Iranian Threat - Noam Chomsky

TheAtmansPath · Nov 25, 2011

I thought this was a pretty comprehensive and intelligent assessment of the "Iranian threat". It's a little long though, so take some time and do it in chunks if necessary, I just want you blades to read it.

The Iranian threat - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

The dire threat of Iran is widely recognised to be the most serious foreign policy crisis facing the Obama administration. General Petraeus informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2010 that "the Iranian regime is the primary state-level threat to stability" in the US Central Command area of responsibility, the Middle East and Central Asia, the primary region of US global concerns. The term "stability" here has its usual technical meaning: firmly under US control. In June 2010 Congress strengthened the sanctions against Iran, with even more severe penalties against foreign companies. The Obama administration has been rapidly expanding US offensive capacity in the African island of Diego Garcia, claimed by Britain, which had expelled the population so that the US could build the massive base it uses for attacks in the Central Command area. The Navy reports sending a submarine tender to the island to service nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines with Tomahawk missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads. Each submarine is reported to have the striking power of a typical carrier battle group. According to a US Navy cargo manifest obtained by the Sunday Herald (Glasgow), the substantial military equipment Obama has dispatched includes 387 "bunker busters" used for blasting hardened underground structures. Planning for these "massive ordnance penetrators", the most powerful bombs in the arsenal short of nuclear weapons, was initiated in the Bush administration, but languished. On taking office, Obama immediately accelerated the plans, and they are to be deployed several years ahead of schedule, aiming specifically at Iran.

"They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran," according to Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. "US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours," he said. "The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003," accelerating under Obama.

The Arab press reports that an American fleet (with an Israeli vessel) passed through the Suez Canal on the way to the Persian Gulf, where its task is "to implement the sanctions against Iran and supervise the ships going to and from Iran". British and Israeli media report that Saudi Arabia is providing a corridor for Israeli bombing of Iran (denied by Saudi Arabia). On his return from Afghanistan to reassure NATO allies that the US will stay the course after the replacement of General McChrystal by his superior, General Petraeus, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen visited Israel to meet IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and senior military staff along with intelligence and planning units, continuing the annual strategic dialogue between Israel and the US The meeting focused "on the preparation by both Israel and the US for the possibility of a nuclear capable Iran", according to Haaretz, which reports further that Mullen emphasised that "I always try to see challenges from Israeli perspective". Mullen and Ashkenazi are in regular contact on a secure line.

The increasing threats of military action against Iran are of course in violation of the UN Charter, and in specific violation of Security Council Resolution 1887 of September 2009 which reaffirmed the call to all states to resolve disputes related to nuclear issues peacefully, in accordance with the Charter, which bans the use or threat of force.

Some analysts who seem to be taken seriously describe the Iranian threat in apocalyptic terms. Amitai Etzioni warns that "the US will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East", no less. If Iran's nuclear programme 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 US. In the US army journal Military Review, Etzioni urges a US attack that targets not only Iran's nuclear facilities, but also its non-nuclear military assets, including infrastructure - meaning, the civilian society. "This kind of military action is akin to sanctions - causing 'pain' in order to change behaviour, albeit by much more powerful means."

Iranian threat?

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, Defence Intelligence Agency, Statement before the Committee on Armed Services, US 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].

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 US 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 of course minuscule as compared to the US. 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 programme 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 US global designs. Specifically, it threatens US 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).

But Iran's threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand its influence. Iran's "current five-year plan seeks to expand bilateral, regional and international relations, strengthen Iran's ties with friendly states, and enhance its defence and deterrent capabilities. Commensurate with that plan, Iran is seeking to increase its stature by countering US influence and expanding ties with regional actors while advocating Islamic solidarity". In short, Iran is seeking to "destabilise" the region, in the technical sense of the term used by General Petraeus. US invasion and military occupation of Iran's neighbours is "stabilisation". Iran's efforts to extend its influence in neighbouring countries is "destabilisation", hence plainly illegitimate. It should be noted that such revealing usage is routine. Thus the prominent foreign policy analyst James Chace, former editor of the main establishment journal Foreign Affairs, was properly using the term "stability" in its technical sense when he explained that in order to achieve "stability" in Chile it was necessary to "destabilise" the country (by overthrowing the elected Allende government and installing the Pinochet dictatorship).

Terrorism?

