To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Rattling Iran

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Rattling Iran

By Noam Chomsky at Feb 04, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
About US plans, we can, of course, only speculate. We do know that the US has been advertising threats to Iran very openly, for some time. What's called "the Israeli air force" might more accurately be called a US air force with Israeli pilots. As such, it can credibly claim to be larger and technologically more advanced than that of any NATO power (apart from the US). According to scholarly sources, about 10% is deployed in Turkey, and it has been flying at the Iranian border from the US bases in Eastern Turkey as part of a program to harass and if possible subvert the Iranian regime. In the past year, the US has sent over 100 of its most advanced jet bombers to Israel, with loud announcements that they are capable of bombing Iran, and are updated versions of the planes that Israel used to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 -- an act that probably initiated Iraq's nuclear weapons program, according to available information. They are, furthermore, equipped with what the Hebrew press in Israel calls "special weapons," a phrase surely intended for the ears of Iranian intelligence, as are the very public declarations about the bombers -- not reported here, but surely heard in Teheran. Later, there were leaks that the US may also be providing deep-penetration "bunker busters." All of this signals to Iran that the US might attack them, via its Israeli military force. The recent leaks about special forces on the ground, true or false, I presume were released for the same purpose. What can we conclude from this? It's a matter of judgment of course. Mine is that if the US intended to bomb Iran (via Israel, or directly), it would not be announcing it publicly for a long time, thus allowing Iran to disperse targets and in other ways construct defenses. Iraq was quite a different story, since it was understood that Iraq was defenseless. The purpose of all of this show of intention to attack may be to rattle the Iranian leadership and provoke them into repressive actions at home, which could increase internal resistance and contribute to US campaigns of subversion that are almost certainly underway, and also provoke the leadership to undertake actions that will undermine the really serious threat that Washington faces: namely, that its efforts to overthrow the regime will be undercut by diplomatic and economic initiatives from its rivals in Europe and Asia -- which have been proceeding, even India recently. And even apart from those possibilities, US militancy and aggressive has the effect of frightening away foreign investors. The Wall St Journal, Jan 28, reports that major European firms are drawing back from Iranian investment because of US "saber rattling," and simply fear of US retaliation. Thus the huge Thyssen-Krupp steelmaking conglomerate fears that it will lose access to US car manufacturers, under threat of US sanctions. The threatening posture and gestures is having what are surely its intended effects. Will the US go on to attack? Personally, I doubt it, unless Iran can be internationally isolated and shows signs of collapsing from within. I suspect that the militancy -- most of it openly announced, some of it leaks -- is intended to contribute to these ends. If there is any serious chance that Iran can defend itself, or retaliate, I doubt that there will be a direct attack.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (158)

