Dear Mr. Chomsky:

Below is a statement you made in this thread back in 2006. Others support this basic assumption of yours.

Noam Chomsky: My assumption all along has been that they would not attack Iran, and I strongly suspect that the Pentagon and US intelligence (and their British counterparts) are trying to leak dire warnings in the hope of cutting it off at the pass. 

Today Israel flew a test run operation. It won\'t be long now Mr. Chomsky. They will most likely go it unilaterally, but that still means as you know a fully integrated US involvement. They will move while they still have good ol\' lame duck Bush in power. This has been understood and predicted for a long time now. For a man as learned and in-the-know as you are, there are clearly some blindspots in your judgment. That weakness is.......some faith in human decency and moral and ethical compass. The same weakness won\'t allow you to look into 911 with an open-mind. Anyway, u huge underground and not-so-underground not only knew Iran would be attacked, but that it would occur before Bush left office. Where were you Mr. Chomsky? You are very intelligent. Your work and knowledge is exhaustive and immense. You touch on all the right buttons. But you fall short when it comes to things like his. It\'s not your fault Mr. Chomsky. Your blindspot is a virtue - it\'s just your faith in humanity.

Dear Mr. Chomsky and Readers,

Please read the following. Comments are most welcome.

The US/UK/Israel position on Iran is cunning, clear and calculated. They know harsh threats and rhetoric, and rounds of sanctions will only harden Iran\'s resolve and pride. This is entirely intentional. They have no intention of resolving things diplomatically. They simply need to be able to say to the world that they fully exhausted all other options and that military intervention is the only solution. Even if Iran decided to give in to demands, they would still find a pretext for pre-emptive military strikes if not all out war!

The Iran mess is all about:

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." [George Orwell]

Jim, 

Yea, let's wait until they are closer to making the bombs.  That makes sense?

That way, they'll have the technology figured out, recorded, and completed so that when they don't just bow to your will in the name of peace 4-6 years from now, and we have to subdue them then, they'll be able to share all their completed nuclear weapons programs with any other group of nutballs that would like to take more shots at the civilized world. 

It's called nuclear proliferation in case you haven't heard.  Where every man, woman, and child will have a pocket nuke.  This way, instead of a person being shot by a firearm evey second somewhere in the world, we'll have a nuclear weapon going off every year or so.  Get it! 

Yea, it's always good to procrastinate, and hope it will all go away. 

Unfortunately, Iran has a long history of backing Hezbollah, and insiting many terrorist attacks over the years.  They consider Israel tresspassers on Palestinian land, and have already said they will wipe them from the map if they get the opportunity, and they support Hezbollah, which is just a conventional and not nuclear means to attack Israel daily, so what don't you people get? 

Iran isn't even Arab, it was Persian, yet they stick their noses into Arab's affairs.  They want to control everything in the Arab world, and the Arabs are supposed to bow down to them?  I guess, the Arabs will have to decide weather they want to side with the West, or the Persians.  Pretty good trick for a bunch of Persian extremists to overthrow Iran's government in 1979 under the guise of Islam to later attempt to overthrow the entire middle-east and the Arab tribes and people by using Islam to do it.  Using the Arab's own religion by a foreign people (Persians) to overtake them. 

Iran's religious fanatics look forward to WWIII because they believe it's their destiny.  They are a dark nation, a death cult.  

I'd like to not dislike Muslims, or mistrust them, but unfortunately even the moderate Muslims are not in control of their future.  They answer to the Supreme Leader, the clerics, and the mullahs.  They have no choice, or they would have overthrown these dictatorships long ago. 

The middle-east is just one huge mess that the west has always tried to avoid, and we would have but God must have played a not so funny trick on us.  He put most of the world's energy there, along with a different prophet.

 So now we have each side claiming their God and prophet is best, and one side has the energy reserves but is underdeveloped with not much more than mostly sand, and the other side is highly developed and needs the energy.  What else could "God" had done to make things anymore divisive than what they are now?

Things could have been much simpler if just one of these variables could have been shared in common, but unfortunately, all these differences on every front are used to fight each other.  So go figure.

The big question everyone must ask themselves including middle-eastern people is "are you willing to allow Iran to develop nuclear technology, and to trust that they will not make bombs"?

What has been their track record thus far?

If they do not stick to only peaceful nuclear power development (which not a single country has ever done without pursuing nuclear weapons), and they do develop bombs and missiles, then what?

We either bow to Islam and 12th century Sharia Law, or have a nuclear weapon pointed at our head?

Who is more likely to use nuclear weapons in the future?Societies that routinely support suicide bombing to settle disputes, while believing that when they die they will go to paradise as their reward while cleansing the world they leave behind of infidels, or the western countries who do not favor suicide tactics to settle their disputes?

Besides, because of our culture and/or religion allowing us more freedom of thought and discovery, the west developed the technology in the first place.  It was our responsibility to protect that technology, and to keep it out of the hands of immature groups of people, which is exactly what they are trying to do.

It's like a kid wanting or getting hold of a real gun.  He didn't take on all the responsibility it took to create it, to responsibly wield it without letting it off, therfore respecting it. 

It's just something powerful that he wants to use to get his own way, or to wield power over something or someone else.

Yes, the United States used the weapon twice on Japan, but Japan declared war on them first.  The WWII "Axis" were forcefully invading countries, enslaving and mass killing their populations and it was stopped because of the United States.

This is not what is going on in Iraq or elsewhere.  The US is not mass killing civilians, and rounding them up to put into concentration camps though the liberals would like to convince us all that indeed that's what they are doing.  Totally rediculous!

POWs, and the killers are put in prison.  They could all have been shot on sight rather than imprisoned, or made to do labor and then starved and killed like during WWII, sao there is no comparison, and it is absurd for propagandists to even attempt any parallels.

Germany, Italy, and Japan to name the main members of the WWII "axis" are doing pretty damn well today, aren't they?

If the US is such a Satan, and so terrible like the propagandists, and the subversives like to make us believe, these former "axis" countries would still be under the totalitarian rule of the US, and they are not.