Beyond these crimes, Iran is also carrying out and supporting terrorism, the reports continue. Its Revolutionary Guards "are behind some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past three decades", including attacks on US military facilities in the region and "many of the insurgent attacks on Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces in Iraq since 2003". Furthermore, Iran backs Hezbollah and Hamas, the major political forces in Lebanon and in Palestine - if elections matter. The Hezbollah-based coalition handily won the popular vote in Lebanon's latest (2009) election. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian election, compelling the US and Israel to institute the harsh and brutal siege of Gaza to punish the miscreants for voting the wrong way in a free election. These have been the only relatively free elections in the Arab world. It is normal for elite opinion to fear the threat of democracy and to act to deter it, but this is a rather striking case, particularly alongside of strong US support for the regional dictatorships, emphasised by Obama with his strong praise for the brutal Egyptian dictator Mubarak on the way to his famous address to the Muslim world in Cairo.

The terrorist acts attributed to Hamas and Hezbollah pale in comparison to US-Israeli terrorism in the same region, but they are worth a look nevertheless.

On May 25, 2010 Lebanon celebrated its national holiday Liberation Day, commemorating Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon after 22 years, as a result of Hezbollah resistance - described by Israeli authorities as "Iranian aggression" against Israel in Israeli-occupied Lebanon (Ephraim Sneh). That too is normal imperial usage. Thus President John F Kennedy condemned the "the assault from the inside" in South Vietnam, "which is manipulated from the North." This criminal assault by the South Vietnamese resistance against Kennedy's bombers, chemical warfare, programs to drive peasants to virtual concentration camps, and other such benign measures was denounced as "internal aggression" by Kennedy's UN Ambassador, liberal hero Adlai Stevenson. North Vietnamese support for their countrymen in the US-occupied South is aggression, intolerable interference with Washington's righteous mission. Kennedy advisers Arthur Schlesinger and Theodore Sorenson, considered doves, also praised Washington's intervention to reverse "aggression" in South Vietnam - by the indigenous resistance, as they knew, at least if they read US intelligence reports. In 1955 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff had defined several types of "aggression", including "Aggression other than armed, i.e., political warfare, or subversion". For example, an internal uprising against a US-imposed police state, or elections that come out the wrong way. The usage is also common in scholarship and political commentary, and makes sense on the prevailing assumption that We Own the World.

Hamas resists Israel's military occupation and its illegal and violent actions in the occupied territories. It is accused of refusing to recognise Israel (political parties do not recognise states). In contrast, the US and Israel not only do not recognise Palestine, but have been acting relentlessly and decisively for decades to ensure that it can never come into existence in any meaningful form. The governing party in Israel, in its 1999 campaign platform, bars the existence of any Palestinian state - a step towards accommodation beyond the official positions of the US and Israel a decade earlier, which held that there cannot be "an additional Palestinian state" between Israel and Jordan, the latter a "Palestinian state" by US-Israeli fiat whatever its benighted inhabitants and government might believe.

Hamas is charged with rocketing Israeli settlements on the border, criminal acts no doubt, though a fraction of Israel's violence in Gaza, let alone elsewhere. It is important to bear in mind, in this connection, that the US and Israel know exactly how to terminate the terror that they deplore with such passion. Israel officially concedes that there were no Hamas rockets as long as Israel partially observed a truce with Hamas in 2008. Israel rejected Hamas' offer to renew the truce, preferring to launch the murderous and destructive Operation Cast Lead against Gaza in December 2008, with full US backing, an exploit of murderous aggression without the slightest credible pretext on either legal or moral grounds.

Turkey

The model for democracy in the Muslim world, despite serious flaws, is Turkey, which has relatively free elections, and has also been subject to harsh criticism in the US. The most extreme case was when the government followed the position of 95 per cent of the population and refused to join in the invasion of Iraq, eliciting harsh condemnation from Washington for its failure to comprehend how a democratic government should behave: under our concept of democracy, the voice of the Master determines policy, not the near-unanimous voice of the population.

The Obama administration was once again incensed when Turkey joined with Brazil in arranging a deal with Iran to restrict its enrichment of uranium. Obama had praised the initiative in a letter to Brazil's president Lula da Silva, apparently on the assumption that it would fail and provide a propaganda weapon against Iran. When it succeeded, the US was furious, and quickly undermined it by ramming through a Security Council resolution with new sanctions against Iran that were so meaningless that China cheerfully joined at once - recognising that at most the sanctions would impede Western interests in competing with China for Iran's resources. Once again, Washington acted forthrightly to ensure that others would not interfere with US control of the region.

