Author
|
Topic: Uncovered: How Iran was supposed to be lured into war (Read 1401 times) |
|
Fox
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 122
Reputation: 8.23
Rate Fox
Never underestimate the odds.
|
 |
Uncovered: How Iran was supposed to be lured into war
« on: 2007-09-25 13:15:04 » |
 |
Uncovered: How Iran was supposed to be lured into war
Cheney mulled luring Iran into war with Israel: report
Source: Reuters
Authors: Not credited
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:34pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US Vice President Richard Cheney has considered provoking an exchange of military strikes between Iran and Israel in order to give the United States a pretext to attack Iran, Newsweek magazine reported in its Monday issue.
But the weekly said the steady departure of neoconservatives from the administration over the past two years had helped tilt the balance away from war.
One official who pushed a particularly hawkish line on Iran was David Wurmser, who had served since 2003 as Cheney's Middle East adviser, the report said.
A spokeswoman at Cheney's office confirmed to Newsweek that Wurmser left his position last month to "spend more time with his family."
A few months before he quit, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz -- and perhaps other sites -- in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out, the magazine reported, citing two unnamed "knowledgeable sources."
The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran, Newsweek reported.
When Newsweek attempted to reach Wurmser for comment, his wife, Meyrav, declined to put him on the phone and said the allegations were untrue, the report said.
A spokeswoman at Cheney's office told the weekly the vice president "supports the president's policy on Iran."
=======================================================
And here are some more that are worth reading:
Cheney mulled Israeli strike on Iran: Newsweek
Report: Cheney may have mulled pushing Israel to hit Iran
Isn't it amazing what oil can make people do? But oh, it's not the oil! They're protecting freedom and democracy and liberating those poor Iranian sods from their oppressive dictatorship! War Mongering at it's finest! What would the call have been after this I wonder? Oh no the poor jews, let us Christian brothers go to help our poor jewish brothers in Israel from the horrible oppressive Muslims.
We've all slagged Bush and his cabinet before. We've all said oil a million times, muttered illegal war once for every dead Iraqi child. Bush is an abhorrent idiot, and not much more needs said, nor deserves to be wasted on such scum. Keep an eye on your economy it's going down the drain, and quickly. Whether it crashes before Bush leaves or after, it'll still be his fault.
Bush and his administration shall rank higher, and worse, than Nixons and Reagans, thats for sure. And the disastrous effects will probably be seen long after their gone too. I already feel sorry for our future generations 
|
I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu
|
|
|
Sasquatch
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 12
Reputation: 3.07
Rate Sasquatch
Doing what you can't...
|
|
Re:Uncovered: How Iran was supposed to be lured into war
« Reply #1 on: 2007-10-19 19:08:45 » |
|
Articles like these tend to get me worked up.
So there are three articles about the one Newsweek article that talks about how it was considered having Israel take out Iranian nuclear facilities and expecting attempted retaliation.
So what?
Iran has been a threat for decades. We don't want them to have the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. But we're already busy -- so we say, "Hey Israel, if you want to drop a couple bombs through Iranian nuclear facilities, just like you did to the ones France set up for Iraq, go ahead. Don't worry, if they don't like it, you know we've got your back."
This is three articles about one article about something most of us have heard before, in an immature and ignorant "I bet they'll do this" rant. Whatever level of credibility you give the Newsweek article (which claims to have gathered information from two different sources, yet refuses to name either), even if it is true, it doesn't matter.
We should take Iran on anyway. But since fulfilling our military obligations will only lead to more senseless whining (to put it lightly) from the ignorant populace, our government has to tread lightly. And since the UN is completely incompetent and won't do what they were designed and emplaced to do, the responsibility must be passed on. I say let somebody else take out Iran's nuclear facilities, because that's what needs to happen -- and if Iran wants to start a fight over having something taken away that they shouldn't have had in the first place, let them.
And of course, the "this is all about oil" argument comes out again. Would somebody please tell me exactly how much petroleum the United States has gained from this war, other than what it was already buying on the free market? In fact, the only countries who actually lived up to that ridiculous "blood for oil" chant were the countries illegally providing Saddam Hussein with money, technology, and weaponry in exchange for under-the-table oil. Countries like France and Germany. No wonder they were so reluctant to go to combat. (Well, other than France, which is always reluctant when it comes to combat, for obvious reasons.)