War sucks, but when do you begin to defend yourself if you see a killer comming your way?

Killers already came our way on 9/11, and have attempted to come our way repeated times before and after 9/11, so when do you take some action?

Do you let these same group of people who were behing embassy bombings, embassy hostage takings, and support the killing of our troops in Iraq, which was none of their business, but they are choosing to make it their business obtain nuclear weapons?

They like to act as if they are just some neutral party minding their own business persuing "peaceful" nuclear energy, while they take part in killing our troops, and arming and training armies to attack us in Iraq.

For a country who just wants to develop peaceful nuclear energy and keep a low profile and not cause any trouble, they certainly are not doing a very good job at it.

Technically, the US should already be attacking them anyhow just for the fact that they have already taken part in killing some of our troops in Iraq, and not even having anything to do with their "peaceful" nuclear developments. 

They have picked their own war.  They could have minded their own business and not given the west any reason to attack them, which would have only strengthened their lying arguments of peaceful nuclear development, but instead, they were dumb enough to provide eveidence of their active involvement in killing US troops.  

There should be eveidence being collected on this right now, and it will be used against them to share with the rest of the world to make a case against them, and to not believe them.

If one is not even smart enough to stay out of Iraq, and refrain from attacking the US military, while thinking the rest of the world is so dumb that they'll buy the "peacful energy" lie, I don't know if they would hold up as well to a western attack as well as they would like to believe.

Most of the trouble in Iraq is because of them, and they should not think that the US could not pick up and move right into their country.  It took 30 days to destroy Iraq the first time, and a week to put ground troops in Bagdad the second time around.  So if Iran claims they are twice as tough as Iraq, then it might take two weeks to get to Tehran instead of one week to Bagdad.

Besides, the objective is not to take over Iran the forst time just like Iraq.  They would just bomb their nuclear sites, and thin down their military hardware first like in Iraq, and then wait to see what they choose to do.

Whether they would act like Saddam and remain a dictatorship, and attempt to reconstitute their forces or to take a different road to a peacful existance.  Give up supporting Hezbollah, give up attacking Americans, etc.

Maybe, they would choose to become a non-isolated, and peaceful member of the world community.  Instead of some little "sawed-off" "Hitler", who was part of the 1979 hostage taking of Americans running his big mouth off because of "Short Man's Syndrome" (short men who have to make up for their height and stature by overemphasizing their verbal output, and overall hot headed temperment).

A day when Iran would be a respected member of the world community, and nobody could say anything bad about them.  A day when they would sell their oil, make good money, and distribute the wealth among their people, rather than like Saddam who never had so much to give to the people, but always had tons of money to spend on endless pieces of military hardware, and weapons development as if he was going to ever be able to use it.

We see where it all went.  It went up in flames, and it all went to the Soviet defense contractors like the left wingers are always complaining about money going.  How money goes to defense contractors. 

Well, the Russians don't mind supplying weapons when they can, it's a profitable business because when the US destroys them all, then new orders have to placed!

Iran has to prove they could be trusted not to incinerate Israel before anyone would take them seriously in having nukes.  Kind of hard for them to do, when they say Israel must be wiped off the map and the rest of the world does not agree with that idea. 

It will be the rest of the world that will determine whether Iran will be able to keep nuclear technology and to be a trusted member of the world community.

Many people may not like that, but that is just how it is in the world today.  It is a small world, and we all have to live here, and the countries that have the most power are hated by the smaller countries who want to do whatever they want, but just like there are laws and rule in their own countries, today there is also international rule, and law, and if the international rule says you can't do something, then guess what?  You can't do it.  You might try to defy it, but sorry Iran, it's too late for that.  You missed the opening, the window to where you could have had nuclear weapons before the world became as organized as it is now. 

You might not like it, and fight like a mad child against it, but the "parents" of the world are not going to let you threaten them.

At some point, these type of countries (which are becomming fewer) will hopefully discover it's alot nicer to get along with your neighbors and become respected members of the community than it is to always be picking fights with them.

We either all live together, or we die together, it's just a matter of which way it goes, and who will do the most dying, and who will do the most living.

I belive Iran would be doing much more dying than the western world if it comes down to any all out military invasions.  If Iran gets their targeted facilities bombed, then they will be doing all the dying.  It's suicidal in every way.  Even if Iran ever developed a nuclear weapon, and used it on anyone, Iran would definately become a large parking lot. 

 They are ignorant to think that the rest of the world will sit by and allow them to stockpile nuclear weapons that could be used to target multiple locations, etc.

At best, they'd be able to scape by with very little, and that "ain't even gonna happen". 

 

Maybe if the Democrats here in America take over and install a happy happy, joy joy, feeling, and trust everyone, and anyone who wants to make nukes.  That might give Iran a chance to at least make one to attack Israel and that is likely what they are waiting on.

If it looks like the Dems will take over office, Bush will take out Iran's nuke facilities to buy the world more time.  If the Republicans take office, Iran may actually get a little more time because the Republicans won't feel that they are out of time, and out of power.

Either way, Iran will have to back off this idea because the world will not accept a nuclear weaponized Iran, and that is why the French are now putting out the message.

 Good Day! 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Wal-Mart and Disneyworld would not be allowed to invade" because of Sharia Law.  Let Iran aquire nuclear weapons and we will have something worse then your "car bomb summer".  We'll have nuclear winter.

Have a nice day.

You really hit the point when u mentioned Israel. US is just a puppet doing dirty work in Iraq on behalf of Israel. If Iran keeps on being a threat on the puppetmaster, US will have to attack Iran.

I have a question?  Do you think if Iran was able to produce a nuclear warhead and develop the technology to hit the U.S., would they do it?  If you listen to any of the media Iran has made it very clear what they think of America.