Not surprisingly, Turkey (along with Brazil) voted against the US sanctions motion in the Security Council. The other regional member, Lebanon, abstained. These actions aroused further consternation in Washington. Philip Gordon, the Obama administration's top diplomat on European affairs, warned Turkey that its actions are not understood in the US and that it must "demonstrate its commitment to partnership with the West", AP reported, "a rare admonishment of a crucial NATO ally".

The political class understands as well. Steven A Cook, a scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations, observed that the critical question now is "How do we keep the Turks in their lane?" - following orders like good democrats. A New York Times headline captured the general mood: "Iran Deal Seen as Spot on Brazilian Leader's Legacy". In brief, do what we say, or else.

There is no indication that other countries in the region favour US sanctions any more than Turkey does. On Iran's opposite border, for example, Pakistan and Iran, meeting in Turkey, recently signed an agreement for a new pipeline. Even more worrisome for the US is that the pipeline might extend to India. The 2008 US treaty with India supporting its nuclear programmes - and indirectly its nuclear weapons programmes - was intended to stop India from joining the pipeline, according to Moeed Yusuf, a South Asia adviser to the United States Institute of Peace, expressing a common interpretation. India and Pakistan are two of the three nuclear powers that have refused to sign the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the third being Israel. All have developed nuclear weapons with US support, and still do.

Nuclear weapons-free zone

No sane person wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons; or anyone. One obvious way to mitigate or eliminate this threat is to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East. The issue arose (again) at the NPT conference at United Nations headquarters in early May 2010. Egypt, as chair of the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, proposed that the conference back a plan calling for the start of negotiations in 2011 on a Middle East NWFZ, as had been agreed by the West, including the US, at the 1995 review conference on the NPT.

Washington still formally agrees, but insists that Israel be exempted - and has given no hint of allowing such provisions to apply to itself. The time is not yet ripe for creating the zone, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at the NPT conference, while Washington insisted that no proposal can be accepted that calls for Israel's nuclear programme to be placed under the auspices of the IAEA or that calls on signers of the NPT, specifically Washington, to release information about "Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel". Obama's technique of evasion is to adopt Israel's position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the US can delay indefinitely, as it has been doing for 35 years, with rare and temporary exceptions.

At the same time, Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, asked foreign ministers of its 151 member states to share views on how to implement a resolution demanding that Israel "accede to" the NPT and throw its nuclear facilities open to IAEA oversight, AP reported.

It is rarely noted that the US and UK have a special responsibility to work to establish a Middle East NWFZ. In attempting to provide a thin legal cover for their invasion of the Iraq in 2003, they appealed to Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which called on Iraq to terminate its development of weapons of mass destruction. The US and UK claimed that they had not done so. We need not tarry on the excuse, but that Resolution commits its signers to move to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East.

Parenthetically, we may add that US insistence on maintaining nuclear facilities in Diego Garcia undermines the NWFZ) established by the African Union, just as Washington continues to block a Pacific NWFZ by excluding its Pacific dependencies.

Obama's rhetorical commitment to non-proliferation has received much praise, even a Nobel peace prize. One practical step in this direction is establishment of NWFZs. Another is to withdraw support for the nuclear programmes of the three non-signers of the NPT. As often, rhetoric and actions are hardly aligned, in fact are in direct contradiction in this case, facts that pass with as little attention as most of what has just been briefly reviewed.

Instead of taking practical steps towards reducing the truly dire threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, the US is taking major steps towards reinforcing US control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions, by violence if other means do not suffice. That is understandable and even reasonable, under prevailing imperial doctrine, however grim the consequences, yet another illustration of "the savage injustice of the Europeans" that Adam Smith deplored in 1776, with the command centre since shifted to their imperial settlement across the seas.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is the author of numerous bestselling political works, including 9-11: Was There an Alternative? (Seven Stories Press), an updated version of his classic account, just being published this week with a major new essay - from which this post was adapted - considering the 10 years since the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...

