|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| When will the Iran War start? |
| It has already begun |
|
13% |
[ 8 ] |
| Before Election Day 2008 |
|
15% |
[ 9 ] |
| On Election Day 2008 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| After Election Day 2008 |
|
20% |
[ 12 ] |
| Never |
|
50% |
[ 30 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 59 |
|
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
For the US, I think we should focus more on what is in OUR best interest and then pressure the Israeli government to toe the line if the conclusion is different.
Alliances are good things and are often helpful in a crisis. However, they are all too often harmful--they can drag one side into a conflict that is not to their interest. Permanent, blind, entangling alliances are foolish.
. |
I think you should look very closely at those two sentences as they contradict each other. If entangling alliances are foolish then why should the US pressure Israel to act in the U.S.'s best interest? What if the U.S's best interest differs from Israel's? Then isn't that a "blind, entangling alliance" on Israel's part? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
The title does not match the content. |
Sanctions are tantamount to a blockade, an act of war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Attacking Iran would be a catastrophe for the region and would draw the US into a larger war. Some hawks seem to think it would just be a simple matter of airstrikes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why Britain is moving closer to war with Iran Dec 13th
Tensions with Iran are still rising after an irreparably damaging fortnight in which the British embassy in Tehran was stormed and an American drone was captured by Iranian troops
The International Atomic Energy Agency said that there was �increasing concern� over the nuclear program in Tehran, with Washington calling Ahmadinejad�s peaceful claims �hollow�.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/why-britain-is-moving-closer-to-war-with-iran.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course they would say that. The US is always ready to engage in conflict. Why do you think the military trains 24/7, 365 days a year?
Its always ready to deliver an butt kicking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would think that going to war at this point in US history would be political suicide. The total cost of our last ten years of war has been over $3 trillion, and Iran is a larger, more powerful country than either Iraq or Afghanistan. You cannot honestly speak about reducing the deficit and starting a war in the same sentence. (Although you can't talk about cutting taxes and reducing the deficit in the same sentence either, yet every Republican and most Democrats do it anyway.) As much as some Americans just really want to go to war with some Muslims, I really don't think there would be much support for an attack against Iran. If it actually happened, I think it would bankrupt the US. There would be no turning back from the astronomical debt we would be in after a few years in Iran, although maybe there's already no turning back.
I think most politicians know this. Maybe there are a few Michelle Bachmanns out there who honestly think it would be a good idea. Republicans always talk about "not taking the option off the table," and I think that's exactly what they mean. They lash out at those who publicly state they would not go to war with Iran because if that was our official stance, Iran would do whatever they wanted without fear of the US. As long as we talk about bombing them every so often, the Iranian regime is reluctant to step out of line. I actually support this sort of talk in this case, as long as we don't actually follow through. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's saber rattling. The ultimate goal is not to invade Iran a la Iraq, but to aid in a people's revolution a la Libya. Perhaps the best time would have been during the Green Revolution a few years ago, but the Arab Spring may morph into a Persian Spring and we get a second chance. That's the only way we get the people of Iran to realize our fight is not with them, just with their government.
These days, I think an American could travel safely through Libya. We're practically BFF. Two years ago, who would have thought that was possible? Who knows what we might say about the US-Iran relationship two years from now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ron Paul vindicated on Iran
| Quote: |
A week ago Ron Paul tried to convey how the ever-tightening sanctions on Iran--which may soon include an embargo on its oil--look from an Iranian point of view: It's as if China were to blockade the Gulf of Mexico, he said--"an act of war".
This is sheer conjecture; Ron Paul is no expert on Iran. But now someone who does have relevant credentials has weighed in, and the picture he paints is disturbingly reminiscent of the one Paul painted. It suggests we may be closer to war than most people realize.
Vali Nasr, in addition to being a highly respected expert on the Middle East, belongs to a family that, according to Lobelog's sources, has "a direct line into Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's inner circle." In a Bloomberg View piece that is getting a lot of attention, Nasr reports that "Iran has interpreted sanctions that hurt its oil exports, which account for about half of government revenue, as acts of war." Indeed, the Iranian leadership now sees U.S. policy as "aimed at regime change."