You make an interesting point regarding "liberals" supporting dictators, did you make it up yourself or rip it off from Rush. Liberal or conservative as far as administrations go they are both cut from the same cloth. But it seems to me that the neocons are the ones I've seen having photo-op's with some of the more atrocious dictators. As a nation, regardless of political leanings, we've provided many of their death squads the weapons and special schooling at that wonderful Ft. Benning School house dedicated to refining the skills of masochistic tyrants. Before we go and aid the poor down trodden of Iran by poisoning their country with depleted uranium, and bombing them into a democracy, maybe we should take a good look at our actions as a nation. For a democracy, we sure behave like a dictator, or at the least a bully. As for attacking Iran, I'd like to think we are smarter than that, but we're not.

Do you agree with nuclear programs in any country? Is not any risk in it? And is the risk of 2nd Chernobyl?

What kind of catastrophy would empower the west to whole heartedly go to war with Iran?

With regards to US being put off from going to war with Iran, I'm having problems with working out who you mean when you say the 'US'. do you mean corporations, shareholders, government...the people with influence over decision courses. What kind of thresholds of public approval/opinion bind/restrain them?

 

Many Thanks

Dear Noam, 

Remember the movie All The President's Men? Remember when Deep Throat tells Bob Woodward "Just... follow the money" It seems to me the media isn't asking the right questions. (for obvious reasons) Like Why did US invade Iraq? Put aside democracy and WMD's. Look at Oil in detail. That's where the story is in my opinion.

Will you speak on the subject of what William R. Clark has called Petrodollar Warfare in his book - "Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar". Basically the premise being that Iraq and now Iran are about oil. In particular, the threat to US dominance if any major oil country switched from the Greenback to the Euro in their Oil Bourse program. It seems like Hussein announced he was going to and soon after was invaded and now put to death. Later Iran announced the same thing and bingo - the anti-Iran rhetoric lit up and isn't letting up.

Any comments?

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." [George Orwell]

 

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Of The Map -

Does He Deny the Holocost?

- or is this propaganda?

 

 

I think it's interesting to note, that today Israel has contacted the U.S. Pentagon asking for permission to fly through Iraqi air space. They would have to fly over Iraq to bomb Iran, and they need American permission so that our planes don't start shooting their planes.

Everyone, accept Jesus as your savior, because he is coming soon to Rapture his church. Those left behind will be faced with a terrible situation on their hands. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. No other religion will save you, not even Islam. Turn to Jesus, time is nearly up.

I get the same impression. I have this gut feeling that America will soon fall like Rome.

I think this kind of comments originates from Zionist propaganda. In fact, you should know that Iran is not a threat, but Israel IS a big threat for every neighbor country.

Iran's governments are elected by people, and it's one the few democracies among middle east countries. So, your comment about "regime change" is not reasonable.

Dear dear Noam. You are a trained academic and fierce intellectual. You can analyze, interpret, connect the dots, target loose ends and inconsistencies, locate trends and read between the lines with the best of them. 

BUT, you are sadly mistaken (perhaps blind faith/hope is the culprit) when it comes to Iran. 

The US isn't turning up the media meter and rhetoric on Iran to avoid confrontation. They are doing exactly what they did and continue to do with Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe they say "hidden in plain view" to explain this tactic. We say it's too simple, too obvious, too sraightforward, too soon, to be pulling another fast one on the American people. It must be something else. So you figure it's a diversion tactic or flexing muscles. Nope. It's Iraq all over again Noam. You and I are going to sit back and watch the US Agenda steamroll over all that is right and good and lawful, like so many times before, and there ain't shit we can do about it. If you knew exactly what the Agenda was and the real reasons for it, you would understand why Iran is next. To us and to them (Iranians) it wouldn't make sense, it would be insane, it would be irrational and illogical, it would be a greenflag for immedaite escalation with consequences felt all over the board in ways we can't possibly imagine. But Noam, the Agenda, if you haven't noticed, has a life of its own. It runs by its own set of rules and logic. Neither of us know for sure what the Plan is - the real motivations. Is it oil? Is it to initiate and escalate conlict throughout the Islamic world as the next Cold War to line the military complex pockets and make the people feel like they are in desparate need of protection from Big Brother? Is it to have a long-term military presense in all Middle Eastern regions soa s to monitor and intimidate and control oil and arms and puppet regimes? Perhaps they want extremist muslims to do something extreme so that they have an excuse to nuke them or round them up in detention camps. Maybe it's just smart politics to have an evil enemy in the world (or several). Like I said Noam, you and I don't know for sure. And because we don't know, we can't predict very well. We can't rely on logic, reason, historical precedent, fine-tuned analysis, and all the rest of it. If you haven't noticed Noam, Iraq happened in spite of you and me. It happened in spite of your research, remarks, lectures, books, blogs, interviews, analysis, theorizing, and the rest of it. Why? Because the Agenda rules the day. Sure they pick and choose their battles - they allow some things to be debated and turned over - but on those policies deemed above the law and scrutiny - forget it. One way or another the machine makes sure it gets done. It's always been that way, and it continue to be that way. And if anything, they seem to be getting bolder by the day. So what you do is certainly relevant and important as an exercise in defiance Noam, but what we really need you can't provide! I'm not sure actually what would actually stop The Machine and The Agenda. Armed revolt. Catastrophe. A miracle. But whatever it is, it will have to be huge. And you and all the so-called moral intellectuals out there are not going to achieve diddly-squat until you start growing some balls and stepping out on a limb - make some predictions - point some fingers - ask the right questions - stir the pot more - and listen to your gut. God forbid you break a little with academic protocol, make some mistakes, expose yourself, make enemies if need be with the institutions and people you are involved with and work with and which support your livelihood and reputation.

Let me ask everyone out there a question. What will make The Company (TPTB - The Powers That Be) stand up and pay attention and actually give a shit? What will make them stop what they are doing?

 

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." [George Orwell]

 

Wake up people. Iran is on the US radar and they are likely the next target if not among the next few. Rumour mill suggests that they will be hit near the end of Bush's final year in office 2008. Also likely is another fabricated 911 scenario to garner support for what will certainly prove to be an overwhelmingly unpopular move. Bush will take another one for The Company because that is what will be demanded of him. If you didn't already know, the President is merely a puppet - A tangible visible object for the masses to direct their praise and blame towards - a diversion from the real decision makers behind the curtains who can "work with" whomever takes office at any given time. By the way, Democrat and Republican is at the core another diversion for the masses. The real power holders in both parties play for the same team and are a part of the same boys clubs.