I heard "oil" said a million times, and none of those million has been with any merit, or even hard evidence, that this conflict is connected with oil. Yes, people have also spewed their "illegal war" BS, and again, ignorant to the true facts. (By the way, if you want to talk about dead Iraqi children, talk to the insurgents in Iraq, who target busloads of innocent people with IEDs to reflect badly on America -- much like the "Palestinians" target innocent women and children, but I suppose that's still Israel's fault, huh?) And finally, if you want to talk about the American economy, you need to learn a few things first. The economy is well on the rebound from the recession that Clinton "dropped" into Bush's lap, which was only made worst by the 11 September, 2001 attacks.
As for Reagan, he was the greatest President the United States has ever had, and Nixon had one scandal that was blown way out of proportion and made out to be a threat to national security, and that one situation ruined an otherwise decent (albeit short) Presidency. Reagan not only "worked miracles" during his Presidency, but well after. His fiscal policies, along with mainstream access to the internet, led to a huge economic boom in the mid-90's, something Clinton took credit for. His foreign policy caused the collapse of the USSR and intimidation to enemies of the United States (something Clinton completely reversed).
While I don't agree with everything Bush has done (he's not a fiscal conservative in any way), I can plainly see that he was the best candidate for the job. (Or at least better than the other reasonable candidate.) I've also realized (in my experience) that most of the attacks on Bush are simply ignorant (most of those that aren't misinformed are not just misunderstood but also manipulated) and spread just because they make him look bad.
Or are you suggesting that 9/11 was Bush's fault, too. No, whoops, Cheney's fault? Wait, no, Israel's fault. Wait ... Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Come on, something bad happened, so the fault has to lie somewhere in there, right?
Gimme a break.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Uncovered: How Iran was supposed to be lured into war
« Reply #2 on: 2007-10-19 20:45:36 » |
|
Welcome to the CoV Sasquatch, although I suspect your stay will be short unless you learn quickly not to bloviate without even attempting to establish your credentials - which I now suspect you cannot do. I'm going to cherry pick your BS, I don't have time for it all.
For 911, you can blame US policies darling. Including our having established a proxy colony in the Palestine (to garner a few more Jewish votes according to Truman) just as the rest of the world got rid of theirs; and having decided to support this proxy colony and its acts of terrorism around the world (and against the USA) despite its engaging in brutal apartheid practices and arguably genocide. Then you can blame our imagining that we could stick our dicks into termite nests forever and not ever suffer blowback. I guess that falls into the class of hubris.
Just like the warped thinking that leads people to imagine that the Iraqis have no right to fight back against an illegitimate puppet government established in clear breach of the UN charter (and thus US law) while under occupation. If this be wrong, and suppling such freedom fighters wrong, then what the hell were we doing in Afghanistan in the 1980s or indeed in dozens of other countries over the years? If we take casualties while engaged in such unconstitutional activity, then the people facilitating it - including the military whose oaths, which they are breaking, are to the constitution - are to blame.
Today our interest in Israel forms a "reason" for people with dual loyalties to try to argue that the US should attempt to establish a dominating presence in the Middle East in a futile attempt to ensure that the last gallon of gas pumped goes into an American IC engine - or at least not to an engine belonging to our opponents. We are also in Iraq in the now visibly unachievable effort to establish a swing production capability in order to optimize the value of oil to our oil companies.
Note that at the time of the Israeli attack on Iraq, Iraq was our puppet to wage an active (but unsuccessful) proxy war as a continuation of our almost century long meddling in Iran and our forces were training the Iraqis in the use of the weapons we were proliferating into a war zone (as we do with blythe irresponsibility all over the planet). Now what were your arguments against Iran?
Given that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 2,000 years; given that the US dictated the terms of the Nuclear agreements we are clearly in breech of; given that Israel has not signed these agreements and is merrily proliferating on our dollar and under our protection; and given that Iran is clearly not in breech of these agreements, your entire premise seems based on assumptions which are laughable to anyone who has even half a clue.
After your unfounded rant, for you to call somebody, even Newsweek which often deserves it, "immature and ignorant," shows a positively Republican degree of chutzpah.
Have fun
More Monday
Hermit
PS Typos and other errors corrected Mon 2007-10-22
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Uncovered: How Iran was supposed to be lured into war
« Reply #3 on: 2007-10-21 07:58:17 » |
|
[Blunderov] Are we in the grip of yet another trogladyte in the form of Sasquatch? The probability seems strong but I will make this one reply in case what we see is simple ignorance.
Sherlock Holmes remarked "when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The Rape of Iraq was not about WMD because there were none as was blatantly obvious right from the beginning.
Neither was it about "connections" to al Quaeda. There were no connections to Iraq at all, until now that is. Again this was perfectly obvious right from the beginning.
