-- thank you John Kerry.., US Secretary of State...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joosttx

What then are they about?

---

Just my $0.043 (inflation adjusted): The US has a tendency to punish countries that don't do what it wants or that oppose it. The two best examples are Cuba and Iran. I think the US message to the world is: "You poke us in the eye, and we'll f**k with you forever. Let this be a cautionary tale to all those who would dare do anything that displeases us."

This needs a little background. As someone recounted above, the US/UK engineering of the 1953 coup was because Iran wanted to nationalize the oil industry. Today the word "nationalize" has negative and communist connotations. The reality at the time was that the Anglo-Iran Oil Company (now British Petroleum) had forced Iran to accept a contract that paid Iran one-third of the normal rate. How did this contract happen? At the point of a gun, literally. The UK conquered Iran before WW1 in order to get access to oil. After the war the UK let is go, but BP kept the oil contracts. In WW2 Iran wanted to stay neutral, but the UK conquered Iran again, and then the US joined in. They hoovered up all the resources (oil and food) to the extent that some Iranians starved to death. After WW2 the UK and US left, but the oil contracts remained. Iran learned that not only was BP paying one-third the normal rate, it was cheating the Iranians by fraudulently reporting the amount of oil it was taking out of the ground. The people were discontent over this state of affairs and voters agitated to elect leaders who would do something about it. The result was that Iran "nationalized" the BP contracts, meaning though the law of eminent domain Iran would pay fair market value for the oil contracts and all of BP's equipment in Iran. Of course, the fair market value price would be based upon the one-third of normal royalty rate and the fraudulent quantities. BP didn't want this, so the coup resulted. Everyone here should be reminded of the quaint British custom of making sure that key UK and US government officials owned lots of stock in companies like BP; it assured prompt attention to company needs.

The Iranian people hated the Shah so they got rid of him in a revolution. They installed a democracy. The UK and US were unhappy. They no longer had access to Iranian oil profits and got a moral black eye in the process. Think about how this ended up. The 1953 coup got America 26 years of good relations (in America's eyes). Then it got America 36 years of bad relations. 26 vs 36. Was it worth it?

Iran's 1979 change to democracy had other effects also. The Arab Peninsula dictatorships have a good thing. They sit on a sea of oil and gas and the dictators get the profits. They jealously guard their position and react strongly to anything that could challenge it. When Iran became a democracy the first Ayatollah preached that Islam is incompatible with dictatorship and that all good Muslims should support democratic rule. The Arab dictatorships, particularly the Saudis, reacted very negatively. This era saw the formation of the Gulf Cooperation Council, a military and economic alliance of the Arabian Peninsula dictatorships. Just look at Egypt. It became a democracy in 2013 and the Muslim Brotherhood party was elected. Let's be clear, the MB is a radical violent group. The key was that the MB party opposed the Saudi king. The Saudis and the US/UK then supported a military coup and now Egypt is a radical Sunni dictatorship.

The US supports Saudi Arabia in all things. For those new to this, remember that Saudi is Arab and Sunni, and Iran is Persian and Shiite. They don't speak a word of the same language. Ethnically this is like the French and the Germans, and religiously this is like Belfast Protestants vs Belfast Catholics. The Saudis have a deep hatred of the Shia and there are recent reports that Saudi government officials are happy that the great reckoning is coming soon. The top two worlds largest arms deals in history have happened recently, with the US selling to Saudi. The UK has done the same. Saudi's military budget is roughly equal to Russia's.

Economically they are at odds. They are competitors in the oil and gas markets. The largest gas fields in the world are under the Persian Gulf, that narrow strip of water between the Arabs and Persians. Think of these gas fields as a giant slurpee with two straws, one straw going to Arab Sunni (Saudi, Qatar, Barhain, UAE, Oman) and one going to Persian Shia. Anything the Arab Sunni can do to slow Iran sucking on that straw means more money for the Arab Sunni dictators and their families.

