|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:05 pm Post subject: Justifications for attacking Iran |
 |
|
I'm sure there must be thread on this already, but I've searched 2 or 3 pages back and can't see one. Actually, I was going to post this on the Afghanistan thread, but it's getting a bit off topic.
Here's Chomsky's take on it.
| Quote: |
| Some analysts, who seem to be taken seriously, describe the Iranian threat in apocalyptic terms. Amitai Etzioni warns that, "The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East," no less. If Iran's nuclear program proceeds, he asserts, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other states will "move toward" the new Iranian "superpower." To rephrase in less fevered rhetoric, a regional alliance might take shape independent of the U.S. |
| Quote: |
Such inflammatory pronouncements aside, what exactly is the Iranian threat? An authoritative answer is provided by military and intelligence reports to Congress in April 2010 [Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, Statement before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 14 April 2010; Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran, April 2010; John J. Kruzel, American Forces Press Service, "Report to Congress Outlines Iranian Threats," April 2010 (www.defense.gov). The brutal clerical regime is doubtless a threat to its own people, though it does not rank particularly high in that respect in comparison to U.S. allies in the region. But that is not what concerns the military and intelligence assessments. Rather, they are concerned with the threat Iran poses to the region and the world.
The reports make it clear that the Iranian threat is not military. Iran's military spending is "relatively low compared to the rest of the region," and minuscule as compared to the U.S. Iranian military doctrine is strictly "defensive�designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities." Iran has only "a limited capability to project force beyond its borders." With regard to the nuclear option, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."
Though the Iranian threat is not military aggression, that does not mean that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with U.S. global designs. Specifically, it threatens U.S. control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II. As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding, control of these resources yields "substantial control of the world" (A. A. Berle).
|
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-iranian-threat-by-noam-chomsky-1
He's basically saying that the US is concerned that Iran is going to take influence and power away from the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chomsky is running interference for the Israel lobby. You should read his review of Walt's Israel Lobby.
Who is advocating for the attack? And from where does American policy come? Careful deliberation in the government? A bunch of crusty old men sitting around a map? Camon. The foreign policy is the result of lobbying.
Like Plan Columbia. Ron Paul described how this "balance of power in South America" idea was generated. Helicopter manufacturers wanted a new market. So they find some excuse and sell the excuse to bought government officials. War on drugs or Uncle Hugo. Doesn't matter. It is just market creation. The American government then buys the helicopters for Columbia from the private firms.
So, with Iran, the only question is who is asking for it? Must be the evil energy industry, right?
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/22/oil-iran/
Damn. Not them.. Okay, must be some fuzzy idea of strategic balance and national interest (from a country that has neither balance or national interest in the domestic vocabulary). That's it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's the first time I've ever heard an allegation of Chomsky being a clandestine lobbyist for Israel! 
The Middle East is not the only region where the US has flexed muscle and tried to exert influence and power (as you yourself note in your above post). And in those cases, it wasn't the Israel Lobby demanding it (whether the market was demanding it or not!).
So yes, while I agree that the Israelis are doing their damnest to push for this war, and that they do have a great deal of clout with the US, I still think, as Chomsky points out, that the US is thinking of its own interests in the Middle East, too. After all, the US has worked hard to be where it is, and invested a lot over many decades. It did its damnest to chase out the British and the French and stamp itself on the region. This policy was evident well before the Israelis had gained such influence with the US. The US is not going to give up that hard won influence in the region readily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That's the first time I've ever heard an allegation of Chomsky being a clandestine lobbyist for Israel! |
He's not a lobbyist. He's protecting his people from criticism. Running interference to prevent the backlash. He does the same thing with regard to the financial services industry and the role that hyper-wealthy Jewish families play. What is Noam's opinion on the Rothchilds, Harriman's (the family who Russ Baker says in Family of Secrets that the Bush family has been loyal servents to since the 20's), Lazards, Warburgs. He simply ignores them and behaves as if the private organizations don't have owners.
| Quote: |
| The Middle East is not the only region where the US has flexed muscle and tried to exert influence and power. And in those cases, it wasn't the Israel Lobby demanding it. |
That's right. Ron Paul made the point with Columbia. The intensity of the lobbying was insignificant when compared to issues related to Israel.