Nor was it about "humanitarian" relief; the American military/corporate complex doesn't have a humanitarian bone in its entire hideously twisted body. There is far more pain in Iraq now than there ever was before, entirely predictably. It did not go unnoticed that the first act of the Rapist Nation of America when they first occupied Iraq was to seize the oilfields. The complete neglect of, for instance, museums or anything at all to do with existing Iraqi cultural institutions or infrastructure was very obvious. On the other hand, it is rather conspicuous that these oh-so-delicate American humanitarian sensibilities seem curiously oblivious to inhumanitarian regimes that lack hydrocarbons like for instance Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. By their fruits ye shall know them.
Some say it was about "spreading democracy" but this would be an act which, in the American context, is morally equivalent to deliberately spreading syphilis and hardly something that one would care to admit to.*
It was always about the oil. Allan Greenspan admitted as much. Anyone with any intellectual integrity at all would have to do the same because nobody but a card carrying member of The Flat Earth Society or similar could deny it with a straight face.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18579.htm
Putin Says U.S. Wants Iraq's Oil
By Associated Press
10/18/07 "AP" -- --- MOSCOW -- President Vladimir Putin, in his latest jab at Washington, suggested Thursday that the U.S. military campaign in Iraq was a "pointless" battle against the Iraqi people, aimed in part at seizing the country's oil reserves.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18598.htm
It’s the Oil
By Jim Holt
10/20/07 "London Review Of Books" -- -- Iraq is ‘unwinnable’, a ‘quagmire’, a ‘fiasco’: so goes the received opinion. But there is good reason to think that, from the Bush-Cheney perspective, it is none of these things. Indeed, the US may be ‘stuck’ precisely where Bush et al want it to be, which is why there is no ‘exit strategy’.
Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.
Who will get Iraq’s oil? One of the Bush administration’s ‘benchmarks’ for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues. The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest – including all yet to be discovered oil – under foreign corporate control for 30 years. ‘The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy,’ the analyst Antonia Juhasz wrote in the New York Times in March, after the draft law was leaked. ‘They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country.’ As negotiations over the oil law stalled in September, the provincial government in Kurdistan simply signed a separate deal with the Dallas-based Hunt Oil Company, headed by a close political ally of President Bush.
How will the US maintain hegemony over Iraqi oil? By establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. Five self-sufficient ‘super-bases’ are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press, whose dwindling corps of correspondents in Iraq cannot move around freely because of the dangerous conditions. (It takes a brave reporter to leave the Green Zone without a military escort.) In February last year, the Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks described one such facility, the Balad Air Base, forty miles north of Baghdad. A piece of (well-fortified) American suburbia in the middle of the Iraqi desert, Balad has fast-food joints, a miniature golf course, a football field, a cinema and distinct neighbourhoods – among them, ‘KBR-land’, named after the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the construction work at the base. Although few of the 20,000 American troops stationed there have ever had any contact with an Iraqi, the runway at the base is one of the world’s busiest. ‘We are behind only Heathrow right now,’ an air force commander told Ricks.
The Defense Department was initially coy about these bases. In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said: ‘I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting.’ But this summer the Bush administration began to talk openly about stationing American troops in Iraq for years, even decades, to come. Several visitors to the White House have told the New York Times that the president himself has become fond of referring to the ‘Korea model’. When the House of Representatives voted to bar funding for ‘permanent bases’ in Iraq, the new term of choice became ‘enduring bases’, as if three or four decades wasn’t effectively an eternity.
But will the US be able to maintain an indefinite military presence in Iraq? It will plausibly claim a rationale to stay there for as long as civil conflict simmers, or until every groupuscule that conveniently brands itself as ‘al-Qaida’ is exterminated. The civil war may gradually lose intensity as Shias, Sunnis and Kurds withdraw into separate enclaves, reducing the surface area for sectarian friction, and as warlords consolidate local authority. De facto partition will be the result. But this partition can never become de jure. (An independent Kurdistan in the north might upset Turkey, an independent Shia region in the east might become a satellite of Iran, and an independent Sunni region in the west might harbour al-Qaida.) Presiding over this Balkanised Iraq will be a weak federal government in Baghdad, propped up and overseen by the Pentagon-scale US embassy that has just been constructed – a green zone within the Green Zone. As for the number of US troops permanently stationed in Iraq, the defence secretary, Robert Gates, told Congress at the end of September that ‘in his head’ he saw the long-term force as consisting of five combat brigades, a quarter of the current number, which, with support personnel, would mean 35,000 troops at the very minimum, probably accompanied by an equal number of mercenary contractors. (He may have been erring on the side of modesty, since the five super-bases can accommodate between ten and twenty thousand troops each.) These forces will occasionally leave their bases to tamp down civil skirmishes, at a declining cost in casualties. As a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times in June, the long-term bases ‘are all places we could fly in and out of without putting Americans on every street corner’. But their main day-to-day function will be to protect the oil infrastructure.