Even though the US State Department says that Saudi is the largest source of terrorism funding in the world, even though Saudi funded the Pakistani nuclear bomb program (and undoubtedly expects something for its money), even though there is a load of evidence of Saudi/Qatari/UAE/Bahrain funding of ISIS, the US has picked its horse and is riding it. The US and UK view Saudi Arabia as a reliable ally. Remember the pictures of the Saudi ambassador holding hands with President Bush, that they were close personal friends?

From this historical and economic perspective, perhaps we can consider that the sanctions and antipathy towards Iran are not about nuclear weapons. America, the UK, Israel and the IAEA all officially report that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. However, creating fear, uncertainty and doubt about future nuclear weapons becomes a wonderful excuse for anything that the war hawks want to do, or anything that certain economic interests want to do.

Cut the US military budget until it is only capable of true defense. Spend the money feeding the hungry and providing clean water to those without. Yeah it'll never happen but heading that direction would be nice. I am sick and fucking tired of being at war. Enough.

I think they made a movie a while back illustrating the complex issues the Middle East has re: turbulent power in politics, religion, land and resources. Hollywood Americanized it for easy digestion.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...640_SY720_.jpg

Bingo, 9-tubes. If only our screwing over other countries was limited to Iran, but I'm sorry to note that the list is rather long. It's wrapped in the flag, of course, but underneath the hood it IS about control of resources; a good marketing program is a powerful thing. Read more. Read more of the stuff that makes you want to puke. Noam Chomsky, Nick Turse, Margret Tuchman and go from there.

Maybe a mirror will illuminate things: If China decided "it's" Walmarts were being threatened by some religious sect blowing them up every now and again, and put boots on the ground here to "protect our (China's) economic interests", and did what we've been doing elsewhere, this population would go batshit crazy, and in China's eyes most of us would become terrorists. That is analogous to our actions in a very long list of countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9tubes

Just my $0.043 (inflation adjusted):...

---

Well...there are a few people on the board that live/work/interact with citizens and governments in the region. They all know the reality and realize that this is a succinct overview of the situation there. There isn't really much to say other than this.

And then there are people that watch Fox News.

We have a choice in this country to be well informed citizens of the world...to understand and appreciate nuance and subtleties in international relations. We can relate to other countries and often see our policies reflected in their history and culture and see how those policies led to their current situation. We can use those reflections to shine a light on our shortcomings as a country and culture and build a better one for our children.

Or we can become a nation of jingoistic fucktards. I know which one I choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9tubes

From this historical and economic perspective, perhaps we can consider that the sanctions and antipathy towards Iran are not about nuclear weapons. America, the UK, Israel and the IAEA all officially report that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. However, creating fear, uncertainty and doubt about future nuclear weapons becomes a wonderful excuse for anything that the war hawks want to do, or anything that certain economic interests want to do.

---

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2011-7.pdf

37. Based on the Agency’s continued study of information which the Agency has acquired, not only from many Member States but also directly through its own efforts, the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. As previously indicated by the Director General, there are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004.37

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quickag

Or we can become a nation of jingoistic fucktards. I know which one I choose.

---

Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? The bums will always lose!

The world is a big, mean, nasty place. Despite what you may have been told, not everyone wants to be your friend. Even if given a chance, most don't.

Naive one sided pacifism emboldens and strengthen those who would do us harm.

Reality is the government of Iran will have nuclear weapons and will have a delivery system capable of reaching our shores.

No one doubts there are many, many wonderful Iranian people. But it will be the government of Iran pointing those nukes at the U.S. not the guy you know from work.

Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism. Is currently actively trying to destabilize the Middle East. Going forward a nuclear Iran with ICBM technology is a near worst case scenario.

i'm pretty sure the Iranians have a strong enough sense of self preservation that they would never send any missiles over here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

The world is a big, mean, nasty place. Despite what you may have been told, not everyone wants to be your friend. Even if given a chance, most don't.
Naive one sided pacifism emboldens and strengthen those who would do us harm.