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By K, Mr at May 23, 2005 23:22 PM
Comment by MTbrad posted on Monday, February 07 at 10:07 AM Just try and come up with a conflict that had or has nothing to do with greed. Try. Rwanda genocide. Some 3rd world dirt poor nation just killed each other that had nothing to do with greed just hate. Racial hate wars. Jews are doing it to the palestinians. American DU poisoning that has nothing to do with greed just a slow genocide. 'conflict' can be interpreted many ways. People kill just because they hate. Sick stuff.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 16, 2005 10:05 AM
What is the definition of democracy that we are talking about. To use the term these days requires a definition. I personally believe that democracy is an ideal that we chase and become closer and closer to, never to actualy acheive it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 15, 2005 00:04 AM
For example, Egypt is the posterboy of American sponsored dictatorship. If this government falls it will definitely be replaced by an Islamic theocracy than any secular democracy. Ditto Saudi Arabia. The house of Saud was hated not because of its Islamic fundamentalism but because of its corruption. In fact, it can be argued the Saudi rulers uphold rigid Islam in order to appear legimitae to the people, even though that does not endear them to their American sponsors.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 15, 2005 00:03 AM
"The biggest reason that thre are despotic Arab regimes in the ME is becaues the US (and Israel) has installed and supported them." It is true that many despotic Arab regimes are (were) backed by the U.S. But I have a problem with your statement which implies somehow democracy would flourish only if the U.S is out of the picture. In thousands of years of recorded history despotic regimes were the norm rather than the exception. There were instances of "democracies" of various forms(Ancient Athens and some Native societies) but they were rare. Democracy as we understood today did not become the major paradim (mostly in the West)until the last 100 years or so(at most). Democracy can only arise out of a certain kind of civic society and political culture which take a long time to develope. I could be wrong but it doesn't seem like you have the kind of preconditions for democracy in most Arab countries now. If the U.S stops meddling in the ME some despotic regimes will fall but they are more likely to be replaced by equally repressive regimes rather than democracy. Regime change is not the same as democratization!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 14, 2005 23:18 PM
The biggest reason that thre are despotic Arab regimes in the ME is becaues the US (and Israel) has installed and supported them. Secondly, Israel is an openly racist apartheid regime that is built on oppression and massacre. If you ask most of the people in the world, Israel should not exist - most do except its reality and are willing to deal with it. Note that this has nothing to do with Jewish culture or any hatred for Jews - it has everything to do with a racist ideology called "Zionism" which should be destroyed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tdc, Wtgn at Feb 11, 2005 03:58 AM
Could that be because about 7% of America is owned by Saudi Arabia, and George Bush jnr's lamentable pre-political life was supported by huge benefit pay-outs by the aristocratic Bin Laden family wishing to penetrate further US markets with the help of Bush snr's influence? I always wondered why Z-Mag readers were so stupid, now I realize it is because you get all of your information from Michael Moore movies! Saudi Arabia has roughly $420 bn invested in the US. That's stocks, bonds, properties, businesses and the like. Now the actual net worth of the US is very difficult to determine, and estimates range from between $27trl as a low and $171trl as a high depending on how it is calculated. But even if taken at the lowball estimate, the figure is 1.5% half an order of magnitude lower than you suggested. I plain English it means you are a tard.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 10, 2005 05:31 AM
"The fact that he let allowed the referendum after a failed coup with CIA backing tells me is all for democracy." He couldn't have stopped it. He didn't have the power - the army would not open fire on civilians at the order of Chavez. Chavez, at present,is forced to use street gangs to do any "extra-legal" work he need to be done. I believe Chavez will move to consolidate his power over time and will only move as quickly as he thinks he can get away with. Saddam waited patiently for years until he had arranged the pieces into a significantly favorable position for him to make his move for open power. I think Chavez is doing the same - although I currently doubt he will end up anything close to Saddam in viciousness or body count.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 10, 2005 05:20 AM
It's like this. You can't be hypnotized if you don't want to. Most of the lies and falsehoods we believe - we believe in them because we want to believe in them. It's hard to fool to someone who really doesn't want to be fooled, but very easy if they want to.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 10, 2005 05:17 AM
" I do think that their is a strong media bias for Israel and against many Arab states" That is true, but I think it is as much a product of telling people what they want to hear as telling them lies for other reasons. The cultural right has an extremly effective public advocacy wing - partiularly in it's legions of regular churchgoers. Look at the way they were able to stomp out a stupid little TV movie about Reagan before it had even aired. Any network executive that makes a decision to play hardball with Israel may find himself out of a job due to complaints and boycotts from proIsrael forces - and NOT just the "wealthy jews", but millions of blue-collare chritians who listen to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. Blame it on brainwashing, but I'll bet you that our media would not have the same effect if it were being given to Europeans, or another group. Our media conforms to our prejudices, which are a cultural thing that can be used, but not controlled, by the elites.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 10, 2005 05:00 AM
"what do you mean by cultural factors." The fact is that Israelis are more "like us" in their dress and habits and religion than Arabs are. The "backwards" social customs, like the appalling treatment of women, and the factor of suicide bombing, only increase the sense of Americans that arabs are a foreign and unpleasant "other". All of this adds up to an instinctive bias to take the side of people like us in a fight like that. Different people respond to different aspects in which they are "like us". Some point to it as a bastin of western democracy in a sea of Arab despotism - brave settlers fightign back the savages. Others, including some evangelical christians, see it as a bastion of Righteousness is a sea of wicked heresy. There is strong Evangelical support for Israel in America because they think the return of the Jews is a necessary step on the road to The Rapture and the Return of Christ. I'm not denying that the elites manipulate stuff, but I do think that the Israel policy is the result of grassroots support by many US voters who don't vote for pro-palestinian politicians.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 10, 2005 04:44 AM
It may turn out that he is no dictator and that all his Constitutional Changes and other reforms were really just because he needed the power to accomplish his mission. If, twenty years from now, Venezuala can look back on the Chavez presidency as a good thing than I think it will have been worth it. Even using some violence can be justified in the right circumstances. I just think that he is showing a lot of the hallmarks of a would-be dictator trying to grab all the reigns of power before he makes his move. But even if he is a good guy at heart, I think that he is setting precedents that may backfire. All of the powers he was able to secure for himself will be passed on the the next president - who may end up being an idealogical opposite of Chavez. Sure, the elites were always able to partially subvert the democratic process, but how much worse will it be if the methods of repression are legitimized legally. Illegitamit subversion of democracy at least is tempered by it's need to remain hidden, but when the subversion becomes legitimate it can be done openly without restraint.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 10, 2005 03:59 AM
"Then it's made of wood?" Well it floats doesn't it?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 09, 2005 20:02 PM
"erroded the democracy of Venezuala" -------------------------------------------- I have heard this, but I would like more info/proof. Why do you think Chavez is erroding democracy? The fact that he let allowed the referendum after a failed coup with CIA backing tells me is all for democracy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 09, 2005 05:55 AM
Even his programs of helping the poor are crafted to keep them dependent on him rather than self reliant. Take a look for Oil-For-Doctors. Rather than set up a last health plan which would survive his reign, he creates one that makes the poor indebted to him personally and, therefore, a more loyal powerbase. I'm not defending the Elites, but it is obvious that Chavez is playing both sides against the middle. He is using the class conflict to create a general desire for a "benevolent dictator" who will eliminate corruption and set things right. We all know that dictators usually package their seizure of power as a necessary step to protect the people, be it from elites or terrorists. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 09, 2005 05:39 AM
"Look at what a nasty fight the elite has put up even with what they now dismiss as window dressing reforms." I'm not dismissing the reforms for not going far enough. I am saying that the reforms he has made do not justify the way he has erroded the democracy of Venezuala. I find it suspicious when a person, very soon after taking power, rewrites the consititution to reduce protections against ggovernment censorship, gives him the right to disolve congress, and dramatically extendeds his tenure. Sounds like a Venezualana "Patriot Act" to me. I also find his posturing and pomp to be suspicious. Bush didn't invent the idea of scaring people into granting you power, and Chavez is as bad or worse in crafting an image of being a fighter against "enemies of the people". I'm sure the US has tried to help oust him, but I am also sure that his constant, flamboyant accusations of US schemes are exagerrated for his own benefit.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 09, 2005 03:45 AM
"Chavez is very good at manipulating the poor and giving the JUST ENOUGH to make them support him, but not enough to truly get out of poverty. " I have heard this accusation from Chavez's critics, most of them well off Venezuelens(economics profesors and the like). It always strike me as hypocritical coming from such people(I don't mean you). Look at what a nasty fight the elite has put up even with what they now dismiss as window dressing reforms. They sound as if they will support more radical reform which "genuinely" help the poor to truly get out of poverty. Yeh, right. Suddenly the rich all turn into radicals and denounce Chavez for not going far enough. The fact is the majority of Venezuelens are dirt poor exactly because the oligarchs and the small professional elites are hogging all the wealth. The main force that oppose to Chavez comes exactly from this sector.If I were a poor Venezuelen I would certain bet on Chavez,with all his alledged short comings, than these people.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 09, 2005 03:38 AM
"also it seems strange that realpc and r4d20 thinks that greed and power are unlikely reasons for US support for Israel..." 1)The population that support Israel the most (measured in the amount of activisim and money donated) is EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS. The Secular Jewish community ( a majority in America) is more divided than they are given credit for being. 2) I think that the reasons for supporitng Israel are as numerous as the supporters of Israel. Any position taken by that many people will have many different reasons for being supported. It is a mistake, common to the left, to pay attention ONLY to the motivations of the "powerful" people and ignoring the reasons for Grass Roots support. There are millions of Americans who have no immediate economic interest in supporting Israel. They support Israel, and elect people who do so as well, because of cultural reasons. Now, one can make the argument that they only do this because they are brainwashed by the "powerful" econonmic interests, and there is merit to that position, but EVEN IF THIS IS TRUE I still think that one must bdeal with the cultural motivations as real factors and not ignore them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 09, 2005 03:28 AM
r4d20, I am not questioning your friend's integrity. All I am suggesting is perhaps the thugs calling themselves Chavez supporters were provocatuers sent by Chavez's enemies to discredit the man. Send a few goons claiming to be Chavez supporters to beat up a few people in front of a TV crew and you have an international headline. We all know who owns all the media in Venezuela. This is just dirty trick 101 which has been employed by many people many times. It is not a wild conspiracy theory.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 09, 2005 02:16 AM
"How about the years of institutional violence and robbery that condemn the majority of Venezuvalans to live in hopelessness and abject poverty and lining the pockets of a tiny so called "middle class" who live in luxury? Are these not thuggusih bejaviour? Where is the international outcry?" This is all true. This same friend of mine also told me a story about walking through a shanty town and being held up at knifepoint for his shoes by a guy who didn't have any shoes. This very poverty is what makes Chavez so dangerous. When people are that poor and desperate they will back anyone who promises them hope, even if he is only using them for personal power. Chavez is very good at manipulating the poor and giving the JUST ENOUGH to make them support him, but not enough to truly get out of poverty. Man, you would think that with the history of phony-socialist dictators that educated people would be a little more cynical and a little less likely to beleive in the latest guy shouting the same old slogans I'm not defending the Venezualan economic system that caused this poverty, but Chavez is not the answer.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 09, 2005 01:55 AM
"How does your friend know that armed thugs are actually Chavez supporters? " The guy is a good friend and during the discussion in question I was more concerned for his family (his father had died of a heart attack and his mother was alone during the civil strife) than verifying his statements, so I didn't give him the third degree. Consequently, I can't anser "how" he knew what he sais he knew, and I don't know all the specifics. I do know that the guy is an honest, intelligent and thoughtful guy and hardly any sort of right-winger. He has also been my friend for 10 years now and I trust him to do two things 1) think through his opinion in as intellectually honest a manner as is possible 2) give me his honest opinion But believe what you want.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 08, 2005 23:01 PM
I don't think that r2d2 knows anything about Chavez or Venezuela.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 08, 2005 10:01 AM
It is certainly thuggusih behaviour to shoot at "peaceful protestors" who were probably funded by the CIA(same phenomenon in Chile before the Pinochet coup) But how about staging a coup attempt to oust a popularly elected president? How about the years of institutional violence and robbery that condemn the majority of Venezuvalans to live in hopelessness and abject poverty and lining the pockets of a tiny so called "middle class" who live in luxury? Are these not thuggusih bejaviour? Where is the international outcry? I am sure many memeber of the so called middle class turn up in the "peaceful" protests against Chavez.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 08, 2005 09:45 AM
r4d20, How does your friend know that armed thugs are actually Chavez supporters? They would have been sent by the "opposition" to discredit Chavez.This is almost trivial for someone who had staged a coup.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 08, 2005 05:56 AM
"What's your point? Do you mean that because of a story about Chavez "supporters" we are not supposed to like Chavez?" Chavez is a thug who uses goon squads to shoot up opposition rallies. All his talk about socialism is a sham. But, If you want to fall for another poseur acting like a champion of the people, go right ahead.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 07, 2005 23:55 PM
"My freshman year roomate, and a very good friend of mine, is from Venezuala and a left/liberal. He was visiting his mother a few years back when the people were trying to collect signatures for a new election. He told me that he was walking home when a pickup truck full of Chavez Supporters drove up and opened fire on a crowd of peaceful protesters with signs." -------------------------------------------- What's your point? Do you mean that because of a story about Chavez "supporters" we are not supposed to like Chavez?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 07, 2005 23:52 PM
"Sure there will be greed in any human enterprise. But Marxists see every problem as resulting from capitalist greed. Sorry, it is just too simple. " -------------------------------------------- Greed in any human enterprise...False, I can give you many, many situations where there is no greed. But, I will leave it up to you, just think about it and I am sure you will agree many human interactions do not contain greed. I am sorry it is that simple, and I am no Marxist.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 07, 2005 20:28 PM
"I am involved in a heated discussion on another site that is dealing with the situation in Venezuela. It is the same plan, they are using Colombian "terrorists" as a means to control and tame Chavez." My freshman year roomate, and a very good friend of mine, is from Venezuala and a left/liberal. He was visiting his mother a few years back when the people were trying to collect signatures for a new election. He told me that he was walking home when a pickup truck full of Chavez Supporters drove up and opened fire on a crowd of peaceful protesters with signs. Of course, they all started running, so he didn't see much after that.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 07, 2005 19:48 PM
Most of the time motives are complex. Try and find a loving marriage where absolutely no greed is involved. Sure there will be greed in any human enterprise. But Marxists see every problem as resulting from capitalist greed. Sorry, it is just too simple.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Sgian1dubh, Sgian1dubh at Feb 07, 2005 18:49 PM
heard of Livi ?: "Bellum justum quibus necessarium"? A war is just for those to which it is necessary (for whatever reasons...)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 07, 2005 18:07 PM
Just try and come up with a conflict that had or has nothing to do with greed. Try.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 07, 2005 18:04 PM
realpc, " support for Israel is unrelated to capitalist greed." I would disagree with this, the use of Israel as a proxy is in a destabilizing way. They set up a country, call it democratic and paint its opponents as terrorists. Then they can now say that the reason that there is no progress in Israel is because Iran is supporting terrorists. They did this in Iraq and they will do it anywhere they want something. I am involved in a heated discussion on another site that is dealing with the situation in Venezuela. It is the same plan, they are using Colombian "terrorists" as a means to control and tame Chavez. Fox news is all over this, planting the probaganda seeds in the minds of the right wingers. In the case of Iran it is a much easier sell. Most of the people, especially the older people who run this country, remember the "Iran hostage crisis". And in the US post 9/11 (what a cliche) people want revenge. But in both cases the goal is cheap oil.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 07, 2005 14:41 PM
r4d20, They are not going to like you here if you continue trying to be rational. As you pointed out, our support for Israel is unrelated to capitalist greed. How can that be? Everything is supposed to be simple -- the US is evil because it is capitalist and therefore driven only by greed (rational self-interest, that is). Our support for Israel is based partly on friendship, and consideration for the feelings of Jewish Americans. But the left is not capable of seeing anything but greed and malice in American motives.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Feb 07, 2005 11:03 AM
Iranians mean nothing to me. To answer a question Chomsky once posed, My kitten means more to me then starving African children. Or any of the other calculated abstractions of the politically correct Left. Or Right.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Paymane, Paymun at Feb 07, 2005 07:13 AM
Now tell me why US should support us. and if they do, wouldn't that put us in debted to them. A debt you can be certain they'll make sure, we pay back our debt. even if they would help, they'll find the most corrupt individuals, (there is no shortage of them here in US) to render there help to. and when those people get the help you can be certain they will express their gratitude to americans in all sort of ways. The second reason is that, it will make us look bad in the eyes of street people. Any one of the opposition who is tainted by foreign help and assistance, will look like a puppet in the eyes of Iranians. now that doesn't look good, for a nationalist who want s lead his/her people toward independence and freedome. Plus it gives Mullahs amunition to frame that guy/group/organiazation and destroy their credibility. Iranians must learn to stand together and rely on themselves and their own resources. which is plenty.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Paymane, Paymun at Feb 07, 2005 07:12 AM
If one wants to know about the true nature of US foreigne policy, one need not look very far. Have you seen the PBS/FRONTLINE documentary on Rawandan genocide. It is mentioned there, that they flew a human right actitivist (herself a survivor) to washington to ask for help. A congressman or other official told her."Listen Monique, US does not have friends, US has interests and he does not have any in Rwanda" we don't need NC to tell us that.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Paymane, Paymun at Feb 07, 2005 07:10 AM
I would be very much in favor of US non-military support if there wasn't for two "minor" problems with that! The History of US doesn't support the idea that US helps freedome movements simply for benevolence. Did americans help us when we wanted to free ourselves from domination of the british petroleum? No! they helped the british and cooperated with them to condemn us to tyrrany.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 07, 2005 06:26 AM
Would anyone hear support a US policy to help fund and support Iranian democracy activists? I'm not talking military support, although you might argue the Admin. would sneak it in there, but financial, technical, and operational support. Besides simply money, types of help could things like cryptographic equipment so they can encrypt their electronic records and communications. Also, anti-snooping software so they can set-up and access illegal websites without getting caught. You know, helping them help themselves. Would you support such a policy of peacefully subverting the regime, or is even that too far for you in messing around with another country?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 07, 2005 06:14 AM
"another aspect of iranian mindset which is very very deep rooted, is that they are fiercely nationalistic. and they are like that on their own, not because of propaganda." Truthfully, that has been my primary doubt regarding my opinion. Most Iranians I know prefer to call themselves "Persian" as a way of maintaining cultural pride while separating themselves from the image of the current regime. They have every right to be proud of a culture that spawned several GREAT empires throughout history (great in culture, not just might). I would be a lot more comfortable with a Nuclear Iran if it had a more democratic and secular government. Thats why I think it is so important for people who want to avert a problem to support democracy in Iran. there would be less opposition to a nuclear iran if the Iranian people will really in charge.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 07, 2005 05:43 AM
"The main difference being that the crusaders have Israel as proxy terror-state." Please explain, because now this looks rather conspiratorial. Proxy terror-state? Proxy for what? Israel is not in control of any areas with oil, and how does occupying the Palestinians serve American interests? Seriously, to me Israel looks like a damn albatross hanging from our neck. We would have a lot less problem if we didn't support them, so the argument that the yare a "proxy" doesn't seem logical - a proxy is one use use to attaint your ends on the cheap, but Israel costs us money and hinders us from attaining our ends - the invasion of Iraq would have been even less unpopular if Israel wasn't doing it's thing with the West Bank and Gaza. If economics was our only motivation, we would have cut Israel loos a long time ago. Our support for Israel is an example of how emotion and ideaology can trump rational self-interest.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Paymane, Paymun at Feb 07, 2005 05:39 AM
I am fearful that americans do something that compells iranian arm forces to retaliate. then US is going to have its excuse! US invasion won't harm the mullahs, just the normal people, it will make them stronger, since iranians have to rely on mullahs, whether they like it or not. just like 1991 war, iraqis suffered not saddam.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Paymane, Paymun at Feb 07, 2005 05:39 AM
another aspect of iranian mindset which is very very deep rooted, is that they are fiercely nationalistic. and they are like that on their own, not because of propaganda. Father to son, Mother to doughter. A great many people who revolted against SHAH, were well off people, middle class. economical conditions wasn't the cause, the main cause was that, having a man who was largely known to be a puppet, was humiliating for nationalist persians/iranians. Every time that someone threathens IRAN, he is forcing us into choosing between national dignity and freedome (or any percieved notion of it) through out history, iranians have always chosen the former rather than later. As the BBC reporter found out http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3758762.stm all iranians even the ones who are against mullahs, are for a strong iran. I am afraid r4d20 won't make many friends in Iran by saying Iran should give up on nuclear arsenal.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 07, 2005 05:26 AM
r4d20, Sorry for misunderstanding your statement. I would disagree with Robinhood also.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 07, 2005 05:16 AM
I also agree with paymun that the mullahs are not as crazy as propaganda would have us believe. I can imagine the way pundits characterized the Chinese communists as crazy and hell bend to blow up the world when they were developing their bombs in the 60s. In many ways the Chinese regime is horrible and unstable(with numerous purges), probably much worse than the mullahs. But the fact is they have been very responsible and sensible(much more so than the U.S and the Russians) when it come to the nuke. Nowadays the possibility of some "mad man" in China blowing up the world with a trigger happy finger seems remote. Instead China was asked to be the rational voice in pursuading North Korea to give up its nuclear program. It seems that you're a mad man only when you try to get a bomb but without one. Once you succeed you become a respectible statesman.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 07, 2005 05:15 AM
I know it is kind of perverted(sound like MAD all over) but I have to agree with paymun on the bomb. It is very difficult to justify not allowing Iran to have the bomb while Israel has it. With the U.S and Russia having so many bombs I don't think the world can become any more unstable if the Iranians get its bomb too.The U.S missile defence system would have a much more destabilizing effect by touching off another arms race among the biggies(China, Russia)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 07, 2005 05:12 AM
"I heard a talk by Imanuel Wallerstien and he made a good point that the more Nuclear weapons the less likely the U.S. will use them and the more the whole world will have to work together" I don' buy it. Most likely the US will simply intensify research into counter-measures - Star Wars, ABM Defense, etc. It is wrong to presume that Nuclear weapons will always be a trump card. It's called the "Red Queen" effect in Evolutionary literature and it has been a feature of war for ever. Every improvement in weaponry is followed by an improvement in armor, which is followed by an improvement in weaponry, etc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 07, 2005 04:51 AM
Instead of waving a stick maybe some kind of carrot will do the trick. Turkey has made some big improvement in human right in order to join the EU. Granted that it still has a lot of problem but at least there has been substantial progress in the last couple of years. But I could be wrong as I haven't follow the situtuation, I am just going by the general impression gain from casual reading.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 07, 2005 04:46 AM
As far as the Nuclear deterant thing goes, I heard a talk by Imanuel Wallerstien and he made a good point that the more Nuclear weapons the less likely the U.S. will use them and the more the whole world will have to work together. If you think about it anybody in power is there because they are addicted to power, love power. This I think makes them not willing to give up their "fix" by ending history. This may seem like a backward theory, but in the world we live in it may be the only one we have.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 07, 2005 04:42 AM
I think I would look more towards the U.N. for help than the U.S., the U.N. won't make you "sell your soul and your sister" in order to rid yourself of the Mullahs. The U.S. right now is very "cowboy", maucho since 9/11. This I don't think leads to good diplomacy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 07, 2005 04:37 AM
International pressure can work on regimes other than the US - South Africa being a good example. How do we know we "can't do anything about Iran" if we never actually TRY? There are a lot of Iranian activists TRYING to draw western attention to the human rights violations there and I doubt they would do this if they thought it was a waste of time.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 07, 2005 04:12 AM
"I also don't see how opposing U.S invading Iran is "helping the Mullahs"." That is not what I was saying - I oppose Invasion. I was reffering to statements like: "Yes, Iran is an oppressive theocracy (fascist? maybe, depends on how you define that), but by condemning it you make ZERO contribution in the REAL WORLD" - RobinHood Which I think is a cop-out at least, and objective support at worst.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Paymane, Paymun at Feb 07, 2005 04:00 AM
Cont. back to the argument, If Iran becomes nuclear it will be a "relatively positive" development. First, an invasion of Iran, will become impossible. without the foreign threat, all iranians can put more pressure on the mullahs. Israel is afraid of nuclear IRan, why? because with a nuclear iran, israel can't run the show! israelis have to give up and throw in the towel. palestinians can have a sigh of relief. americans may think it is now too costly to go around and overthrow governments in ME, may be then they say all right, let's think about alternative technologies. In short the same way that nuclear pakistan and india, realized quickly that military option is now off the table and had to start talking, a nuclear Iran will be short term solution. In the long run we are all hoping for a nuclear free world. but in the short run, nuclear option is the "great equalizer" it's the only way a weak country can protect itself against a superpower. regretably so!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Paymane, Paymun at Feb 07, 2005 03:59 AM
Let me explain. r4d20 is an iranian! so am I. we are suffering from two kinds of oppression. the impirial one and the local one. It has always been like that through our very long history. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES THAT ENEMY OF YOUR ENEMY IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. If Iranians abroad could understand that! A US run Iran, will be as ruinous as the one run by mullahs plus a further level of indignation and embarrasment. There was this article I read on peyvand.com. The argument was that let's imagine iran has gone nuclear. how bad would it be. If r4d20 thinks mullahs are crazy, he is wrong, he is dead wrong. In the beginning they were indeed insane, but after 26 years, they have become quite good at it. they understand the realities very well, and there are a lot of smart rank and file people in IRGC and in the Iranian government. they are not going to take their nuke and threaten the world.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 07, 2005 03:48 AM
Political Islam, to large part, is created by the U.S, eitheir directly as U.S clients or indirectly as a response to U.s haegemony. The U.s has no intention of "helping" the Iranians, the Iraqis and anyone else. The sabre rattling in Iran, as are the war and occupation of Iraq, are jut real politik of the most cynical sort. It is delusional to think otherwise. Granted that political upheavals unleashes unpredictible social forces that some kind of good may happen as a by-product, it is hard to say. But it is highly reckless to support military actions based on such wishful thinking.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 07, 2005 03:36 AM
"Yes. I do have a general dislike, so to speak, of people who try to force their morality onto others, especially when that morality comes from a book over a thousand years old. If you wouldn't like living under Pat Robertson and the 700 club government, don't help their equivalents in other countries." I haven't heard anyone here saying mullahs are great. I also don't see how opposing U.S invading Iran is "helping the Mullahs". If anything, the CIA coup that overthrew Mossadq in Iran and installed the Shah was the greatest help ever to the Mullah. Without the 1953 coup Iran would have been a secular democracy for half a centry by now.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 07, 2005 03:28 AM
This reminds me of another anti theoretician, the great historian E.P Thompson. Thompson though seemed to come from an opposite end. Even though generally considered a Marxist, Thompson insisted that history is too rich and nunaced to be captured by any theory. In the 1960's he mounted a passionate defense for the "grand narrative constructed from below", with the intention of rescuing history from the social scientists.Thompson accused theoreticans of forcing their models onto uncompliant data.I think he has a point if you look at the overly theorized work of people such as Foucault. I doubt that Thompson would agree that Chomsky doesn't have a theory.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 07, 2005 03:27 AM
I think Chomsky's view is that there is little in politics that is profound enough to merit any elaborate theory(not without some truth IMO). Most theories in these areas, according to NC, are triviality packaged in incomprehensible jargons and babbles. It is interesting that Chomsky himself uses a very structuralist approach in his analysis. He seems to take his theoretically premises as self evident. But this is not obvious as he has been criticized by others, notably historians(such as Michael Parentti) for being too careless about the role of human agencies in the shaping of history.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 07, 2005 03:25 AM
"Your generalising visceral hatred, directed toward 'mullahs', is never matched by an equally energetic, and thought-out, condemnation of Bush and co."" Cont. And, since this is ZNET, I assume people already dislike Bush so I don't have to say it. Where is the benefit to preaching to the choir?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 07, 2005 03:15 AM
"The UN corruption story is an overblown propaganda (by certain US elites) ploy. " I have no strong opinion on this issue, but I have pretty much assumed that the UN, like all bodies, is corrupt and that the story probably has some truth to it. I'm willing to look at new sources of info though - any suggestions?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 07, 2005 02:43 AM
"'mullahs - who are uber-religious intolerant pricks.' Your generalising visceral hatred, directed toward 'mullahs', is never matched by an equally energetic, and thought-out, condemnation of Bush and co." Yes. I do have a general dislike, so to speak, of people who try to force their morality onto others, especially when that morality comes from a book over a thousand years old. If you wouldn't like living under Pat Robertson and the 700 club government, don't help their equivalents in other countries.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 06, 2005 23:53 PM
Have you been to that site before, tons of audio stuff. I will try to find a print source, I've heard him make that statement before. Basically he tries to stay away from dogmatic ideas. He uses critisism to open up the think then poses ideas but does not lay down absolutes. This forces the reader to find the info for themselves and in the process come up with their own ideas. I feel weird talking for him though, this is just my analysis of his approch.(even this feels weird, why am I analyzing someone elses ideas). Anyway, my point was that we need to be open to all ideas and read and process different historical and contemporary theories. This will lead us to our own ideas and allow for open dialogue in stead of forced dogmatic obediance.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 06, 2005 23:43 PM
Listen to this: http://hepwww.ph.qmul.ac.uk/~hartin/chomsky/noamchomskyanarchy-co-operationwithoutrestraint.mp3 In it he lays out how a anachist society might be organized but is very careful and says it is irrelevent and that he does not consider himself an anarchist. if you can't get that to work go here:http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp/socialismandrevolution.htm and download the first Chomsky Mp3