This is the ‘mess’ that Bush-Cheney is going to hand on to the next administration. What if that administration is a Democratic one? Will it dismantle the bases and withdraw US forces entirely? That seems unlikely, considering the many beneficiaries of the continued occupation of Iraq and the exploitation of its oil resources. The three principal Democratic candidates – Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards – have already hedged their bets, refusing to promise that, if elected, they would remove American forces from Iraq before 2013, the end of their first term.
Among the winners: oil-services companies like Halliburton; the oil companies themselves (the profits will be unimaginable, and even Democrats can be bought); US voters, who will be guaranteed price stability at the gas pump (which sometimes seems to be all they care about); Europe and Japan, which will both benefit from Western control of such a large part of the world’s oil reserves, and whose leaders will therefore wink at the permanent occupation; and, oddly enough, Osama bin Laden, who will never again have to worry about US troops profaning the holy places of Mecca and Medina, since the stability of the House of Saud will no longer be paramount among American concerns. Among the losers is Russia, which will no longer be able to lord its own energy resources over Europe. Another big loser is Opec, and especially Saudi Arabia, whose power to keep oil prices high by enforcing production quotas will be seriously compromised.
Then there is the case of Iran, which is more complicated. In the short term, Iran has done quite well out of the Iraq war. Iraq’s ruling Shia coalition is now dominated by a faction friendly to Tehran, and the US has willy-nilly armed and trained the most pro-Iranian elements in the Iraqi military. As for Iran’s nuclear programme, neither air strikes nor negotiations seem likely to derail it at the moment. But the Iranian regime is precarious. Unpopular mullahs hold onto power by financing internal security services and buying off elites with oil money, which accounts for 70 per cent of government revenues. If the price of oil were suddenly to drop to, say, $40 a barrel (from a current price just north of $80), the repressive regime in Tehran would lose its steady income. And that is an outcome the US could easily achieve by opening the Iraqi oil spigot for as long as necessary (perhaps taking down Venezuela’s oil-cocky Hugo Chávez into the bargain).
And think of the United States vis-à-vis China. As a consequence of our trade deficit, around a trillion dollars’ worth of US denominated debt (including $400 billion in US Treasury bonds) is held by China. This gives Beijing enormous leverage over Washington: by offloading big chunks of US debt, China could bring the American economy to its knees. China’s own economy is, according to official figures, expanding at something like 10 per cent a year. Even if the actual figure is closer to 4 or 5 per cent, as some believe, China’s increasing heft poses a threat to US interests. (One fact: China is acquiring new submarines five times faster than the US.) And the main constraint on China’s growth is its access to energy – which, with the US in control of the biggest share of world oil, would largely be at Washington’s sufferance. Thus is the Chinese threat neutralised.
Many people are still perplexed by exactly what moved Bush-Cheney to invade and occupy Iraq. In the 27 September issue of the New York Review of Books, Thomas Powers, one of the most astute watchers of the intelligence world, admitted to a degree of bafflement. ‘What’s particularly odd,’ he wrote, ‘is that there seems to be no sophisticated, professional, insiders’ version of the thinking that drove events.’ Alan Greenspan, in his just published memoir, is clearer on the matter. ‘I am saddened,’ he writes, ‘that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.’
Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney’s 2001 energy task force? One can’t know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of ‘executive privilege’. One can’t say for certain that oil supplied the prime motive. But the hypothesis is quite powerful when it comes to explaining what has actually happened in Iraq. The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration’s cavalier attitude towards ‘nation-building’ has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades – a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics – dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final ‘surge’ that has hastened internal migration – could scarcely have been more effective. The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.
Still, there is reason to be sceptical of the picture I have drawn: it implies that a secret and highly ambitious plan turned out just the way its devisers foresaw, and that almost never happens.
Jim Holt writes for the New York Times Magazine and the New Yorker.
*The Wonder of American Democracy.
Source: http://www.new-enlightenment.com/iraq_index.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Fox
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 122
Reputation: 8.23
Rate Fox
Never underestimate the odds.
|
|
Re:Uncovered: How Iran was supposed to be lured into war
« Reply #4 on: 2007-10-27 19:02:05 » |
|
Thank-you for that nice little rant Sasquatch, but lets have a brief timeline of modern American-Iranian relations shall we?
Quotations courtesy of United States-Iran relations.