And the American people are under intense and constant lobbying as well. No other issue has anything nearing the emotional intensity of the various neo-con pet projects. All the major papers are owned and run by Zionists (even the WSJ, owned by a Christian Zionist). The country is blanketed in pro-Israel propaganda. Wolf Blitzer was (is?) a member of AIPAC. The NYT's Jerusalem correspondent just send his son to the IDF (both are "American").
| Quote: |
| This policy was evident well before the Israelis had gained such influence with the US. |
When was that? The 60's? Was it Nixon who complained that the foreign policy had to first be approved by "The Jews"? Or Eisenhower?
............
The United States can not afford another war. The economic devastation from a decade of improperly allocated capital is already clear. It really can't take much more of this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Agreed, I wonder what the Illuminati-Jew Fox has to say about this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Chomsky is running interference for the Israel lobby. You should read his review of Walt's Israel Lobby.
Who is advocating for the attack? And from where does American policy come? Careful deliberation in the government? A bunch of crusty old men sitting around a map? Camon. The foreign policy is the result of lobbying.
Like Plan Columbia. Ron Paul described how this "balance of power in South America" idea was generated. Helicopter manufacturers wanted a new market. So they find some excuse and sell the excuse to bought government officials. War on drugs or Uncle Hugo. Doesn't matter. It is just market creation. The American government then buys the helicopters for Columbia from the private firms.
So, with Iran, the only question is who is asking for it? Must be the evil energy industry, right?
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/22/oil-iran/
Damn. Not them.. Okay, must be some fuzzy idea of strategic balance and national interest (from a country that has neither balance or national interest in the domestic vocabulary). That's it. |
I think you're forgetting US arms manufacturers- they have a vested interest in lobbying for any kind of war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| One reason could be frustration over trying to pronounce the president's name |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| I think you're forgetting US arms manufacturers- they have a vested interest in lobbying for any kind of war. |
Perhaps mises strives for a little more sophistication than stating the obvious?
Arms manufacturers have a vested interest in war.
Grocery stores have a vested interest in hunger.
Bottled water companies have a vested interest in thirst.
Thank you for that piercing insight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Agreed, I wonder what the Illuminati-Jew Fox has to say about this. |
He doesn't have to say it. I check with Fox always before I post. If he doesn't approve my opinion, I won't post it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
toadkillerdog
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Location: Daejeon. ROK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who cares what Chomsky thinks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| toadkillerdog wrote: |
| Who cares what Chomsky thinks? |
You obviously do.
But since you ask that question, you probably haven't been following the conversation that preceded this thread. His article helps support an argument that this proposed war on Iran is not being proposed entirely because of Israeli interests. Mises, meanwhile, is doing a good job of trying to argue the opposite.
Now, if you don't care, you don't need to post here. Bye bye. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find what mises posted very convincing that it isn't the energy corporations that are interested in sanctioning or attacking Iran. The only other entity that is eager to attack Iran is obviously Israel.
there is fear-mongering from the media about how Iran might make WMD's and pass it around to terrorists but this makes no sense to me. What kind of state would risk giving something like a nuke to any kind of yahoo? Nobody would risk doing that, I doubt anyone is that crazy. Some of you mentioned that Christian Zionists want this war, but even the Christian doctrine does not advocate preemptive war. It makes more sense to think that these people are just swayed by the talking points pushed on the media.