The US will attack Iran because it is part of their Agenda - period. Don't try and rationalize or intellectualize this sad and disturbing truth. No one understands this whole Iraq charade. Few ever really supported it and even fewer do today. Did it stop them? Has it stopped them? But you want to believe that The Company (The Powers That Be or TPTB) is suddenly going to become rational and benevolent and listen to the people. Sorry folks, but just like Iraq, you won't believe your eyes from start to finish and then it will be over in spite of everyone's wishes o the contrary.

Do you want to know what their Agenda is? An easy way to figure it out, although it is necessarily after the fact as it is secret and protected knowledge, is to track the administration's bigger moves and particulalry those which they appear unshakeable on. The policies and actions which seem to defy reason and ignore the majority sentiment. The things which make your stomach turn because you know the sheet is being pulled over head yet again and there's nothing you can do about it. You hope it's not true. You hope reason prevails. It never really has. It never really will.

I stand on record today, in front of all bloggers and HH Noam Chomsky, to say that Iran will be hit by the US and so-called coalition forces by the end of 2008 at the latest. I don't know how they will justify and spin doctor it yet. I don't know what schemes they have up their sleeves to shock people into supporting the insanity. But mark my words. If I am wrong, I will gladly remove myself from this blog permanently and I will be overjoyed that I was wrong.

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." [George Orwell]

 

I was wondering if you could sight some of the murders that Chavez and these other 'dictators' have caused? I would like to read them as i am undecided about some of these leaders.

Same opinion as before, Dr. Chomsky?

I am reading a lot of opinions saying that US will atack iran. I can tell everybody that in Israel the people belonging to the Israel Army tell you not officially that this time it will be Israel who will attack Iran. Not the US.

imediat action must be need or we are going to see the start of WORLD WAR III as the bible said so . . . so let it be written so let it be done. . . .

this war cost so much money and human life. What won America thereby? Nothing! Only criticism and indignation.

You are a dope.  :)

Those of you that think we are in Iraq for no particular reason are so lost in your isolationist shell that it would take a psychological deprogrammer a week to pull out all of that liberal "hide in my basement and tax the working man to death" garbage.

Regime change is really needed in Iran, the sooner the better.  It is a volatile situation that we cannot ignore.  I think with the US still in Iran, the Israelis will do a massive flyover and take out their nuke sites.  The UN is extremely weak and cannot stop Iran. 

how do you know world war III did not start in 1946.. seriously and then schilde , Hitler died in 1945 and GWB was born in 1946! uncanny isn't it..(lol) and schilde, I am very much sure some people would not hesitate to vote him the new anti-christ of the century ( he does lie like an anti-christ)..

World war three comes in 2007, but there's more!

 I'll even throw in, a brand new car!

I hope he''l be the last pro-fascist government.. Victor, I think you are right to label the US as being a Dark Empire. The US is taking root inside a advanced fascist ideology to enrich corporation, it does not look back who may die because of its policies. I also think it is recommendable to link the current Bush administration to earlier form of fascism the world had to cope during WWII. Recently the US knowing it is loosing the opinion war in the middle east is referring to Islamo- fascism in the hope of associating, terrorism, islam and the reason for fighing in WWII. This will possibly back fire in the hands of BUSH, because mostly I don't think that small terrorist like Bin Laden yeld any power with arab opinion

Why do I have this feeling that Bush will be the LAST American President?

monsieur, you don't not deserve a glorified response

 

The inchoherent nature of your rambling text leads me to believe that English is not your first language, or you are delusional or both.  Husain was a street thug as were his sons.   He and the other tyrants in the Middle East are no different than Chicago street gang leaders.  Israel and the U.S. will win the war against these thugs.  They are ignorant, ruthless and anti-semetic.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Musolini, and Hirohito all demonstrated that evil does not triumph.  Chavez, and the street thug that runs Iran currently will also prove this in our lifetime. I can only come to the conlcusion that Islam is an inherently violent religion, and Muhammad was a false prophet.  Either that or many of his followers in the world are really ignorant and poor. As a Christian I do not support violence against other people but the crazy Muslims in the Middle East make it difficult to adhere to Christ's teachings about loving your enemies.  I am still struggling with loving Muslims who I see mostly as my enemies.  Women are second class citizens in most of the backward, Muslin world especially in the Middle East. 

What do you have against electicity, running water, and schools? ponpon, Iraqis were having all of these before the war and occupation, In faq iraqis and Iraqis women were having more rights under Hussein than they have in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Women had the right to education, drive a car and go to work.. now their only right the right to die under bombs. Why do liberals always support murdering dictators like Chavez, Hussain, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and all the other left-wing thugs who kill billions of innocent people? Chavez is not a dictator but an elected president,( he won without cheating like Bush ) The US supported Pol-Pot and Hussein, The US corporate fascist supported all the dictators including Hitler and Mussolini.. who saId I supported Stalin or mao, because I or other disagree about the US does not automatically rule I or other support stalin.. Move over Bush, Chavez is the greatest american president

If a person was walking the street and saying the same thing as your GWB that person would be put in a FREAKING asylum.. YOUR PRESIDENT IS LIKE A SLINKY..HE IS NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING ..BUT..HE'D STILL BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE IF YOU'D PUSH HIM DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS.. LOL

Why are liberals such frustrated, hateful people?  I used to be a liberal when I lived in the suburbs of Chicago.  When I moved into the city and saw the ghettos that black people were forced to live in by the liberal federal government beginning with the New Deal up until Ronald Reagan finally started dismantling the liberal, Democratic plantation for black people called welfare, I became a conservative.  I don't hate minorities like the liberals do.  It is interesting that liberals are so against democracy in Iraq.  What do you have against electicity, running water, and schools?  Why do liberals always support murdering dictators like Chavez, Hussain, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and all the other left-wing thugs who kill billions of innocent people?

I hope someone liberates your face.