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 06, 2005 23:31 PM
Basically the same thing he says about Anachism, that he find theory irrelevent and that he does not consider himself an anachist.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 06, 2005 23:21 PM
Joeblog56, Why do you think, 'Chomsky and Albert are highly critical of Marxist ideas". I have not read anywhere Chomsky is critical of Marxism, lets not confuse Stalinism, Leninism and russian state capitalism with Marxism. But, if you could site the source of your info here, that would be great.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 20:55 PM
Chomsky's criticism is always of immoral ACTS and never of any STATE or entity. He abhors personalization and ALWAYS widens the perspective beyond actors. His focus ALWAYS on ideas and never about actors. This one fact is clear as day to anyone who has read even a paragraph from any of Chomsky's books. Your, realpc have proved beyond any doubt that you have no idea of what you are talking about if you claim to have read anything of Chomsky.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 20:50 PM
"I have read large quantities of Chomsky's writing. It consists almost entirely of criticisms of powerful established nations or organizations. There are no ideas that are constructive or creative or practical." By this statement you proved once and for all, realpc that you have not come within a mile of any of Chomsky's works.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 06, 2005 20:20 PM
I know that Marxists require solidarity and consensus, and that's why it bugs them so much when I bring up other points of view. American democracy, on the other hand, is just the opposite, in that it requires dissent and opposition. Stalin had to get rid of everyone who disagreed with him, including many former comrades, because Stalinism depends on consensus. I have read large quantities of Chomsky's writing. It consists almost entirely of criticisms of powerful established nations or organizations. There are no ideas that are constructive or creative or practical.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 06, 2005 19:41 PM
"r4d20, At least you can see that reasons and motives are mixed. That is what Chomsky and others here cannot see." realpc What you have not done is to actually listen to what Chomsky and others have to say. Honestly I have no idea where you get your information from. You set up a strawman for Chomsky which proves only your inability to comprehend simple English, assumming you have actually read him at all.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 17:38 PM
You can read about these issues from the people who know Iraq and the hideous sanctions regime better than anyone - the heads of the so-called Oil for Food program - Hans Von Sponeck and Dennis Halliday. They quit in protest over what amounted to biolical warfare - the immoral sanctions regime (put in place primarily by the US).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 17:37 PM
Also the fraudulent "UN Corruption Case" was designed to take the focus off of US's illegal aggression in Iraq, especially since the UN (Kofi Annan) stated that the war was illegal, potentially unleashing a media problem for Washington. The sanctions against Iraq were immoral and mostly illegal, despite the fact that the resolution efecting them was passed. The fact that some Iraqis were defying these immoral sanctions (which were killing hundreds of thousands of children) by "illegally" purchasing mostly hospital supplies and other vital neccesseties (of course there were some very small isolated cases of other things being purchased, but these charges are irrelevant), the fact that some people were still attempting to purchase vital supplies that will save lives in spite of the sanctions sas more about the high moral integrity of the people who were trying to save lives than the monsters who put the sanctions in place. -cont'd-