It seems like attacking Iran is inevitable. The media is pushing for it, they are doing the same WMD fear mongering they pulled in Iraq. It's just a matter of time really. The sad part is that the public is kept in the dark and anyone that utters that Israel is to blame gets labeled an anti-Semite and his evidence is rejected categorically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/indyk-obama-backed-off-because-of-campaign-money.html
| Quote: |
Why do I insist on talking about Jewish money when I talk about the Israel lobby? Because it's a real factor (and I am struggling to study reality). Here is Martin Indyk, of the Saban Center at Brookings (funded by Haim Saban, a giant giver to Democrats, whose central concern is Israel), talking to Natasha of Haaretz, (Mozgovaya that is)
We've seen some attempts to put Israel on the electoral agenda in the United States ahead of the midterm elections. Will it have any effect?
American Jews traditionally are pretty supportive of the Democratic Party. They voted overwhelmingly for Barak Obama, they tend to vote for Democratic candidates and they provide a good deal of funding for political campaigns. So the Jewish factor is always a critical factor for Democratic candidates. I don't think it's telling any secrets that there are a lot of people who have been upset with President Obama. And I think that the White House came to the understanding that they have a real problem there and they are going out of their way trying to show they are friendly to Israel and committed to peace. Republicans will try to exploit the anger, and Democrats will do their best to convince there is no reason for anger. But after all, these are local elections. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
'Israel, Saudis in talks over Iran attack'
'
Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:14:19 GMT
Israeli spy chief Meir Dagan has met Saudi officials to discuss a possible military strike against the Islamic Republic, a report says.
The World Net Daily website cited informed Arab security sources on Monday that Mossad chief Dagan has visited Saudi Arabia in recent weeks.
It is believed that Tel Aviv is trying to persuade Riyadh to allow Israel to use its airspace for a possible military strike on Iran, the report added.
The Israeli spy chief also met Saudi intelligence officials in 2009.
Last month, unnamed US defense sources told The Times that Israel had been given overflight clearance by the Saudis and received permission to use the northern Saudi airspace. Riyadh, however, dismissed the report.
"The kingdom of Saudi Arabia stresses that it will never allow any one to use the Saudi territory to attack other countries. This is especially the case about the occupying regime of Israel, with which Saudi Arabia has no relations," Saudi Arabia's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Israel has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. While considering Israeli threats as highly unlikely, Iran has stated that any act of aggression against its soil would be met with a crushing response.
Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi on Monday warned Israel that any act of aggression will lead to the annihilation of the Tel Aviv regime.
"Any unlawful act of aggression by Israel will trigger the countdown of its (Israel's) destruction," General Vahidi told reporters.
Tehran has clarified that its nuclear activities are solely aimed at peaceful energy production and under close supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I find what mises posted very convincing that it isn't the energy corporations that are interested in sanctioning or attacking Iran. The only other entity that is eager to attack Iran is obviously Israel. |
Wrong. America would love to attack Iran regardless of Israel. There has been a historical hatred between the two since the revolution and the overthrow of America's man, the Shah. Also the Arabs aren't to comfortable with those crazy Persians having nuclear weapons.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| there is fear-mongering from the media about how Iran might make WMD's and pass it around to terrorists but this makes no sense to me. What kind of state would risk giving something like a nuke to any kind of yahoo? Nobody would risk doing that, I doubt anyone is that crazy. |
Iran is a major state sponsor of terrorist and insurgent groups. If Israel attacked Iran then it is conceivable that one of these groups might "mysteriously" get a nuke. It's not crazy, it's good strategy for a country like Iran.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Some of you mentioned that Christian Zionists want this war, but even the Christian doctrine does not advocate preemptive war. It makes more sense to think that these people are just swayed by the talking points pushed on the media. |
The Christian Zionists aren't your run of the mill Christians. They believe things like the Jews have to return to Israel before Christ returns.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| It seems like attacking Iran is inevitable. The media is pushing for it, they are doing the same WMD fear mongering they pulled in Iraq. It's just a matter of time really. The sad part is that the public is kept in the dark and anyone that utters that Israel is to blame gets labeled an anti-Semite and his evidence is rejected categorically. |
It is far from inevitable. Iran is not going to fall in a couple of weeks like Saddam. If you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are bad, Iran will make them look easy. America will not be going in unless something dramatically changes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