I am worried about the same thing as you Anon Iranian Refugee.

Human beings are constantly longing for reaffirmation that they are on the side of morality ... that their side is the good side ... that their fight is the good fight.  Because of this there is a leftist tendency to oversimplify things ---  Bush is evil, therefore his opponent is good. 

However my fear is not directly related to that .. although it is linked.

My fear is that when Bush leaves office the left will see itself as having won some sort of monumental victory and there will be a relaxing --- a collective "whew" --- of opposition to America's Ipmerialism (which will continue on much the same without Bush supposedly at the reigns).

I think if you polled many on the left and near left there would be a remarkable consensus that Once we get rid of Bush ... everything will be A-OK.  Especially when the Republicans put forth a Bush 'opposite' to take over for the next 8 years.

This is why he is the greatest president ever.  The blame leaves with him --- not only does he manage to get the Right 8 years in office, but he gets them another 8 just for leaving!!!!

Pure Genius.

 

President Bush has been an excellent leader because he ignores the press and his left-wing kook critics.  The street thugs that control Iran are very worried about the democracy being established in Iraq and know that they do not have long to steal from and oppress the Iranian people because electric power is restored in Iraq, water service is restored and schools are built and continue to be built.  I hope that President Bush does attack Iran and liberate the people from the street thugs that control the government just like he did in Iraq.  Why are left-wingers so into human oppression and suffering at the hands of thugs???

As you've mentioned, US needs somewhere with no power to defence to attak. This is what they've done in all these years. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq; I don't want to remember El salvador and far east....

Anyway, I don't think that Iran's that weak for them to attack on it.

just a side note about the 3% threshold that they have reached in enriching uranium:

 

The ability to enrich it to 3% (the amount needed for many civilian nuclear technologies) implies that they are (theoretically) able to enrich it to any level they want. that is why this is a significant event. The time this will take depends on the construction of enough centrifuges to reach that level of purity. This could also be accellerated significantly by them purchasing technologies from other countries.

I've seen blind support of groups like Hamas and the Iranian government by the most left wing, feminist, or atheist people, which to me shows a complete ignorance of these groups and there stances.

I dont know, I don't think the left is supporting groups like Hamas, I am not aware that Chomsky, Peterson, or Paul Street are sending helicopters to the Palestinians.. Here its a harmless blog, these aforementioned gentlemen are merely blogging on political issues and I , like some others come here to debates and share opinions on the presented issues.

The debate is not wheter we like Iran or Hamas, the debate is what is the involved government's administrations or parties are trying to do, people here can only give their opinions..

As for mine [my opinion, I would be not willing to risk any of the lives of 68 million Iranians , including beautiful women and children because some scary psychos in Washington invent an imaginary threat.

In my opinion the just position in this case would be to stand both against invasion (which is not very probable if anyone takes a real look at the situation) and against the Iranian government that contines to violate human rights, execute minors, homosexuals, and political prisoners, torture, and oppress its people.

I agree there is human rights issue for which I oppose BUT I am not willing to make a Common Front with right-wing people whom I perceive are worst than the Muslim fundamentalists.

Strategically talking, I ( my opinion) and may be - some others - dont want Iran to feel secluded or cornered, people who are cornered r without exit fight to death..people dont react well to threats..

also there is a thing I do like in Iran, the oil industry is nationalized belongs to Iranians, all sales benefits Iranians..there, essentially some social ideology exist..

In Iraq even under the dictatorship of Hussein, oil was nationalized. it now belongs to private interest, the US would have been better off making friend with Hussein than engaging in this war..( this said considering how many Iraqis died)

I think the same can be said with the US and Iran, threatening war is not gonna make friends..personally if the US canno act diplomatically, it should go home..because if they start a war in Iran this war will be ongoing for the next 25-30 years.. you tell me where your HUMAN RIGHTS will stand with all these deaths.. the leading Human right they have is not be be SLAUGHTERED..

also , your speech seem to bring all issues together, nuclear energy, war against Iran and your opposition to the Iranian fundamentalist government in place since 25 years.. You are mixing too many issues.. If you recall Bush was reelected because some state found the issue of gay marriage more important than Iraqis dying in Iraq! Here we know that the Nuke is an imaginary threat and tell me what would be one nuke compared to the 12 000 the US already have ? its a fart really..

As an Iranian refugee who has experienced both the puppet regieme of the Shah, and the terrible Islamic government I must say I am very much appalled at the position many Anti-war activists take in regards to this matter. Interestingly enough they present the same good vs. evil dichotomy as George Bush does, in particular the idea that the world consists of bad (Bush's policies), and good (anyone against it). I've seen blind support of groups like Hamas and the Iranian government by the most left wing, feminist, or atheist people, which to me shows a complete ignorance of these groups and there stances. I in no way shape or form support a foreign invasion of Iran, but I also am not an advocate of Nuclear weapons or technology. People should understand a situation before taking a stand on it, I have met many anti-war activists who are just as ignorant about Iran as any neo-liberal is. Further one should not forget their ideals when defending a country, remember that a country is not the same as its government, therefore anti-war activists should support the Iranian people in any shape or form, many of whom are against the clerical regieme in Iran. One must acknowledge the fact that both the Iranian government and US government are enemies of the Iranian people, Islamic fundementalism, however much it is distorted or fabricated within the western world, is still something that contradicts our ideals of equality. In my opinion the just position in this case would be to stand both against invasion (which is not very probable if anyone takes a real look at the situation) and against the Iranian government that contines to violate human rights, execute minors, homosexuals, and political prisoners, torture, and oppress its people.

 

Statement on the Islamic Republic of Iran's Nuclear Issue (NAM/MM/COB/9), Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement, Putrajaya, Malaysia, May 30, 2006 

"we" can talk about iran untill "we" die, but before that happens (for most of "us"), something else will. the u.s. either will or will not attack iran. all "we" can do is respond after that point, or take action at this point. "i" as a united states citizen would never attack iran (or iraq for that matter), but that does not mean that "we" will not (have/do).

now, "you" may not agree with "me" and thats ok, but maybe "they" do.