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 17:27 PM
The problem (corruption) is not, as reaplc thinks "inside each of us" (which cannot really be fixed), leaving capitalism safely off the hook - the problem is an inherent feature of US-style capitalist order, which will corrupt and disfigure any and all entities in its way. The only way to correct this "problem" - an inherent feature of capitalism - is to destroy the capitalist order (inaccurately called free-market capitalism). What alternatives should replace it - this is a question that will be decided by the people who are concerned about the fate of this planet - the sooner the better. And realpc, I wonder why you bother to post here at Znet? Your views are diametrically opposed by almost everyone here, and most people believe that your posts consists mostly of discredited old propaganda, which not even mainstream scholars believe. You would probably do yourself a favor by posting on shaunhannity.com or rughlimbaugh.com. There are people there with views similar to yours, and you would also be undoubtedly be more popular there than here.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 17:18 PM
There are many states in the world that are far more civilized (vis-a-vis their behavior internationally) than the US. Most of them belong to institutions that the US refuses to join. The UN corruption story is an overblown propaganda (by certain US elites) ploy. This propaganda campaign was designed to make the UN submit more to US interests by weakening it in certain ways. Unfortunately many fell for this right-wing myth. The US elites hate the UN because it constrains their power, for the same exact reason they oppose the ICJ, the World Court, UNESCO and many others. It's up to the citizens of the US to make sure that US becomes more civilized in its behavior towards others. For example, cluster bombs, napalm, DU and other horrors have not been used by more civilized nations for decades.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 16:51 PM
You are totally representing his view. I suggest that you read one of his books before posting - every one of your statements is factually wrong. For example, your own view is so narrow that you can not comprehend the fact that Chomsky is (by often using examples) criticizes certain parts the entire system, including its ideology - from a vantage point that you - either understand and are purposefully misrepresenting, or don't know because you have not read any of his works. Chomsky says - OK this guy is corrupt, that guy is corrupt, this corporation is corrupt - so what? Fixing these totalitarian structures is not the answer, destroying them is. What is the enemy? He believes that free markets and democracy are incompatible (this is a strong argument). The corruption is in inherent feature of market capitalism, not an irregularity.I suggest you read "Profit over People" if you want to understand what Chomsky is really saying about these issues. What you have posted is just false.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 06, 2005 16:31 PM
We should all oppose corruption and crime in any government or corporation. We also have to oppose selfish tendencies within ourselves -- and we all have them. The world has no gov, no laws or courts, and no police force. It is not civilized. Even the UN turned out to be corrupt.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 06, 2005 16:25 PM
What he, and the left, cannot see is that corruption and high-level crime are the enemy, not any particular ideology! It doesn't matter if the organization is captiatlist or Marxist, or whatever. If it has too much power some in the organization will be corrupt and selfish.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 06, 2005 16:24 PM
According to John Perkins the US gov has allied with giant corporations to rip off poor countries since WW2, and it has been Democrats as much as Republicans. Well he is probably telling the truth, as wherever there is power you will find corruption. The Soviet Union was as bad. Chomsky admits that the Democrats and the Soviet Union have been just as bad as the Republicans.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 06, 2005 16:20 PM
r4d20, At least you can see that reasons and motives are mixed. That is what Chomsky and others here cannot see. You seem to apologize for having read right-wing stuff. It is not possible to think straight about current politics if you read only left-wing or only right-wing, or whatever simple-minded ideology. The truth can't be found in any one of the prevailing ideologies.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By K, Mr at Feb 06, 2005 08:59 AM
oil has everything to do with the invasion of the middle east by the masters of the universe. The rattling is the pretext of invasion it happened during the Iraq fiasco and now the pentagon is attempting another disasterous campaign against iran. 1st the propaganda spin then the bombs start dropping it's starting to become a re-run. This war on terrorism needs a new chapter and it's called the conclusion. Hey they can save 15% by using jew pilots to bomb iranian faucilities instead of paying the price of losing one of it's own heroes. If an indicator existed to the bad leadership on this planet the middle east fiasco would be it. America outsourced its values.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 08:49 AM
"Nobody has been able to clearly answer the underlying purpose of invading Iraq " It seems to me there was a mix of reasons. A lot of people thought he had WMDs, I know I did. Not because Bush told me, but becasue I though "what would I do if I were Saddam?". Although the President never mentioned liberating Iraqis during the build-up, I can tell you a LOT of rightwing commentators did. I always felt that this was a partial motive of the wars, and I am suprised other people didn't - but I used to read more Rightwing stuff so maybe I just paid attention to those sources, while left-leaners did not. I can also tell you that Saddam had been on the radar for years. I told some friends the night of 9/11 "Saddams days are numbered", and they asked "he was behind this" and I said "no, but they just got their opening". I'm not bragging, it was obvious to anyone who paid attention to rightwing talk that they wanted his head and 9/11 gave them a chance to go for it. Then, of course, I must assume Oil had a lot to do with it. But those are the parts of the agenda the rightwing doesn't talk about....