In this light, Iran's recent threats--notably that it will close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an oil embargo--shouldn't be dismissed, says Nasr. "The regime in Tehran is ready for a fight."
The good news is that Nasr thinks war can be averted. The bad news is that to accomplish this America and other Western powers need to "imagine how the situation looks from Tehran"--not exactly a favorite pastime among American politicians these days. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rick Perry would like to put US troops back in Iraq to keep tabs on Iran. Of course he didn't say whether or not he would ask the Iraqis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
From a personal email:
BUILD FEB. 4 EMERGENCY DEMONSTRATION TO STOP U.S. WAR AGAINST IRAN
NO WAR! NO SANCTIONS! NO INTERVENTION! NO ASSASSINATIONS
A broad spectrum of U.S.-based anti-imperialist and anti-war organizations, including the IAC, agreed on a Jan. 17 conference call to hold coordinated protests across the country on Saturday, Feb. 4. The demands will be: �No war, no sanctions, no intervention, no assassinations against Iran.�
The ad-hoc group that took part in the call decided that although there are only two weeks to organize, it will invite anti-war forces around the world to join in to make this emergency protest a global day of action.
All agreed on the need to stop U.S. imperialism and/or Israel from launching a military attack on Iran. There was also a consensus that the new sanctions President Barack Obama signed into law on Dec. 31 -- with the goal of breaking the Iranian central bank -- were themselves an act of war aimed at the Iranian people. The political activists on the call raised the danger of a wider war should fighting break out in or around Iran.
While the organizations involved had varied assessments of the Iranian government, they all saw any intervention from U.S. imperialism in the Southwest Asian country as a threat to the entire region and to peace. Some of the people on the call who are originally from Iran and who were in touch with family and friends there conveyed the Iranian people�s anger at the recent assassination of a young scientist.
There was agreement to make �no assassinations� one of the demands to show solidarity with the Iranian population as well as to condemn the U.S. and its allies for criminal activities against Iran and its people.
As of Jan. 19, the organizations that called the actions or endorsed later included the United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC), the International Action Center (IAC), SI! Solidarity with Iran, Refugee Apostolic Catholic Church, Workers World Party, World Can�t Wait, American Iranian Friendship Committee, ANSWER Coalition, Antiwar.com, Peace of the Action, ComeHomeAmerica.us, St. Pete for Peace, Women Against Military Madness (WAMM), Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality-Virginia, WESPAC Foundation, Peace Action Maine, Occupy Myrtle Beach, Minnesota Peace Action Coalition, Twin Cities Peace Campaign and Bail Out the People Movement (BOPM).
Individual endorsers include authors David Swanson, �When the World Outlawed War,� and Phil Wilayto, �In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation�s Journey through the Islamic Republic�; and U.N. Human Rights Award winner Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general.
The list is expected to grow steadily as word spreads. Right now people can follow developments on the Facebook link:
No War On Iran: National Day of Action Feb 4, http://www.facebook.com/events/214341975322807/.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donate to support actions in solidarity with Iran.
Visit StopWarOnIran.org
International Action Center
c/o Solidarity Center
55 West 17th St 5C
New York, NY 10011
1-212-633-6646
www.iacenter.org
email: [email protected] | En Espa�ol: [email protected] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I called it happening months back. See you over a beer watching CNN guys... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://azizonomics.com/2012/01/20/newspaper-calls-for-obama-assassination/
| Quote: |
Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, a weekly newspaper serving Atlanta�s Jewish community, devoted his January 13, 2012 column to the thorny problem of the U.S. and Israel�s diverging views on the threat posed by Iran. Basically Israel has three options, he wrote: Strike Hezbollah and Hamas, strike Iran, or �order a hit� on Barack Obama. Either way, problem solved!
Here�s how Adler laid out �option three� in his list of scenarios facing Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu:
�Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States� policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.� |
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/284979-ajt.html
Wow, what with the NDAA either this guy's a total idiot or we Americans are in bigger trouble than we think. |
|
| 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