TheAtmansPath · Nov 26, 2011

133 views, 0 replies. Not bad

iCremateCanabis · Nov 26, 2011

lol i like the bolding of the professor

Tensions have been growing over recent days as reports emerged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak might be in the process of mobilizing support for an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites. But many pundits are viewing the reports with suspicion and suggest that the noise from Netanyahu's cabinet might have more to do with mobilizing anti-Iran sentiment - and pushing for ever tougher sanctions - in anticipation of next week's IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program. The uptick in bomb-Iran chatter has led ex-Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy to call for Netanyahu's government to temper their hawkish rhetoric. Ynet.com reports:

â€œThe State of Israel cannot be destroyed,â€ he told Ynet on Friday. â€œAn attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years.â€

On Thursday, Halevy, speaking at an army boarding school reunion, pushed back at Netnayahu's claims that Iran poses an â€œexistential threatâ€ to Israel, saying â€œ[Iran is] far from posing an existential threat to Israel.â€ Halevi, as reported by Ynet, added that domestic radicalization â€œposes a bigger risk than Ahmadinejad.â€
While Halevi's outspoken comments about rightward tilts in Israel and his warnings against a unilateral attack on Iran have brought scorn from members of Netanyahu's cabinet - indeed Political-Security Cabinet member and House and Construction Minister Ariel Atias characterized Halevy's statements as â€œshocking and inciting and they divide the people of Israel at a time when it needs unity more than everâ€ - the former intelligence chief is not alone in his opposition to Netanyahu and Barak's saber rattling.
In May, former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan called an Israeli strike on Iran â€œthe stupidest thing I have ever heard.â€
And twelve of the eighteen living former heads of the three Israeli security branches are actively opposing or have spoken out against Netanyahu's aggressive gestures toward Iran.
Click to expand...

Ex-Mossad Chief: Iran Is Not An Existential Threat | ThinkProgress

TheAtmansPath · Nov 26, 2011

[quote name='"iCremateCanabis"']lol i like the bolding of the professor

Ex-Mossad Chief: Iran Is Not An Existential Threat | ThinkProgress[/quote]

I bolded it because it was bolded in the article itself.

and good article sir

xmaspoo · Nov 26, 2011

The only threat Iran poses is to itself, not so much a threat from within but an overreaction to the acts of western nations. Stuck between a rock and a hard place to be sure.

U.S , Nato, Israel, EU are all playing a game of chicken with Iran.

War is much more justifiable if Iran blinks first, this is what the MIC is counting on. If Iran doesnt blink first, there very well may be a new gulf of tonkin

AlienBlood · Nov 26, 2011

Lunatics such as the Iranian regime have no business acquiring nuclear weapons.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHhFE71Aotk&feature=related]We Hate You! - YouTube[/ame]

xmaspoo · Nov 26, 2011

Of course they dont, lie down and wait for regime change like good little slaves.

You dont see the US shitting itself about who N. Korea plans to wipe off the face of the map. N. Korea has its own unique fanatical religion too

AlienBlood · Nov 26, 2011

xmaspoo said:

Of course they dont, lie down and wait for regime change like good little slaves.

You dont see the US shitting itself about who N. Korea plans to wipe off the face of the map. N. Korea has its own unique fanatical religion too
Click to expand...

North Korea is a problem. The world is waiting for the death of Kim Jong Il and expect it to collapse on its own soon. That has nothing to do with Iran. You want others around the world to be oppressed as long as you don't have to worry about it or live under similarly brutal regimes.

tflga · Nov 26, 2011

do you read nothing he posts?

AlienBlood · Nov 26, 2011

Nothing substantial or even relevant to reality so far. NK can not be compared to Iran and if one were going to it's the belligerent change in behavior and confidence extremist regimes transition to after acquiring nuclear weapons.

maxrule · Nov 26, 2011

Nice read. It took me some time because I'm over medicated at the moment. Chomsky is a very smart man.

The USA is the only nation to attack civilians with a nuke; twice. The CIA is in their country causing havoc. It makes me sick to my stomach.

The term 'national security' has absolutely nothing to do with your personal security what so ever. It has nothing to do with protecting national sovereignty. It's about protecting the interest of the banks and corporations that rule the USA and Israel.

The CFR and US foreign policy make me want to puke. The CFR must include some of the most well educated dimwits on the planet.

I'm going to go pray for Iran and then hit the sack.

Thanks for sharing that.

God bless America...

Suck My Mind · Nov 26, 2011

xmaspoo said:

The only threat Iran poses is to itself, not so much a threat from within but an overreaction to the acts of western nations. Stuck between a rock and a hard place to be sure.

U.S , Nato, Israel, EU are all playing a game of chicken with Iran.

War is much more justifiable if Iran blinks first, this is what the MIC is counting on. If Iran doesnt blink first, there very well may be a new gulf of tonkin
Click to expand...

You know how modern war starts?