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Davidberge, Daveos at Feb 06, 2005 07:30 AM
I think r4d20 mentions an intriguing detail about the limitations on the fighting force in pg8 of the comments and that MTbrad introduces the sobering thought about the devaluation of the dollar on pg9 of the comments. I'd like to corroborate references to both if anyone has links to credible sources. I think if we've learned anything, it's that the Bush administration is wielding the PR arts like no other presidency in that they've mastered the smoke screens. Nobody has been able to clearly answer the underlying purpose of invading Iraq (lots of good strong theories, no solid answers), and it's hard to know what's real in all the dirty whispering about how erect they are for Iran. The only thing seeming certain is that it's out of their control while they're pretending they've got a handle on it, and the rest of the world is on for the ride while all the those selling out Jesus cheer them on.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 06:52 AM
I think I may have mentioned this, but I am worried that the US may use a proxy to attack Iran to destroy its regime, via perhaps Pakistan or maybe even the "new Iraq". Us's options are limited - another scenario may be perhaps something resembling the Gulf War I - like goading Iran into a retaliation of something, then claiming that it's the agressor, set up a "coalition" and start destroying its infrastructure via boming and sanctions, and then when the time is right (years later) go in and mop up. I would have said that these scenarios are loony a couple of years ago, but now they don't seem so remote anymore. Either way, something similar to one of these scenarios could mean a nuclear exchange.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Defendario, Defendario at Feb 06, 2005 06:50 AM
Looks like both the Right & Left believe the US *will* attack Iran, because it suits their respective political agendas/prejudices. I agree that reality-based thinking leads away from invasion at this time, because 90% of the US Army is already engaged in Iraq, if for no other reason. Although some in the Admin might want war with Iran, it's not happening soon. JMHO.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 06:44 AM
If there is one moral principle (referring to my referring to the "moral value of things"), is that we should pay attention to our own crimes first, and only then condemnt he crimes of others. I am sure that Chomsky would agree to this point. Regarding China criticizing the US a couple of years ago on our human rights' abuses, this is exactly what I am talking about. The same principle would apply to Soviet patriots talking about the abuse of power in West Germany or the US.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Defendario, Defendario at Feb 06, 2005 06:25 AM
The article posted by Mr Chomsky expressed his opinion that the US/Israel will *not* be attacking Iran just yet. Still, all the comments so far seem to assume that an attack is imminent... Am I missing something? Personally, I think the US will hold off, until more international support is gathered.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 06:16 AM
"5. You assume that everyone here doesn't completely, implicitly agree with you about the regime in Iran?" Actually, no I don't. All this talk about "speaking truth to power" lead me to believe some people here were willing to support any regime that the US government opposes, since the greater morality lies in fighting the powerful US. Plus, I have met people (mostly white, liberal, Americans) who have claimed that the Iranians LIKE their government and that it is only our cultureal bias that prevents us from seeing this.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 06:15 AM
"1. You *know* they do? How? Even the IAEA doesn't think they do. You have better information than the IAEA? Does it come from the people who *knew* Saddam did?" Dude. I was talking about Israel, US, Russia, China, India, UK, France, etc. whom WE DO KNOW already possess nukes. I was not saying Iran already posesses them - because I do not believe they do...yet. "2. You know that they're *ABYSMALLY* stupid enough to use them?" No. But the more people that have them, the more likely they are to be used. I don't buy the notion that they will automatically turn them over to terrorists. "4. You think it's *just fine* that your country ought to have as many as it likes with no avenue for redress?" Reducing our nuclear arsenal is another matter that I look favorably upon. We have WAY more than we "need", even as a last resort weapon.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 06:08 AM
" If you fully appreciated this you would not be Bush's performing monkey on this commentary." considering you never asked me what I think, I think it's a bit presumptuous of you to call me "Bush's performing Monkey". Instead of jumping to conclusions about what I think why don't you aks me about it? I am totally against invading Iran or bombing the crap out of them. I am for trying to get them to not develop nuclear weapons. Obviously bombing their reactor is one option, but I would not use it except as a last resort if dipolmacy fails. I think Bush is a stupid crusader who will bomb them before we have exhausted all options. But NONE of this means I am going to say anything nice about the mullahs - who are uber-religious intolerant pricks. I have known several Iranians in my life, who visited family in Iran regularly, and who all said the same thing - "everyone hates the government but don't want civil war or violence". I fail to see how taking the word of my friends at face value makes me a racist or an imperialist. I fail to see why it is necessary for people who oppose Bush to support a crappy regime.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 04:03 AM
Condemnations of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Japanese Empire (in WWII), The Roman Empire, Ayatollah Khameini, Moammar Khaddafi, Ghenghis Khan, Saddam Hussein, The British in India, etc. do not have any moral value because those regimes no longer exist, and so much as been written about them that any additiona. condemnations is in my opinion completely superfluous. This should not be confused with remembering the victims o their crimes and trying to prevent similar acts in the future - which includes, and I should stress this, includes support for Hitler as latel 1937, Stalin, Suharto (up to 1 million victims), Ottomans (Armenian holocaust), Duvalier, Marcos, Mobutu, Caucescu, Saddam Hussein, The Shah of Iran, etc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 04:03 AM
CZimmerman: I totallu understand what you are saying. I think that you are confusing two issues: influencing policy and internal moral indignation. I hope you will understand this time by what I mean by actions having "moral value" - actions that can change policies that are harming others, policies that can be changed by activism, IMMORAL actions that need to be stopped. Moral indignation against atrocities of others (official enemies) does not lead to constructive action aside from certain insights or realizations. I am speaking from an activist point of view, and I am trying to change murderous policies that can be stopped and reversed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 03:32 AM
"Recently I contacted a group called A.N.S.W.E.R. COALITION which organizes marches.... I was told that they won't help the Iranian activists and their friends in organizing marches against the Islamic Republic as they're afraid the Iranian student movement might be run by IMPERIALIST!!!!! ... When I explained that the people of Iran are acting on their own but that encouragement from the PEOPLE of the west was crucial in holding anti-Islamic Republic demonstrations etc. (that's all I had asked them for: help in organizing demonstrations) the woman basically said that they won't help because their cause was to eradicate Imperialism! ....I told her about my father and other political prisoners in Iran (not to mention the number of people stoned to death, hung, assassinated, raped...), she thought for a moment and said that my father is probably a dissident and that the Islamic Republic was possibly justified in putting him in prison!!!!! I don't know, but doesn't that seem oxymoronic coming from someone working at an "activist/protestor" organization????? " http://kashei.blogspot.com/