---

Ah yes, isn't this what Jesus was saying in John 3.14 about the fundamentally shitty nature of human beings and the need to arm yourself against your neighbor lest your neighbor rape and pillage your wife and home.

When he was running for office way back when he came into the shop I worked for and I fixed his flat tyre.

it was pretty surreal with all the Secret Service there. I had asked him if he was tired as I just saw him campaigning in Nevada the day before. He looked right at me let out a little bit of a sigh and said "you know it". Cracked a smile shortly after and was on his way.

No joke though. I did a quick check on some major fasteners. His handlebar was so loose I couldn't believe he could have ridden the bike. Glad I checked it as would have hated being interrogated by the SS.

I even have a photo of the whole thing from the local paper.

Cheers nick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjbabcock

Ah yes, isn't this what Jesus was saying in John 3.14 about the fundamentally shitty nature of human beingos and the need to arm yourself against your neighbor lest your neighbor rape and pillage your wife and home.

---

I googled that. I don't read much religious crap, but I think you may have that a little wrong.

But I don't really care what it said either way. I'm not much of a turn-the-other-cheek guy. It's silly to ignore a real threat and pretend it doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

Reality is the government of Iran will have nuclear weapons and will have a delivery system capable of reaching our shores.

---

Citation as to capability? I have no doubt that Iran would like the opportunity to get and launch nuclear weapons if it is attacked by a belligerent neighbor. But so would Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. That doesn't mean that America should bomb those countries. To say "Iran will have..." is to express a degree of certainty that is not supported by any intelligence service, including Israel's.

Citation as to intent? A few kids in the streets yelling "death to America" means nothing. They're not a majority of the voters there; they're not even a viable minority of voters there. Plus we have to consider the probability that such yellers are funded or encouraged by Israel or the US. The country of Iran has not threatened or attacked any Western country, or any Mideast country for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism. Is currently actively trying to destabilize the Middle East.

---

Iran is a minor sponsor of Hezbollah, and it's not terrorist. It's a valid major political party of Lebanon. It has fired rockets at Israel but that technically is an act of war, not an act of terrorism. It's the foreign policy equivalent of the US funding Iraq to attack Assad. And to be clear, I don't like either. Terrorism by definition is done by non-state actors, like what's done by the foreign mercenaries in Syria, which the US wholeheartedly recruits, trains, funds, arms and supports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sine

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2011-7.pdf

37. Based on the Agency’s continued study of information which the Agency has acquired, not only from many Member States but also directly through its own efforts, the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. As previously indicated by the Director General, there are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004.37

---

Yes, and I'm concerned too. But after all the analysis of Iran over the past 30 years, that is about the weakest language that a professional scientist could write in a formal report. "Concerned...possible...past or current...nuclear related activities." Having a centrifuge is a current nuclear related activity. It's also necessary for atomic energy, ya know, the technology that the US encouraged Iran to have and sold to Iran in the 1970s.

makes sense

Why Iran Might Want to Enrich Uranium, Even if They Don't Want a Bomb | Chris Lawrence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9tubes

Citation as to capability? I have no doubt that Iran would like the opportunity to get and launch nuclear weapons if it is attacked by a belligerent neighbor. But so would Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. That doesn't mean that America should bomb those countries. To say "Iran will have..." is to express a degree of certainty that is not supported by any intelligence service, including Israel's.

Citation as to intent? A few kids in the streets yelling "death to America" means nothing. They're not a majority of the voters there; they're not even a viable minority of voters there. Plus we have to consider the probability that such yellers are funded or encouraged by Israel or the US. The country of Iran has not threatened or attacked any Western country, or any Mideast country for that matter.