After being pressured by interest money and campaign big business contributors the President gives the orders to the CIA. The CIA then installs imposture spies to do an assault that looks like the attack came from the opposing enemy.

The President and world leaders who are also paid by the same contributors soon after come together about the issue and declare war on the attacker. State funded media propagates like parrots. The suppose attackers get railroaded.

A new fake western government comes out of the ashes dedicated in giving all their resources away to the invaders, reeducation of the public will then be installed on what is right and what is wrong to be thought about.

Reprogramming scare tactics like racism, antisemitism, and political correctness occurring on nation wide network broadcasting. All the while big business takes it's share.

TheAtmansPath · Nov 26, 2011

AlienBlood said:

Lunatics such as the Iranian regime have no business acquiring nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

what business do we have in keeping them?

by the way: nuclear power =/= nuclear weapons

tflga · Nov 26, 2011

AlienBlood said:

Nothing substantial or even relevant to reality so far. NK can not be compared to Iran and if one were going to it's the belligerent change in behavior and confidence extremist regimes transition to after acquiring nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

No it's just your answers are such bullshit sometimes, and I'm not saying they're bullshit to insult your intelligence, they're bullshit because they don't make any sense (usually) & you go after the person directly and it usually ends in fail

sorrytoadmitthetruth.jpg

Mr_Bear · Nov 26, 2011

READY FOR THIS??? IRAN IS ONLY A THREAT BECAUSE THE US GOVERNMENT IS FUCKING STUPID.

Get the fuck out of every other country and turn this shithole around at home. if we stop pissing of the fucking world they wont fly shit into our cities or try to blow us up. its that simple.

they like to do things their way. awesome, let them. We can do shit our way.... AT HOME IN THE STATE.

I hate the fact that when i have children i have to explain to them when they are of the proper age (assuming that nothing gets fixed and we stay stationed across the world) why the country that had the potential to stay the greatest nation in the world is currently unsafe because our government has to meddle.

TLDR: Stop fucking around in other countries.... they wont attack us.
Seriously its 2012. They can take care of themselves.

Tom79 · Nov 26, 2011

[quote name='"TheAtmansPath"']

what business do we have in keeping them?

by the way: nuclear power =/= nuclear weapons[/quote]

Wrong.

Nuclear power does not require 90% enriched uranium as Iran trying to accomplish at the moment. (they still didn't got there)

U235 at 90% is weapon grade Uranium which is used to Make Nuclear Bombs.

5-20% U235 is Uranium grade for Nuclear Power Plants to make energy.

Actually 20% is more then enough for producing power.

Sooooo... At least do some homework before you post more bullshit in forums, this is some very basic Nuclear knowledge...

Ps- Noam Chomsky is an idiot.

xmaspoo · Nov 26, 2011

What it boils down to:

1. If Iran develops a nuke, U.S. and friends don't get to dictate terms of oil contracts and other natural resources to their liking. Iran is a direct threat to the dollar's world reserve currency status, as the dollar further depreciates in value, it can turn into a domino effect very quickly. This is very bad for TPTB (Federal Reserve).

The U.S. can't have a rogue nation standing up to the dominance of the dollar, as it will encourage other nations to follow suit.

2. If Iran doesn't develop a nuke, they will be overthrown in due time by CIA, Mossad, MI6 and the like. Puppet regime will come in and give away rights to all natural resources to western corporations.

Iran stops selling oil in U.S. dollars -report | Reuters
Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks - TIME
How the Islamic World Plans to Beat the West: A Gold Coin by Bill Sardi
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZRa4YqAoUw]Petrodollar, Petrodollar warfare 1 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc]Gaddafi gold-for-oil, dollar-doom plans behind Libya 'mission'? - YouTube[/ame]

TheAtmansPath · Nov 26, 2011

Dima79 said:

Wrong.

Nuclear power does not require 90% enriched uranium as Iran trying to accomplish at the moment. (they still didn't got there)

U235 at 90% is weapon grade Uranium which is used to Make Nuclear Bombs.

5-20% U235 is Uranium grade for Nuclear Power Plants to make energy.

Actually 20% is more then enough for producing power.

Sooooo... At least do some homework before you post more bullshit in forums, this is some very basic Nuclear knowledge...

Ps- Noam Chomsky is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong.
I said

Nuclear power =/= nuclear weapons
Click to expand...

this is a fact.

you jumped around to iran and percentages but really people are shitting themselves about nuclear power and replacing it with nuclear weapons. There is no evidence they are trying to make weapons, regardless if they are trying to be able to if they chose.

ps- he knows more about iran than you know in your entire brain, i'd bet.