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Johnbthompson, J.b.thompson at Feb 06, 2005 03:32 AM
Oh M G are there flipped out zionists here? I'm gone.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Johnbthompson, J.b.thompson at Feb 06, 2005 03:29 AM
Might obviously makes right.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 03:28 AM
joeblogs56 - "(b) Your prejudices are showing. You don't seem worried by christian or zionist 'nutjobs' with nukes." YOU'RE prejudices are showing by assuming I don't care. Actually, I am "worried", but I can't take back the nukes they already have. We can't disarm Israel, UK, India, Pakistan, etc., but we can keep new countries from acquiring them. I am not religious and I favor no religion over another. "(c) The left's concern is primarily with the condition and destiny of the Iranian people, who are under threat, yet again, from US-uk imperialism. Just because we do not dance to your racist, imperialist tune does not mean we support Islamic Fundamentalism." I am neither racist nor imperialist. And the discussion on this board makes it clear that the main concern of the left is opposing the US, not "helping the iranian people". If you wanted to help you would oppose an invasion AND oppose the mullahs. However, as soon as talk of the invasion subsides the left' "concern" for the Iranian people will disappear overnight.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Johnbthompson, J.b.thompson at Feb 06, 2005 02:17 AM
H E L L O I'm new here. I live in the south of France and am American, originally from near Washington (Annapolis). Does anyone think the bold ideas of Bush and co will come to fruition? I personaly think that with the fall of the USSSR, they haven't a chance. Why? Because Islamic fundamentalism and local tribalism are being used as tools to unify peoples against such a "threat".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 06, 2005 00:57 AM
Only it has backfired, leaving the oil prices increasing and US deficit spending also increasing. This along with the devaluation of the dollar and the increasing US trade deficit is leading to a finacial crisis of epic proportions. The last ISR zine has a big story on this and how the US economy, and for that matter the interconnected global economy are in worse shape than prior to any of the major crises of the 20th century. This could all unravel very quickly. If the dollar falls much more foriegn investors will pull out of US bond and leave the gov't compleatly bankrupt. With the rising oil prices the impact will be catastrophic. Get ready for the revolution!!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 06, 2005 00:51 AM
This may sound a bit conspiritorial but the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia may also be a way to induce a regional destabilization in the hopes of reducing the ties of the OPEC.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 06, 2005 00:49 AM
Does anyone else feel that this has alittle to do with the recent rise in oil prices and the projections that we are past peak. I think both Iraq and the recent posturing toward Iran have the same intent. To demand a continuation of cheap, bellow production, prices. This is the only way the US economy can remain afloat.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 00:36 AM
Making common cause with Islamic Fundamentalists is going to end up being a HUGE mistake for the secular left. They respect their religious enemies more than they respect their secular "friends", because at least their enemies believe in God - the Koran is clear that Christians and Jews are to be better treated than Idol Worshippers and Atheists. Like in Iran, if they ever get the chance they will use the secular left and then turn on it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 00:32 AM
As for an air-strike and sanctions, there is a possibility, but to me that is not "imoral" because, "fairness" aside, I don't want the Mullahs getting their hands on nukes. I am amazed the people here are more concerned with abstract moral notions like "fairness" than the concrete problem of Religious Nutjobs with Nukes. The rulers of Iran as as committed to peace and social justice as Pat Buchannen. They are Religious extremeists who can be counted on to indulge in all of the cruelties and evils that we have come to expect from religious fundamentalists. This is not "propaganda" - it is "propaganda" to paint them as anything else just because you want to oppose the Bush Admin. Contrary to the beliefs of some, moral value is not to be found exclusively in opposing the powerful, and is CERTAINLY not found blindly helping the "powerless" get nukes withou regard to the nature of the state in question.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 00:24 AM
The US doesn't have the numbers to invade Iran. ONly about 1 in 10 Military memebers is an actual combat soldier (9 in 10 are logistics and support with only basic training as a rifleman) and all of the real combat units, who train full-time for war, are already deployed. As long as Iraq is still in issue there will be no invasion of Iran, and probably not EVER. All of this sabre-rattling is just that - sabre rattling. Its meant to make Bush look tough for the domestic audience and to bluff Iran into budging, but there is almost no real chance of an invasion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 00:13 AM
What is best in life? "The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters." Who can deny it sounds pretty freaking good?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 00:05 AM
"Where's the honor in defeating the competition through bombs instead of good and just competitive business practices?" OMG. Are you F*ing KIDDING ME. In almost every culture, throughout all of human history, martial values have been held in higher esteem than commericial values. It was "I came, I saw, I conquered" Not "I came, I saw, I saved 15%".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By K, Mr at Feb 05, 2005 22:54 PM
Another example of 'bullying' into the market! With american national interests at stake they can pressure rival corporations from doing business with iran in favor of their own destabilization efforts within the jihad powerhouse. i'm sure those Russian and Chinese deals are all at risk this is another 'debt relief' form of warfare whereas France lost out on the previous contracts as well as Russia in Iraq. When the Americans start bombing and disrupting Chinese natural gas production then watch hell! Through isolating Iran just like they did with Iraq American government sanctions prevent equal access to this rich resource market. Rival nations must adhere to American wisdom or face economic ruin as the bunker busters destroy infrastructure and manufacturing industry which fuels Iran's or anyone elses economy! Where's the honor in defeating the competition through bombs instead of good and just competitive business practices? Where's the free market spirit in American hegonomy? Iran's right to self determination is as much as Americas just because the Yankees have no market control in that region does not mean they get to bomb their way in to marketplace.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 05, 2005 22:01 PM
Let us take an example that I think will help focus this notion. Granted, we cannot influence what happened sixty years ago, however in order to influence our present situation, we need to come to terms with what happened sixty years ago. Although you state that these condemnations have zero moral value, would you also say that refusing to condemn these actions and events has no moral value? In other words, it would seem to me that a serious discussion of morality would ensue if I were to refuse to condemn these atrocities for example. Also, I think that there are vital moral components in the broad sense involved in our preparations to influence our situation, i.e. coming to terms with our histories, our ‘history', our intellectual traditions, the role of ideology, etc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 05, 2005 21:58 PM
Dear Robinhood, Ok, 'condemning Hitler and Stalin has no moral value'. My position still holds. Here is what you wrote: ' Believe it or not there are countless people who have written score of works condemning Stalin and Hitler - and these works have basically zero moral value.' I understand what you are saying. Perhaps, there is no direct moral value in the sense that we cannot influence this situation. It was my point however that our relationship to history and the atrocities in the past does carry a moral value. The moral value in these condemnations is indirect in that the writing of this history is an opportunity for historical consciousness to be engaged and raised. Like Chomsky (verbatim actually), who does discuss the fact that situations like this have no moral value, you are adopting a narrow view of morality. Yes, it may be less important to debate what happened in the past than put our energies into trying to change the injustices around us, but this does not mean that condemning past actions and event is devoid of moral value. There is certainly a moral difference bewtween someone who condemns these atrocities and someone who refuses to do so.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 05, 2005 20:33 PM
Actually Hitler's genocide program was inspired by American eugenics.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 20:13 PM
I think that you may have thought that by recognizing that condemning Hitler, Stalin or the British Empire, Ghenghis Khan or Hannibal or Mussolini - which we are not making a gram of morel difference in the world - is not the same as ignoring events such as Armenian genocide or the Jewish holocaust. Clearly, anyone with a sense of justice or moral dignity would not ignore those crimes - and as a minimum we should be incensed that the US was supporting Hitler as late as 1937. This overlooked fact should be brought up because it was within our reach to do prevent Hitler's atrocities by forcing the US to stop supporting him, which has moral value - but NOT by keep bringing up Hitler's acts without acknowledging US complicity, which has zero moral value - and is actually hypocritical and has negative moral value.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 20:12 PM
"What I take issue with—and this is tangential to the current discussion—is the statement that Hitler and Stalin have no moral value. " I did not say that "Hitler and Stalin have no moral value". Actually I am not sure what you mean by this, but if you go back and reread my posts, you will see that what I did say is that condemning the crimes of Hitler and Stalin have no moral value, only some limited historical value. If we are concerned for justice and prevention of atrocities, we should use our energies against things that we have some control over - such as support of hideous atrocities in Iraq, Palestine and Saudi Arabia, for example. My position is based on the following principles: 1. Hitler and Stalin have already been condemned more than any other tyrrannies in history. 2. Re-condemning them takes energies away from things that we have some control over and that do matter in the present, real world. -cont'd-

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 05, 2005 17:58 PM
Continued: I think when pressed in this issue, Robinhood would agree with me, however I simply wanted to point out that such statements teeter on a precipice. Much of our work is contextualization and coming to terms with our past and the various intellectual traditions from which we act.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 05, 2005 17:56 PM
I would like to respond to a comment from Robinhood at the beginning of this discussion. First of all, I completely agree that our efforts must be focused on issues and in situations in which we can influence matters. Chomsky always points out that we can yell and point fingers at what is happening in a society on the other side of the globe, however we cannot realistically influence those people. We can, however, turn our attention to our own behavior and crimes. What I take issue with—and this is tangential to the current discussion—is the statement that Hitler and Stalin have no moral value. These horrendous events are relegated to the past and do not have a bearing on our current situation. Hitler and Stalin have no moral value, however how we relate to Hitler and Stalin does have a moral value. The role and function of memory, individually and collectively, have strong moral components. Albert Camus wrote, ‘He who believes nothing but history is walking toward terror. He who believes nothing of history is authorizing terror.'

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Davidberge, Daveos at Feb 05, 2005 10:24 AM
Why can't people stick to the topic? Given the financial issues, it's hard to imagine taking on Iran. However d-dubya used the State of the Union to sound bite about extending our hands to all our friends in Iran committed to freedom and liberty (or something like that). Basically applying the new spin (spreading freedom and liberty) to Iran further setting justifications in place, and just because the dollar is in such a tenuous space, extending the occupation to Iran could offer a remedy in the wake of things not getting better in Iraq any time soon. Just please send the Republicans.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Paymane, Paymun at Feb 05, 2005 08:58 AM
why realpc doesn't go and post his comments on a right wing forum? he knows what Chomsky and the rest of us are up to. he knows his ideas are the very ideas we are diametically against. the very ideas that have prevailed and we are struglling to overcome their presence? why is realpc so angry about NC? the government is the way you wanted it, the media is the way you like it, the economy is shaped consistent with your wishes. why are you so upset? go and have fun! it is a great country! isn't it