Iran is a minor sponsor of Hezbollah, and it's not terrorist. It's a valid major political party of Lebanon. It has fired rockets at Israel but that technically is an act of war, not an act of terrorism. It's the foreign policy equivalent of the US funding Iraq to attack Assad. And to be clear, I don't like either. Terrorism by definition is done by non-state actors, like what's done by the foreign mercenaries in Syria, which the US wholeheartedly recruits, trains, funds, arms and supports.

---

No, most of what you have written is incorrect. I don't have the time to go thru point by point to prove to you Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism or had an active ICBM program, but Google it to add some reality to your post.

But to group Germany, Poland, and Ukraine as similar situations is beyond silly!

Attachment 79575

This is a group of gay men legally prosecuted and put to death under current Iranian law......this isn't what Germany looks like...



This is a link to the US State Dept. classifying Hezbollah as a Terrorist organization: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

EU agrees, etc. This is one of many factual errors in your post. I sincerely have no interest in going one by one & correcting you.

Threads like this one remind me how many intelligent, articulate mofos* haunt Vsalon.

*And I mean 9tubes, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daltex

Hey David,

Happy Easter/Passover. Iran has no interest in talking or being our friend, or at minimum not an enemy. The only reason they are talking now is the force of the UN & EU sanctions. Folks like to project their own logic and sensibilites on a culture that doesn't subscribe to western sensibilities. They won't be persuaded to do anything. Hopefully they can be forced. Iran supports terrorism & heinous oppression violence. For the life of me, I can't see how allowing/assisting Iran to develop nuclear weapons helps the situation.

---

Wow, everything so cut and dried here...spoken like a true Texan. It's amazing how you have a whole country figured out here in a couple tag-lines. Kinda like how I just generalized about all people from Texas.

Reminds me of how Bush et.al. were so cocksure of exactly what would be good for Kuwait...and Iraq...and AFG.

North Korea executes.... well, who knows how many thousands of people annually, for whatever insane reasons, and has a human rights record that would make Satan green with envy. Plus they have several bombs, perhaps dozens, with many more on the way. Plus within a few years they will likely have the capability to lob them over to the West Coast (hell, all you'd have to do is put one on a shipping container and send it on over to Long Beach). Plus their leadership, and most of their utterly brainwashed population, is vehemently, fanatically anti-US to the point that they almost sound like something out of a comic book, and their government has officially stated that they plan on bombing the United States, including some releasing some (admittedly comical) images of DC ablaze after a nuclear strike. So why don't we go bananas over North Korea, at least right now?

The same reason why we didn't go bananas over Russia after they got the bomb, despite dire warnings of what would happen.
The same reason why we didn't go bananas over China after they got the bomb, despite dire warnings of what would happen.
The same reason why we didn't go bananas over the breakup of the USSR, despite dire warnings of what would happen to their arsenal.
The same reason why we didn't go bananas over Pakistan when they got the bomb, despite dire warnings of what would happen.

Wash, rinse repeat. North Korea knows it would be turned into a sea of glass if they actually did send one on over, and so would Iran, if they were to make such an arsenal and do the same to Israel. In 1994 NK's nuclear program was a serious national security threat. Now it's an afterthought, or at least it appears to be, even for a country that states it wants to see us all dead.

Look, it's wise to stop the spread of nuclear proliferation. I get it and I agree with that. But we've been down this road before, and even if Iran develops the bomb, we'll go down it again with some other country. With predictable results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeanEasley

Wow, everything so cut and dried here...spoken like a true Texan. It's amazing how you have a whole country figured out here in a couple tag-lines. Kinda like how I just generalized about all people from Texas.

Reminds me of how Bush et.al. were so cocksure of exactly what would be good for Kuwait...and Iraq...and AFG.

---

Is this what a post looks like when you have nothing substantive to add to an adult conversation?

If you need confirmation, plan a trip to Iran. Bring a gay friend and a jewish friend. Let me know how that works out in reality. Maybe then you'll be 'cocksure' with something to add to the conversation.