Thanks for dropping by, we all know you don't care about killing children and civilians of places that aren't in Israel. I'm sure you have no bias towards Iran either.

maxrule · Nov 26, 2011

mrbear2point8 said:

READY FOR THIS??? IRAN IS ONLY A THREAT BECAUSE THE US GOVERNMENT IS FUCKING STUPID.

Get the fuck out of every other country and turn this shithole around at home. if we stop pissing of the fucking world they wont fly shit into our cities or try to blow us up. its that simple.

they like to do things their way. awesome, let them. We can do shit our way.... AT HOME IN THE STATE.

I hate the fact that when i have children i have to explain to them when they are of the proper age (assuming that nothing gets fixed and we stay stationed across the world) why the country that had the potential to stay the greatest nation in the world is currently unsafe because our government has to meddle.

TLDR: Stop fucking around in other countries.... they wont attack us.
Seriously its 2012. They can take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

The American people do want out of every other country. It requires a steady stream of war propaganda from the MSM just to drum up the 15 or 20 percent who are willing to support it.

If it were up the the people the CIA would be shut down and the USA would be a lot more like Norway or Sweden.

I'd bet anything that young woman who was shot dead in the Iranian protests on camera was shot by the CIA or their operatives for that very purpose.

What else can you expect from an agency that was formed by Skull & Bones and trained by the Nazi's ?

I'm not sticking up for Iran's government. But Iran is just a 'little satan' and the USA, UK & NATO are the GREAT SATAN.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNVUaxG3WMo]Israel is going to nuke US and blame Iran - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLrr9cuxSKk"]How Western media instigate the "Green Revolution" in Iran - 23 Jun 09 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8CqUJoEWBs"]CIA Agent Exposes How Al-Qaeda Dosen't Exist - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYTvDNg4iic"]Terrorists control The White House - YouTube[/ame]

AlienBlood · Nov 26, 2011

TheAtmansPath said:

what business do we have in keeping them?
Click to expand...

None. No nation, individual, or group of individuals have any business holding onto these weapons. One of the many things I agree with Obama on that we need to strive for a world without these instruments of destruction. It'd be quite naive to get rid of our stockpile when religious extremist nations who have American blood on their hands and make threats to our allies are working to develop their own. Nuclear power doesn't equal nuclear weapons. Right. Good job little commie, here's your government sanctioned cookie.

tflga said:

No it's just your answers are such bullshit sometimes, and I'm not saying they're bullshit to insult your intelligence, they're bullshit because they don't make any sense (usually) & you go after the person directly and it usually ends in fail
Click to expand...

I have the truth and you have ideological arguments. You do not have the best interest of the United States at mind when you can't even properly identify why we do what we do. This war for oil argument is the quickest identifier of a bullshitter or just plain uninformed mother fucker.

Forums

Iranian Threat - Noam Chomsky

TheAtmansPath Registered User

TheAtmansPath Registered User

iCremateCanabis Banned

TheAtmansPath Registered User

xmaspoo Bronze member
Gold Member

AlienBlood Banned

xmaspoo Bronze member
Gold Member

AlienBlood Banned

tflga Registered User

AlienBlood Banned

maxrule keeper of the faith

Suck My Mind Banned

TheAtmansPath Registered User

tflga Registered User

Mr_Bear das auto

Tom79 Who the hell is Dima ???

xmaspoo Bronze member
Gold Member

TheAtmansPath Registered User

maxrule keeper of the faith

AlienBlood Banned

Share This Page

Network

Forums

Help

Find Us On

Useful Searches

Iranian Threat - Noam Chomsky

TheAtmansPath Registered User

TheAtmansPath Registered User

iCremateCanabis Banned

TheAtmansPath Registered User

xmaspoo Bronze member Gold Member

AlienBlood Banned

xmaspoo Bronze member Gold Member

AlienBlood Banned

tflga Registered User

AlienBlood Banned

maxrule keeper of the faith

Suck My Mind Banned

TheAtmansPath Registered User

tflga Registered User

Mr_Bear das auto

Tom79 Who the hell is Dima ???

xmaspoo Bronze member Gold Member

TheAtmansPath Registered User

maxrule keeper of the faith

AlienBlood Banned

Share This Page

xmaspoo Bronze member
Gold Member

xmaspoo Bronze member
Gold Member

xmaspoo Bronze member
Gold Member