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Paymane, Paymun at Feb 05, 2005 08:51 AM
Poor persians. first they had to fight against arabs to gain their independence. Then against Mongols, Turks. Against the british. Against the local monarcs. then against the pupet gov of Shah. then the revolution was stolen, by mullahs. and now americans. If the world leaves us alone, we will either reform the islamic regime, or destroy it, we have done it in the past, we can do it again. In the face of foreign threat, we have no choice to support, the regime. If Iraq had not attacked us, radicalism and fundamentalism, would not have survived. Why don't they leave us alone ?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Allen, Robert at Feb 05, 2005 08:08 AM
realarrogant, I thought I told you to shut up until you admitted your earlier error. It is intellectually dishonest of you to continue to post here as if you have not been refuted.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 05, 2005 05:52 AM
"To put all the blame and focus on US is dishonest" I don't think Chomsky is being dishonest. Putting all the blame on the US is just more pleasurable. We all like to feel certain, and we all like to feel superior. And it's also nice to have something to feel contemptuous about. Our problems are inherent in our species, and in life on earth. The frightening international situation is the result of great advances in physics. The US is concerned about Iran, N. Korea, etc., because of nuclear weapons. The world has no police, it is therefore uncivilized. It's easy to blame it all on the malicious intentions of the US. Yes there is corruption in the US, but there is corruption wherever there are people. There is also compassion and idealism in the US, even among the leaders.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 04:37 AM
damphouse, thanks for the link. That web site is a very good media analysis site. I have found that so many people have no idea of what is happening in the occupied territories, mainly because of the media lying about what is going on and the non-existent education on the basic facts. For example, some people I know in school think that it is the Palestinians who are the "settlers" and the Jews are trying to hold on to their land.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 05, 2005 04:07 AM
Agian the goal is to perpetuate the global econ. based on cheap oil extraction. Over the next few decades the availability of cheap oil is going to take a nose dive. With the US economy tied to cheap oil we need to use our military sepremacy to control the oil spigit. It does not matter though the oil will run out whether we control the spigit or not.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 05, 2005 03:50 AM
And in Iraq the goal is certainly to destableize it. If they can destablize and control the liberal socialist eliments. They can privatize the oil and continue to suck the prosperity from the people.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 05, 2005 03:45 AM
I agree that the goal in the middeast is to destablize it. And with us having more WMD than anybody else we can extort them Mafia style. You buy our protection or you are a terrorist sponsering islamist extreame country.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Johnbthompson, J.b.thompson at Feb 05, 2005 02:35 AM
Robinhood, I think that destablizing things is the objective. The region is an ethnic cauldren which is super rich in natural resources. A main way to keep the cash flowing to BushCo aznd friends is to keep everybody "security dependant" by cranking up the heat. The Soviet Union is gone leaving Central Asia wide open for the "American Security Umbrella". Of course US taxpayers foot the bill for Israel's security which is in effect a huge subsidy to America's arms industries, while Israel's enemies have oil money to pay for theirs. Add in all the other groups like Tajiks, Turks, Kurds, Shiites, Persians, etc... and you end up having a steady stream of customers in numerous regional arms races for years to come. Thus, for many huge vested US interests there's no use in having a perfectly stable Middle East. Other world players would simply start to slip in and start getting all the civil cotracts. Security dependancy means overall slavery to US interests. Corruption should also be taken into account.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Johnbthompson, J.b.thompson at Feb 05, 2005 02:22 AM
Damphouse, I have been an activist but am unsure if it is worthwhile. Too much time seems to be spent discussing burocracy and seemingly useless petitions and so forth. Also, The media generally ignores most efforts anyway and besides, no matter what interesting arguments do come up, there will always be too many people unwilling to see their tribe in an unfavorable light and are thus beyond any reasoning. This is the story of mankind. America seems to have a particularly bad dose of this willful blindness at the moment. Try this group, though. They seem to be pretty cool: http://www.attac.org/indexfr/

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 02:19 AM
I am an activist - at my college - mostly against the Israeli occupation and the wall. I started a website (not yet developed) to that end. In my university there is basically no one that is willing to "take the risk" and speak out aginst Israel, with unnotable exceptions. I am willing to devote time and skills (I have programming and web-developing skills) to causes such as these or others - please let me know.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Cfraserh, Haps33 at Feb 05, 2005 02:15 AM
Could that be because about 7% of America is owned by Saudi Arabia, and George Bush jnr's lamentable pre-political life was supported by huge benefit pay-outs by the aristocratic Bin Laden family wishing to penetrate further US markets with the help of Bush snr's influence? --------- No way, that would mean... Oh, wait... I think we're all in a lot of trouble. :)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 02:15 AM
If Israel attacks Iran it may lead to a toppling of some Muslim states and a huge destabilization and who knows what else. however the US is unlikely to attack it in its present state unilaterally - unless, as previously discussed via a proxy in a brutal war and subsequently weakened by severe sanctions and bombings, leading to a "window of opportunity" when it attacked Iraq in March 2003. Another scenario may lead to an attack against Iran by a "coalition" of US-led forces after an some "aggression" by Iran against some other state - possibly fabricated.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 02:14 AM
There is a good argument that the reason that Iraq embarked on its nuclear-weapons program in the 1980s was precisely because its reactor was bombed in 1981. Additionally, regardless of claims to the contrary, Iraq was not in the midst of a military nuclear program when the Osirak reactor was bombed. I am sure that this line of thinking is known - that if Iran is bombed it is more likely to start its nuclear weapons program. There is no evidence presently that it has such a program, US propaganda notwithstanding. I am worried that US will engage in a proxy war with Iran via Pakistan or another client (but not Israel) rather than attacking it itself or through Israel. Israel attacking Iran is very risky for Israel IMO because Iran may retaliate and demolish a large part of Israel and engage in a brutal exchange - Israel may not take that chance, in which the Iranian leadership may feel enough internal pressure to retaliate en masse. Either way, the Iranian state is presently in a similar predicament to what Iraq was in 1980.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Johnbthompson, J.b.thompson at Feb 05, 2005 02:03 AM
The US can cause huge damage to Iran's military and its nuclear industries though. It is interesting to remember that the Reagan-Bush administration condemned Israel for pre-emptively bombing Saddam's nuclear facilities (when Iraq was a client state), and now that administration's political decendants are talking of doing the same thing to Iran. For reasons of Petro-dollars, or curtailing Iran's regional geopolitical influence, the US proves itself again only able to deal with other nations in terms of its own interests.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 01:50 AM
Even in a totalitarian dungeon such as the old SU, these things were a reality. I remember people overall being much more open to new ideas and inquisitive, culture was highly regarded, as were history and arts, etc. I am just trying to piece together some things that have worked in history.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 01:44 AM
Some positive features of the Soviet Union: less commercialism/corporatism and less irrational behavior stemming from it - such as religious cults, less fake mental illnesses, better social fabric, safer streets, less imperialism abroad, less artificial wants, less crass behavior.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 01:41 AM
One thing sorely missing (or at least by me - I haven't seen a book on this), even among dissident literature is a vision of how the world could be without the capitalistic framework - for example by showing how oppressve the present US society is, and perhaps by pointing out some positive features of the so-called "Communist" regimes and contrasting the two. For example every billboard I see and every piece of advertising that I am subjected to is a huge form of oppression, not unlike the "socialist" signage in the Soviet Union. The corporations are everywhere and its very hard to get away from their reach. They use every possible way to program themselves into every human being. They are not talking about embedding RF chips into consumer goods and even food. This is far more than anything the totalitarians in the Soviet Union ever considered. Even taking into account the relative prosperity, how good is the life in the US is anyway? In other words, how can you measure the extent of your oppression? I, for one am nauseous from the extent of the reach of the corporations.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 01:34 AM
Regarding the national goal being profit-making: I am not sure that I understand you correctly. I agree that the elites' goal has always been one thing and one thing only - their indoctrination method was to equate profit for the elites with the prosperity of the many (this requires willful ignorance of all of the IMF-run dungeons in the world), but as far as the so-called "loyalty" to the political system is another matter entirely which took many forms besides alleged economic prosperity. Maybe we're not disagreeing after all? I am not sure.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 01:29 AM
You're right, MTbrad - and since the US has shifted so heavily to the right in recent years even mild dissent seems like some leftist cant. However overall in spite of this, the media is more open in my opinion than it was in the 1970s (when I first came to the US). I remember lunchboxes with patriotic tripe and any hint of analysis of the Soviet Union was tantomount to treason. I remember when I was in high school in 1979 the goal of one of the phys ed-classes - running - was to beat the Soviet high-school students' speed. They posted the Soviet students' times on a blackboard, and if you didn't do as well as they, you were sotracized by the phys ed teacher.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 05, 2005 01:28 AM
We have to show how the state opperates to create wealth for the elites. It uses nationalistic ideas to seperate us from the ones we are causing harm to and the reactions to the harm that they proceed to do. It also uses religion and race too..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 05, 2005 01:25 AM
I would disagree that the national goal is alegiance to the state. Look at how quikly everyone forgot about "made in the USA" when they found out how much money they could make from global trade. The social driver in the US is the economy, alwas has been. That is Why we have to start the deindoctrination from an class conscious point.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 01:23 AM
I don't know who you are, but you ought to go easy on that bottle.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Swedish, The at Feb 05, 2005 01:21 AM
Propaganda? Indoctrination? Where am I? Who am I? Kaganovych, Kalinin or Anastas Mikojan in Sotji, The Blach sea summer of -31? I'm out of here.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 01:20 AM
MTBrad - I don't think that the US (or any other state's) political systems' primary goal (as perceived by the public) is wealth creation. I think that it is an unquestioning "loyalty" or "allegiance" to the state, first and foremost. Wealth creation comes into play afterwards, if it is a capitalist state. One goal of the dotrinal system has been to create a myth that capitalism and democracy are the same thing. This is explored in Alex Carey's great book "Taking the Risk out of Democracy". The central fraudulent message was tat economic freedom is synonymous with economic freedom. On the other hand economics courses at college have always been more honest in their portrayal of the world, but still under the overarching framework of patriotic dogma. There is another principle involved, which is that the capitalist framework is an indispensable part of a structure "balance of power", which limits opposing forces from imposing tyranny upon the world. Of course any discussion of an alternative to capitalism is dismissed as "utopian".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 05, 2005 01:14 AM
Because of the heavy layer of indoctrination it is a slow process of letting people see little things and lead up to bigger more national identity challeging facts. Unfortunatly I see the exact opposite happening lately in much of the mainstream media. they are getting thicker with their nationalistic rhetoric, all the while there are more and more outlits like this one. So we have two opposing forces at work within the U.S.. This is going to lead to turbulent times.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 05, 2005 01:09 AM
Yes a political system that has as its singular aim to create a populace with goals of wealth creation. Is going to at one point be uuncovered as such, unless it can indoctrinate the masses.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 01:07 AM
The end result is the complete inability to rationally see the most basic elementary facts when contrasted with the home state. However when "official" enemies are condemned (rightly or wrongly) the rational analysis rears its ugly head because it is useful to the doctrinal system. For these reasons many Americans can not see the most basic contradictions about the policies of their governments that they can easily see when applied to enemies. For example in "Manufacturing Consent" Chomsky and Herman compared media analysis of elections in Nicaragua in 1984 (which were for the most part free and open) with sham elections in El Salvador and Guatemala at the same time (those are essentially the same in substance as the fraudulent elections in Afghanistan and Iraq) the propagandistic nature of US media was fully exposed. When decent people are confronted with these examples highlighting some basic facts about the contradictions of the political indoctrination, they sometimes can not see the words because they are indoctrinated so heavily.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 05, 2005 01:04 AM
Robinhood, I am not sure if you took anymore politics classes but in all of the contemporary political theory classes I took, there was a basic understanding that a capitalist economic system violated the rights of the individual. This I think needs to be seperated in our discusion of "all power centers" being immoral. To be honest my gov. has given me alot. ie. education. We have to seperate the driving force behind the immoral acts of our government and the ability of a govenment to provide goods to the citizens.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 01:02 AM
If one looks back at educational docrines of all the regimes (including the most heinous ones) they all purport to be the beacons of freedom and democracy. In the Soviet Union the rhetoric was on roughly the same level of jingoism as it is in the US. There are other contributing factors - the overuse of politicians on everything from architectural landmarks to currency, the "pledges of allegiance" (a form of brainwashing) and salutes complete with patriotic slogans (more vulgar in the 50s) and endless patriotic repetitive dogma in movies and media in general. Of course a rational analysis was missing as always. Many people also equate government with the society, culture, etc. which is a grave mistake.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 00:57 AM
Damphouse, I think that you're right - the indoctrination is a main reason, probably the overwhelming reason. I remember taking Politics 101 in college, where one of the main topics was "political socialization". The definition of it was (and accurate IMO) was along the lines of "the requirement of citizens to support the regime before their political beliefs have been fully formed. This went hand-in-hand with a study of Machiavelli and a little later, "realpolitik". Basically separating morality from politics, with democratic principles being the main casualty. I wrote a reaction paper on this basically saying that "political socialization" was a form of indoctrination. Of course all of this was bathed in basic suppression of facts and implicit pre-suppositions on the benevolent nature of the US regime.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Vekey, Tvekey at Feb 05, 2005 00:37 AM
I agree with the previous comments all the way to Ali. Also, that the assumption that the neo con elite is concerned by "freedom and democracy" in Iran, or elsewhere is totaly preposterous. The US has alied themselves with the most vile brutal regimes throughout history. The fact is the majority of the world population sees the US and Israel as the biggest threat to World Peace.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 00:35 AM
I think that one of the main problems that people have in not being able to speak out against US-supported hellholes is that many people can not accept the fact that the US (or any power center) is not, and never was a moral force in the world. They represent the domestic power centers within them. The US's - or anyone other state's policies can be only as moral as the people that speak out against its immorality can force it to be. The more internally democratic the state is the easier it is, although even the most oppressive totalitarian states have to respond to their populations to some extent. But to insist that the US (as a state) is a beacon of morality in the world is just sheer nonsense.