 

-nothing-

US will attack Iran in 2007.

I would like to believe we won't attack Iran, that Bush couldn't be such a fool, that the colossal screw up in Iraq would force rational leaders to prevent such a disaster. However, the series of events and manipulation of events by international financiers leading up to our participation in WWI and the instigation of WWII, with no regard for the destruction of millions of lives and billions of property, only for profits and power, cause me, regrettably, to believe otherwise. I apologize for not expounding on this assertion. In regard to Iran, I expect some provocative event, either real, instigated or fabricated, to occur that will enable the Zionist war hawks to launch an all out attack on Iran. The military infrastructure and personnel are in place to attack Iran from the east and west, north and south. An air base in the Chagos islands is operational for B52 long-range bombers. As I understand the motives of the international financiers, a US victory (in Cheney's "long war") is not necessary, the destruction of Iran is. The US is financially broken, living on some collective hallucination facilitated by the dope dealing Central Banks of the world. Under the foreign policy of the neo-cons the US has earned the enmity of the world. Iran has built up substantive defensive capabilities. The global counter weights to balance the military dominance of the US have been [financing] the build up of their military resources for years. Is it so hard to imagine we've been set up? I hope I'm wrong, but this replicates a pattern that has been repeated over and over and over.

As we all know, the GW Bush ship of state that was so
hermetically sealed through 2001-2002,has come to
suffer so many leaks that it is sinking and the rats
are deserting it, as the saying goes. I try to keep
what comes my way to myself until at least one open
source intimates the same thing. With NSA trying to
make-up for the security specifics which it is not
competent to do with the broad sweeps it need not do,
it is only Las Vegas odds that my "leakes" will
otherwise be caught. Besides, context to give meanings
to scoops will have to come from far more "in" people
than me.

Please allow me to put before you information coming
to my ear regularly from Wash DC little birds, hitting
me in both the front and back of my head: Mr. Bush was
never in FULL control of his government. All through
his years of formation, his caring father sought to
keep his son confident by literally hiring others to
do his worrying for him. Thus, as a young man with a
scandalous record and no other accomplishments to
compensate for it, Mr. Bush turned himself over to
some others, leaving it to them to worry about his
political career. As for his existing/missing past,
Mr. Bush totally obliterated it with the blinding
glare of his Christian Salvation. It&undefined;s not that he
chose this task for himself but rather that his
professional "worriers" did. What this has produced is
a most amiable and unassuming mediocrity who is not in
the slightest ashamed, worried or in need to
compensate for who and what he is. I cannot tell you
how much thousands of influential Republicans were
totally charmed  by that in him. It was his "I am what
I am and I&undefined;m not worried about it" type of even keel
"compassionate conservative" image that is so
unassuming that made so many of us see him as the
President who will end stress in America.

A group of foreign policy experts calling themselves
the "Vulcans" gathered around him and found him so
soothing that they often had to remember that they
were dealing with the future President of the United
States. Because of the relationship with his dad, he
chose to go with some of the people among the
Republican luminaries who least got along with his
father. To that end Cheney was key and Scowcroft
something of an anti-Christ. As Cheney and Rumsfeld
filled their offices with neocons, they liberated Mr.
Bush more and more from worries. Karl Rove took care
of politics and by the end of 2002 had achieved great
electoral successes.

At that time, the Vulcans pushed two issues: (1)
leapfrog West Europe and build a new NATO around East
Europe; then, tie the old Europe to this vital new
Europe NATO. (2) Encircle China so as to force it to
behave properly in trade. The neocons wanted a Mideast
focus, as did their representatives in power, the
worriers, Cheney and Rumsfeld but the Vulcans ruled
then and this was not to be. 9/11 ended the Vulcans&undefined;
agenda. The rest is history. But since that date, so
exclusively theirs did Rumsfeld, Cheney and the
neocons consider the Bush presidency-- that Bush ended
still ended up with this "What me worry?" way about
him that it made you think that no matter what you did
he would never take it as stepping on his toes; one
never felt ill-at-ease bulldozing policies (unless, as
in the case of Sec. Treasury O&undefined;Neill, Cheney deemed
you un-kindred-spirit). As the US stumbled into a
seeming success in Afghanistan, the neocons never
could accept Bush&undefined;s reluctance to go to war in Iraq as
an obstacle. The Pentagon proceeded to present the
President with a fait accompli and he just went with
it, following his worriers instead of worrying that
they were taking over his foreign policy. From this
bunch for example, I kept hearing that Powell was
there to make a couple of speeches as Sec. of State
and then it is good-by. In fact, when in his last
meeting with Mr. Bush Powell warned him to worry about
a Cheney-Rumsfeld takeover of his foreign policy,
Powell failed to appreciate how NOT worrying was the
important operative term for the President.

Bush wanted to take over the White House in his second
term but was faced with: "O.K., we&undefined;ll leave and take
the Christian Right with us, then you can worry about
what to do next." And so, to avoid worry, Bush
continued as prisoner of his first term. I am reminded
of Brezhnev asking his Pravda editors-speech writers:
what is this "Brezhnev Doctrine"? They urged him not
worry about it and just deliver the speech. He did.
And so, the next time the Presidium met it had to make
policies in accord with the Brezhnev policy he himself
has enunciated. That&undefined;s how you get policy by
speechwriters. Ditto Bush!

But now worry has infected Bush, what with the polls,
the Plame case, Iraq, Katrina, oil prices etc, etc.
And so, Bush can no longer escape worrying. His only
option for avoiding worry is to return to the able men
of his dad. Swallowing pride is easier than worrying
for him because Bush is not conceited.

I tell all this because, if I am right, and I wouldn&undefined;t
type all this if I were not confident, Bush will
decrease the Iraq conflict and will not attack Iran
because that&undefined;s the only way he can avoid worrying.
Israel has read him very well and realizes that it
better work out something with HAMAS and the other
Arabs if it doesn&undefined;t want to be a source of worry to
him. Sometimes big decisions are made for very small
reasons, that&undefined;s what makes history so much more
exciting than science or study of the cosmos.



