our oil consumption(military vehicles) but if somehow we managed to win such an invasion we would have plenty of oil(for a few years) and probably use more. the US government said that attacking Iraq would reduce terrorism in the middle east. Has it? How do you know their men have homosexual tendencies? this is a gross overstatement of what isn't even a proven fact. extremists of most religions are bad, but Islam is not wrong, it is just a different belief system that people follow. yes they arn't pro-us but that gives us no reason to invade them. The US has not been the kindest nation to iran, why should they like us? the comment "wipe Israel off the map" that i believe you are referencing has been taken out of context to support pro-israeli causes. the US and israel have said very similar things about iran, yet you don't hear anyone in an uproar about that. there is no reason why any nation's peoples should be any more superior than another if you are going to use an out of context reference on one group you should do the same towards all others, or better yet don't do it in the first place. i don't know if this was a joke or what but it was beliefs like this that got America into Iraq. i fear that if these beliefs continue we will attack Iran, even though we don't have the military power or moral right to do so.
My God! ! ! Jesus gets it ;)
Yes. Everything points in that direction. The media attention drawn to Iran's president when he last visited. The ranking of Iran's military as a terrorist organization. At least all the excuses are there, there is only need of a economic climate to launch an attack.
It's very much a possibility if the Republicans loose this election. Why wouldn't the Bush administation start a conflict with Iran just before a newly elected Democratic administration takes over? I wouldn't put it past the neocon think tanks.
Posted 33 days ago | Tagged As: Yes, because
Yes this is something i fear was well. If they did they may have stuff against obama for the next election. They have proven that winning is far more important than what is best for the country, at least for them and i wouldn't deny they have the cruelty to do so again.
Posted 32 days ago | Tagged As: Yes, because
They have a lot of oil the United States cannot access from without their border. Oil is vital for the growth of any economy therefore, the US needs to invade and secure the oil resource for the future of American citizens.
I'm not a racist. I can't, I'm partly jew. But I wanna see some equivalent action, you know what I mean? TV and GTA:SA just isn't enough to fill my entropy pit.
"I'm not a racist...But..." Your genetic heritage doesn't preclude you from showing negativity to others based on their ethnicity. It is like saying black people can't be racist because they are black. Any person who regards another inferior due to their ethnicity is racist, their own race notwithstanding.
Well, it was a bad joke, yes. And according to your scribe - each one of us is inevitably a racist. Race has meaning, without meaning there wouldn't be a word for "race", just like there is no meaning to the shape of your forehead, only because no one came up with words and meanings to it. Let me just dive into this one. A racist makes a logical mistake by inputing value into another due to his ethnicity, ethnic relation comes down to as-if relevancy, though nothing can be concluded out of it because that brings us back to the sin of racism. The word "racist" has the same implications since it attributes sin into one's act of differing himself from an ethnic group he believes to be inferior than he is, So the problem is in words that attribute, Adjectives. And it is NOT a logical problem since attributing and adjectives are abstract ideas, inevitable acts in [this] rationalism, we get used to them, we learn how to gain from them, and we can't live without them. Calling someone a racist is the fastest way since WWII to shut someone up.
I was poking a hole in the logic of your joke :) You read a lot into my point that I haven't written. I was very specific about the fact that the term "racist" has a negative connotation. I was even more specific in my definition of the word in pointing out that a racist specifically has a negative perspective on other races. He or she sees themselves as generally superior based on the fact of their ethnic origin. Your interpretation however generalizes what I wrote into the attribution of any value, and not specifically negative value. If I understand you correctly, stating that French are better lovers (because they are French) is then racist. I may misread you though. I fail to see how the problem of racism needs to be academically logical for it to qualify as a problem. It is not adjectives in general that is the problem, nor the general use of them (after all, how else would we be able to describe a person?). It is the use of specifically negative adjectives, designed to impose inferiority onto another ethnic group that is the problem. So I propose that intent is the problem. I do agree that the word "racist" is thrown around as a blunt weapon, mainly for the very reasons that made WWII so horrible. That fact does not add any value to the definition and recognition of a true racist though. If a person calls me a racist, they might as well call me an elephant - both statements would be equally unsubstantiated.
|
No, we are not going to attack Iran unless we are provoked. As much backlash as there has been due to the Iraq war I find it highly unlikely that our government would approve another war. Besides, our troops are stretched thin enough as it is. We simply don't have the manpower to add another "front" to the "War on Terror".
I think it is unlikely. I am sure the idea is being floated around the White House, it's obvious they want it. However, they have tried a few tests to see if the American public would go for such a thing (such as that stand-off between the U.S. navy and Iranian gunboats a month or so ago), however it didn't go very well. These incidents showed that the American public is extremely reluctant to go for such a ploy. The Republicans are probably waiting to see how the presidential elections go. You can be sure that if McCain wins the presidency we will be in Iran towards the end of his first term or around the beginning of his second. Of course, If Obama wins it is extremely unlikely that we'll end up in that country, barring an outright attack by them on us.
War is a mechanism of economy. If resources are perceived as low, the the troops go out and acquire said resources. The question of whether or not Iran will be attacked hinges on a number of factors though namely: - Can Bush justify sending more troops into a foreign country to pick a fight that, from the experiences with Iraq, will probably prove fruitless? My answer - with leaders like Obama inciting the concept of change, based on the American population's increasing irritation with the war, Bush will probably struggle to find enough national acceptance to give his economic backers what they want - Can America effectively handle a gorilla war that involves nuclear devices? Since Iran won't be on the offense, they have very little to lose in using WMD's. The US on the other hand don't want to use nuclear weapons because they still need a society to serve their economic needs (a.k.a oil gluttony). Once again, the risk is too high. Moreso because they can effectively use their weapons in Iraq (with so many American soldiers based there, they need not focus on the actual continent to prove their point) and maybe even take over that particular region The question remains though how the American government will respond to the belief that they are heading for an economic recession that, should food, water, housing, energy and the resulting inflation spike taken into account, could result in a global depression. America under Bush administrations (current and past) responded with war to increase government spending as a means to stimulate the economy. With Bush so close to the end of his term, and possibly facing impeachment, he will probably fail to pull the literal and proverbial trigger on this one.
'We'? Not everyone on this site is American, FYI.
Hehe, my profile may state otherwise, but this is true for me as well!
|