Quote:From 1952-53, Iran's democratically elected nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq began a period of rapid power consolidation, which led the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to a brief exile and then into power again. Much of the events of 1952 were started by Mossadeq’s nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now British Petroleum. Established by the British in the early 20th century, an agreement had been made to share profits (85% British-15% Iran), but the company withheld their financial records from the Iranian government. Due to alleged profit monopolization by the Anglo-Iranian Oil company, the Iranian Parliament had unanimously agreed to nationalize its holding of, what was at the time, the British Empire’s largest company.
The United States and Britain, through a now-admitted covert operation of the CIA called Operation Ajax, conducted from the US Embassy in Tehran, helped organize protests to overthrow Moussadeq and return the Shah to Iran. The operation failed and the Shah fled to Italy. After a second successful operation he returned from his brief exile. Iran's fledgling attempts at democracy quickly descended into dictatorship, as the Shah dismantled the constitutional limitations on his office and began to rule as an absolute monarch. |
Next...
Quote:However, beginning with the administration of liberal President Jimmy Carter in 1977, relations between Iran and the United States became strained. Jimmy Carter, unlike previous American presidents, was outspoken about his criticism of the Shah's government and its human rights record. Carter pressured the Shah to relax freedom of speech and to allow more freedom for political dissidents.[7]
Many politicians and political figures in the United States such as Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller vigorously opposed Carter's condemnations of the Imperial Iranian government, citing the importance of not weakening the Shah's position in both Iran and the region. |
And then...
Quote:and the Shah was ousted for a second time. Ayatollah Khomeini became Iran's new leader and soon began issuing vicious rhetoric against the United States, describing the country as the "Great Satan" and a "nation of infidels."
The American administration under President Jimmy Carter refused to give the Shah any further support and expressed no interest in attempting to return him to power. A significant embarrassment for Carter occurred when the Shah, as of that time suffering from cancer, requested entry into the United States for treatment. The American embassy in Tehran vigorously opposed the United States granting his request, as they were intent on stabilizing relations between the new interim revolutionary government of Iran and the United States.[10]
Despite agreeing with the staff of the American embassy in disallowing the Shah's entry into the U.S., after pressure from Kissinger and Rockefeller, among other pro-Shah political figures, Carter reluctantly agreed, but the move was used by the Iranian revolutionaries' to justify their claims that the former monarch was an American puppet and led to the storming of the American embassy by radical students allied with the Khomeini faction.[11] |
But wait, theres more!
Quote:| On July 3, 1988 the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus A300B2 on a scheduled commercial flight in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in 290 civilian fatalities from six nations, including 66 children. On February 22, 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown. The United States has not compensated Iran for the airplane itself to date. The aircraft was worth more than $30 million. The United States however never officially apologized. |
Now. Lets see.
Quote:2003 Iranian attempt at reconciliation
In 2003, the Iranian government attempted to find a larger accomodation through an agreement to settle their differences, inlcuding an offer to disarm Hezbollah and turn it into a mere political organization. The US refused the offer. |
Quote:| In September 2005, U.S. State Department allegedly refused to issue visas for Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mousa Qorbani, and a group of senior Iranian officials to travel to US to participate in an International parliamentary meeting held by the United Nations. According to UN rules, US has to grant visas to the senior officials from any UN member states, irrespective of their political views, to take part in UN meetings. |
You know, the more I read, the more you guys come across as a primary school bully who refuses to take responsibility for his own screw ups. The one thing I can at least say is that George Bush acknowledged that he lied for his excuse to go into Iraq but he refuses to withdraw, despite significant local pressure, until the human beings can live in that place again. So again, why should you invade Iran, when it is you who is the greatest threat the world has ever faced to peace and security?
I want you to answer this for me. And this is most important that you do, so that I may try to understand things from your view. Why is it then, so surprising for you, that the Iranians would be so pissed off, when you have actively participated in the overthrowing of a democratic government, replaced him with a despot, shot down a civilian jet in THEIR OWN airspace, and didn't apologise? Who do you think is at fault here?
Look, I'm not attacking you guys 'personally'. I'm sure you're all nice polite people (really deep down), but hell! You're preaching the killing of millions because 'they may have something that could potentially harm you at some point in the future'. Everyone in America is allowed to have guns. Everyone can potentially shoot you. Why can't you extend that same idea to the globe then?
Heck no wonder there are so many gun deaths as well! I hate that guy. He hates me. I have a gun. He may have a gun. Fuck it all! I'll should shoot him before he has a chance to shoot me!
If everyone acted with such illogical brutality there wouldn't be a damn world.
|
I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu
|
|
|
|
Logged