Daniel E. Teodoru   

As we all know, the GW Bush ship of state that was so
hermetically sealed through 2001-2002,has come to
suffer so many leaks that it is sinking and the rats
are deserting it, as the saying goes. I try to keep
what comes my way to myself until at least one open
source intimates the same thing. With NSA trying to
make-up for the security specifics which it is not
competent to do with the broad sweeps it need not do,
it is only Las Vegas odds that my "leakes" will
otherwise be caught. Besides, context to give meanings
to scoops will have to come from far more "in" people
than me.

Please allow me to put before you information coming
to my ear regularly from Wash DC little birds, hitting
me in both the front and back of my head: Mr. Bush was
never in FULL control of his government. All through
his years of formation, his caring father sought to
keep his son confident by literally hiring others to
do his worrying for him. Thus, as a young man with a
scandalous record and no other accomplishments to
compensate for it, Mr. Bush turned himself over to
some others, leaving it to them to worry about his
political career. As for his existing/missing past,
Mr. Bush totally obliterated it with the blinding
glare of his Christian Salvation. It&undefined;s not that he
chose this task for himself but rather that his
professional "worriers" did. What this has produced is
a most amiable and unassuming mediocrity who is not in
the slightest ashamed, worried or in need to
compensate for who and what he is. I cannot tell you
how much thousands of influential Republicans were
totally charmed  by that in him. It was his "I am what
I am and I&undefined;m not worried about it" type of even keel
"compassionate conservative" image that is so
unassuming that made so many of us see him as the
President who will end stress in America.

A group of foreign policy experts calling themselves
the "Vulcans" gathered around him and found him so
soothing that they often had to remember that they
were dealing with the future President of the United
States. Because of the relationship with his dad, he
chose to go with some of the people among the
Republican luminaries who least got along with his
father. To that end Cheney was key and Scowcroft
something of an anti-Christ. As Cheney and Rumsfeld
filled their offices with neocons, they liberated Mr.
Bush more and more from worries. Karl Rove took care
of politics and by the end of 2002 had achieved great
electoral successes.

At that time, the Vulcans pushed two issues: (1)
leapfrog West Europe and build a new NATO around East
Europe; then, tie the old Europe to this vital new
Europe NATO. (2) Encircle China so as to force it to
behave properly in trade. The neocons wanted a Mideast
focus, as did their representatives in power, the
worriers, Cheney and Rumsfeld but the Vulcans ruled
then and this was not to be. 9/11 ended the Vulcans&undefined;
agenda. The rest is history. But since that date, so
exclusively theirs did Rumsfeld, Cheney and the
neocons consider the Bush presidency-- that Bush ended
still ended up with this "What me worry?" way about
him that it made you think that no matter what you did
he would never take it as stepping on his toes; one
never felt ill-at-ease bulldozing policies (unless, as
in the case of Sec. Treasury O&undefined;Neill, Cheney deemed
you un-kindred-spirit). As the US stumbled into a
seeming success in Afghanistan, the neocons never
could accept Bush&undefined;s reluctance to go to war in Iraq as
an obstacle. The Pentagon proceeded to present the
President with a fait accompli and he just went with
it, following his worriers instead of worrying that
they were taking over his foreign policy. From this
bunch for example, I kept hearing that Powell was
there to make a couple of speeches as Sec. of State
and then it is good-by. In fact, when in his last
meeting with Mr. Bush Powell warned him to worry about
a Cheney-Rumsfeld takeover of his foreign policy,
Powell failed to appreciate how NOT worrying was the
important operative term for the President.

Bush wanted to take over the White House in his second
term but was faced with: "O.K., we&undefined;ll leave and take
the Christian Right with us, then you can worry about
what to do next." And so, to avoid worry, Bush
continued as prisoner of his first term. I am reminded
of Brezhnev asking his Pravda editors-speech writers:
what is this "Brezhnev Doctrine"? They urged him not
worry about it and just deliver the speech. He did.
And so, the next time the Presidium met it had to make
policies in accord with the Brezhnev policy he himself
has enunciated. That&undefined;s how you get policy by
speechwriters. Ditto Bush!

But now worry has infected Bush, what with the polls,
the Plame case, Iraq, Katrina, oil prices etc, etc.
And so, Bush can no longer escape worrying. His only
option for avoiding worry is to return to the able men
of his dad. Swallowing pride is easier than worrying
for him because Bush is not conceited.

I tell all this because, if I am right, and I wouldn&undefined;t
type all this if I were not confident, Bush will
decrease the Iraq conflict and will not attack Iran
because that&undefined;s the only way he can avoid worrying.
Israel has read him very well and realizes that it
better work out something with HAMAS and the other
Arabs if it doesn&undefined;t want to be a source of worry to
him. Sometimes big decisions are made for very small
reasons, that&undefined;s what makes history so much more
exciting than science or study of the cosmos.



Daniel E. Teodoru   

Both sides of conflict, the US and the Iranian regime, have common concerns which can help us understand their allegedly unreasonable behaviours over something not really awesome (the ability to produce nuclear bomb). That common concern is the growth of independent strong opposition to both theocracy and the US hegemony. The opposition is hardly reflected in Western Media let alone the Iranian media. The opposition has become highly autonomous and strong since the collapse of governmental reformism by Khatami. A simple glance into the society, despite strong censorships, can show us the importance of the issue. Just about 50% of people, according to official data publicized by the regime, boycotted the last election. 15% voted for Rafsanjani a pragmatist corrupt clergy who is in favour of compromise with the US and 35% voted for Ahmadi-Nejad, as he was highly unknown with strong slogans against corruption. One could say this is similar to the US patterns of election, but we should remember that Iran under Mullah's regime is supposed to be a mass society with at least 90 % turnout for elections. Besides, in comparison with the elections that led to the overwhelming victory of reformists during 1997-2000, this formally reported portion of boycotters is significant. To this fact, one can add huge number of reports about the growth of opposition among workers (who are experiencing job lost, low wages, and the lack of rights for having unions), students, weblogers, the youth, and revolts by ethnic minorities in Provinces like Kurdistan, Khuzestan, and Baluchistan just during the last year.