Reply this comment

Person

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 00:29 AM
To put it simply, what has more moral value - protesting the crimes that you can prevent (as in the case of Saudi Arabia or Turkey) or the ones you can't, such as Iran? How would it look if a Nazi dissident condemned the crimes of the US?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 00:17 AM
Some other elements of fascism, such as jingoist hysteria such as flag waving and suppression of free media are also present.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 00:16 AM
The US has the characteristics of elements of "classical" fascism, where the business and ruling classes converge and undermine democracy. How else would you explain the lack of democratic discourse in the US?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 00:14 AM
And Chomsky does not criticize "his native country". He is criticizing its policies. If you fail to see the difference bteween criticizing the policies of a state and criticizing its culture, people, etc. - then you are a victim of propaganda, or a propagandist yourself. Actually I fail to see what "America" is anyway (this is really a topic for another discussion) - it's really an abstraction. We have a society and power centers within the society. When someone plays the patriotic card, it usually serves the agenda of those who want to silence the criticism of the rulers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 00:09 AM
And Swedish Vicarage - I never said that the US is "worse than Hitler or Stalin" - reread my post. This is a bold-faced lie. Only propagandists (and I hope that you are not one of them) compare atrocities of enemies.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 00:08 AM
Condemning Stalin and Hitler (and this does not justify their horrendous crimes) is not much different than condemning the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire. They no longer exist, and condemning them has only historical or analytical value, and even that is limited because their crimes have been documented for eternity. Put things in their proper prospective if you are really committed to justice in the REAL WORLD, Swedish Vicarage. Otherwise you are either a dupe or a propagandist.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 00:07 AM
Swedish Vicarage - condemning the crimes of Stalin and Hitler has NO MORAL VALUE whatsoever. They have both been condemned countlessly and they no longer exist. Yes, Iran is an oppressive theocracy (fascist? maybe, depends on how you define that), but by condemning it you make ZERO contribution in the REAL WORLD. Why don't you protest US support for Saudi Arabia, which is a FAR WORSE theocracy than Iran? Here you can make a difference. What about support for dictatorships in Kuwaut and UAE, which are also worse than Iran? You seem to be committed to speaking out against US's enemies, as if there is not enough critical commentary and activism against them - whatever they happen to be. Egypt and Pakistan are just as oppressive as Iran, and they are US allies as well. here you can make a real-world difference as well. Chomsky concentrates his energies where it counts, where he can make a real difference.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Swedish, The at Feb 04, 2005 23:35 PM
RobinHood: Well... US biggest threat to human spieces? US is worse than Hitler and Stalin? The countless works condemning H+S - no moral value? How did I end up in this dispute. What I'm trying to say is: Mr Chomsky has every right to criticize his native country or any other country fot that matter. But not in his selective fragmented manner. He should know better. A bigger historical picture is what I demand. I'm not defending US policy. Iran is by all definitions a fascist theocracy. Fascist regimes need to be put in a historical and political context. Now you will probably state that US is also fascist. Then I will rest my case.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Vekey, Tvekey at Feb 04, 2005 23:33 PM
I think, that at these early stages the US is intentionally ambigious vis a vis to Iran. Are the overflights and commando insertions preparatory actions or act of intimidations? By keeping the opponents guessing and out of balance, they gaining advantage to themselves, while keeping the "military options" open if opportunity favours them. We should not underestimate the neo cons. These people are truly dangerous.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 04, 2005 23:05 PM
Swedish Vicarage: If there was "no US" you're right no one knows. However the fact is that it's here and it is attempting to dominate the world by using its strenghts, especially military power. It is possible, even probable tha there would be another hegemonic power, which would do the same thing. This is a problem and Chomsky would no doubt be fighting for justice if he was a citizen of that power. Thre are enough critics of US's enemies, and the US happens to be the destabilizing force in the world and the biggest threat to the survival of the human species. Therefore Chomsky is right to criticize the US. Would there be any value to criticize Iran or Cuba, which would have no effect and in addition would contribute to an increase repression perpetrated by the US? Believe it or not there are countless people who have written score of works condemning Stalin and Hitler - and these works have basically zero moral value. Also, as I mentioned, the US has the most destructive power in the world since World War II and if the elites who use the US state for their ends have their way we may not be having these discussions before too long.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Swedish, The at Feb 04, 2005 22:05 PM
Imagine there were no US. What would be different? No one can tell. But I do know that parts of the world would still suffer from the transition from traditional towards modern societies. A german historian (Winkler, "Der lange Weg nach Westen", 2000) states that it took Germany at least 1864-1990 to complete this german "Sonderweg". The human cost was enormous. Iran is somewere in the beginning. Iraq probably further behind. To put all the blame and focus on US is dishonest. Mr Chomsky, I consider your deductive abilities a bit selective, almost zealotic.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 04, 2005 21:58 PM
I think realpc has a problem with Chomsky on a personal level. He is getting more irrational as time progresses.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 04, 2005 21:55 PM
It looks like the U.S already has its hand quite full in Iraq. According to what I heard briefly in the news based on results so far the Shiites is expected to win big in the election and the U.S puppet is going down to a humiliating defeat despite having all the organizational advantages. The new regime is likely to be friendly to Iran. What is the U.s going to do? It will probably start arming the Sunni insurgents and old Saddam supporters.Covertly, of course.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Johnbthompson, J.b.thompson at Feb 04, 2005 21:12 PM
I think the US will continue rattling its swords at Iran, not for security reasons which are but a phony pretext, but in order to remind its leadership that BushCo are shorring up political capital to attack it if need be. Why attack? The US would almost certainly attack if Iran again begins openly discussing switching the sale of its Petroleum to Euros as Iraq once did. Such a switch (also once debated by Saudi Arabia) would cause great harm to the value of the dollar which is already suffering. It has been estimated that the dollar would lose at least 40% of its value if Middle Eastern countries dumped the Petro-Dollar in favor of the currency of less heavy handed Europe which these countries do much more business with anyway. The economic consequeces of such a switch would be dire for America and also for Japan which holds trillions in US treasuries. This is probably why Japan supported the US war in Iraq, a country which is now once again selling oil in dollars.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Rattling Iran

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 04, 2005 18:55 PM
We should probably help Iran develop more advanced weapons so it can destroy both Israel and the US. Then Chomsky can go live in Iran where he will feel much more at home.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (158)

Loading_border