 
The growth of opposition is very important for both sides of power, especially for the US, as the opposition can bring about an autonomous democratic alternative to the whole region; a non- or anti- American democracy without affiliation to any Leftist or Rightist ideology for the first time in the whole history of region. Iranians are not alienated from such a prospect. They are the first nation in the East who had a revolution for constitution exactly one century ago. With two other following revolutions against unjust dictatorship (one for the nationalization of Oil in 1951-2 and the other in 1979), they have a great record of demands for freedom. Iranians among other Muslim societies have a particular position in terms of their historical experiences. They have experienced both corrupt secular and corrupt religious governance. Moreover, their main reactions to both have bean highly active directed from within their culture. Iran has a long history of despotism but at the same time, it has a long great history of opposition. In the American side, the growing opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the economic and political crises in the US, and the failures in Iraq are real matters for the Bush administration.

Regarding the above domestic dilemmas for the both sides of conflict, one can easily understand why both need to exaggerate the importance of nuclear issue. They need to create a new crisis to overlook the current real crises. Can they tackle the crisis after investing too much of their energy and rhetoric? Or would they lose their control over the crises? This depends how global civil society, peace movement, Iranian and American people will react.    

 

 

 

 _____________________________________________

My Signiture: Muhammad, addressing people, said: “EACH of you is [supposed to be] responsible for directing the society and EACH of you is [supposed to be] accountable to people”. ˜á˜ã ÑÇÚ æ ˜á˜ã ãÓÆæá

I agree Iran has still some ways to go in order to obtain a nuclear weapon. Most estimates I've heard range between 4 and 6 years. But Iran seems committed to pursuing this path. While hinting at Iran's possible withdrawal from the IAEA, Ahmadinejad pointed out to the press today: "what has more than 30 years of membership in the agency given us?" This is a poignant question and the central issue. It is impossible to imagine that the U.S. will willingly choose to comply with the NPT, withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and begin humanitarian projects in the Middle East, which is of course what should happen. Given this, what options does the U.S. administration have other than the use of force? Ahmadinejad perhaps realizes that the U.S. is in a particularly vulnerable situation at the moment and is not willing to attack Iran. Ahmadinejad is thus pressing ahead with the development of a nuclear bomb. It is very scary indeed.

Iran is not nearly as far along in the nuclear weapons game as the White House would have us believe.  They have only just managed to enrich a small quantity of uranium to 3.5% but a significant amout of 85% enriched uranium-235 is required for a Hiroshima style bomb.  The U.S. has plenty of viable options to prevent the nuclear Iran senario other than military attack.  They also have plenty of time (several years) despite their hawkish retoric of dire catastrophy.  Iran is in full compliance with the NPT and this makes the possibility of any potential U.S. attack that much more destabilizing.

It is interesting to me that they would hint at possible war without being able to back up the threat.  The administration is pretty incompetent on the diplomatic front and perhaps they just do not really know any better.  Blair is clearly unhappy about the attack idea and seems more in control of the diplomacy since his U.S. counterparts are incompetent.

I suspect some of the fear factor the administration is stirring up is for U.S. home front consumption.  This strategy worked well in 2004; why not rerun the fear senerio to take the electorates mind off the Iraq catastrophy in 2006?  Here in Michigan (we are a purple state) the Republicans ran a TV commericial with wolves prowling.  I laugh at the irony because the wolves got elected.

Amadinejad is playing to his home front political crowd as well.  These two nuts may really be on a collision course.  If the Republicans maintain control of congress in November (and I think they will) then Rumsfeld-Cheney-Bush may want to play this game for real.  They may go for the desperate gambit to fufill their messianic visions.  

If we had a real president the administration would realize the need to call in a favor from Russia; but in this situation a wounded-insane Tiger is a scary thing indeed. 

Jim Lupton - Ann Arbor, MI 

I agree that it is very unlikely that the US will attack Iran. At a recent speech in Toronto, Bill Clinton made it clear that a military option against Iran was out of the question given the US. involvement in Iraq. This view seems to make sense given that Iran has made it clear that any attack against it will cause immediate retaliation against Israel and would surely make the situation in Iraq much worse for the US. Attacking Iran in any capacity would leave the US with only one option: a full blown, possibly nuclear war in the middle east which would put American economic goals in the region at severe risk. On the other hand, the US administration seems to lack any other options at the moment since a nuclear Iran would also severely disrupt US economic interests in the middle east. All of this, coupled with positive developements in Latin America, the rise of China and a massive US defecit spells some serious trouble for the US as the hedgemonic power. This is a good time to be on the streets.

Nowhere in the history of the universe can help the evil doe'rs hide from the will of neo-liberal capitalism.  The hills and mountains of Iran will provide refuge for the evil enemies of the neo-liberal cabal.  With all the taxpayers dollars spent on weapons of mass destruction and the level of depleted uranium poisoning found in the soldiers of America it only makes logical sense that these infected marines with their superweapons will invade.  American generals can pray that an easy victory is at hand however i think the resistance in iran will be double of that found in Iraq.  For an american victory to be acheived in the middle east you need wide scale massacres and genocide.  Only then once everyone is killed can you be safe that the region is pacified.  I agree with the american retired generals on this one...................diplomacy must work otherwise world war 3. tactical nukes are the only option for American policy makers.  Iran is not as backwards as you think.  Soviet technology is at work here.  Air defences are better as well as suicide brigades already set up ready to die for their cause.  Superior firepower does not save you from uranium poisoning.  Either way tough choices for the cowboys in the whitehouse.  Get ready for the carbomb summer of a lifetime as the cowboys and mullahs get down and dirty in the new hit series.  This war will be better than pay per view.  Iranian's got some new secret weapons just like the nazi's while our boys in blue slug it out in the uranium wasteland that once was a pistachio grove.  Good luck to the American dream cause if they invade there's gonna be a draft within a year.  Wallmart and Disney should invade they'd make more profit.