|
|
Today marks another day of protest in Iran after the Supreme Leader ruled that their elections were fair and balanced.
Will the action by the people bring about real change in the country?
Was the election rigged?
How will the situation resolve itself?
|
Posts:
1,957
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(237 of 237)
Dec 1, 2009 10:46 PM
|
JimEarl,
Thanks, but...
Reasonable people should be able to openly acknowledge what is OBVIOUSLY REAL in an open democracy.
Isreal, that is to say a Jewish state, virtually OWNS American foreign policy. Can there be any REASONABLE DISAGREEMENT? If so, let's hear it now.
The connection between the American Christian and Jewish religious traditions is rather obvious to anyone other than a complete fool. Am I of the mark here?
The American Christian/Jewish invading traditions thus de facto clash with the Arab religious traditions, who are in fact being invaded, whether or not the invaders "define" it as such.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
7,701
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(236 of 237)
Dec 1, 2009 9:45 PM
|
> JimEarl,
>
> Good stuff as always. The overarching lesson to my
> mind in the mideast (and everywhere else for that
> matter) with regard to military imperialism is this:
> if you can't afford to TRULY own the results, just
> as you would in one of your own wholly controlled
> states (ex: invade Iowa to put down a local rebellion
> of pork producers), then you have NO BUSINESS
> WHATSOEVER being there AT ALL! NONE!
>
> All else is MIC influence, and NOTHING ELSE!
>
Well thanks DaN
I'm listening to the commentary on Obama's speech
still but It's not all the MIC
It's just safer to say that.
Later guy.
|
|
|
Posts:
601
Registered:
4/21/07
|
|
(235 of 237)
Dec 1, 2009 9:21 PM
|
> JimEarl,
>
> Good stuff as always. The overarching lesson to my
> mind in the mideast (and everywhere else for that
> matter) with regard to military imperialism is this:
> if you can't afford to TRULY own the results, just
> t as you would in one of your own wholly controlled
> states (ex: invade Iowa to put down a local rebellion
> of pork producers), then you have NO BUSINESS
> WHATSOEVER being there AT ALL! NONE!
>
> All else is MIC influence, and NOTHING ELSE!
>
> Eisenhower (man from Kansas, kudos RainyJane) had it
> right EVEN MORE than we knew (certainly!) or have yet
> to truly comprehend.
Very very true!! This whole shift to private contractors is proof of it. They say if they farm out certain functions to the private sector, instead of having the military do it, you can shrink the size of the military and save billions. HA!!
Where are the savings when we now have a civilian tractor trailer driver bringing in supplies getting paid $120,000 a year as opposed to the old way when soldiers did it for $30,000 a year??
Civilian carpenters and construction crews, food service companies, etc., etc., all earning 3 times what it cost to have soldiers doing it.
The most glaring example is the VIP security companies.
Their men make $500 to $1500 per day!!!
We have the greatest military on earth, and we can't supply guards and drivers for VIPs??
These contracts, and the massive massive massive replacement contracts to come when all this is over will be in the trillions.
We all laugh at Dubya, but make no mistake, Bush and Cheney did just what they were 'assigned' to do.
They accomplished EXACTLY what they were supposed to.
The profits of the Carlyle group and dozens of similar groups are and will be astronomical.
>
> We're under attack all right. By the MIC and
> Financial interests within. Our time's running out,
> the tipping point's almost here (and in fact, I
> believe it's already passed).
>
> NoBama was our last best hope, and unfortunately, it
> was unfounded. It's unfortunately time to find out
> what's next.
>
> DaN
I disagree with you here DaN;
I think its way too early to say that, he's only now formulating his war plans and it remains to be seen if we exit these wars as planned and with what results.
|
|
|
Posts:
601
Registered:
4/21/07
|
|
(234 of 237)
Dec 1, 2009 9:00 PM
|
Knowing well the combination of actions traditionally used to influence events overseas, I'm still a little surprised we didn't give more 'moral support' to the uprising.
Whether by economic sanctions, diplomatic action, UN action/resolutions, covert action by intelligence agencies or military action, we have a long and very mixed history of influencing, or trying and failing to influence, overseas events and governments.
I understand the necessity to not 'contaminate' the uprising movement with overt Western contact and support, something the hard line Iranian leadership has accused the movement of anyway.
Still, strong support in the media and online from the West, and particularly the USA, can sometimes give these grass roots movements a boost of energy and confidence they sorely need, sometimes just enough to keep them alive , knowing the world is watching.
This uprising is unprecedented, and we don't know what the long term effects will be, what cracks in the hardline leadership may have been started.
We have to tread very lightly, but we can't ignore them. Supporting these types of movements across the world is preferable to military action and more real, because its the people themselves doing it.
A big risk is the rising power of the Revolutionary Guard. If these corrupt, fanatical thugs continue to rise in power, we'll really be sorry.
If anything, they are worse than the hard line Ahmadinejad government by far.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,957
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(233 of 237)
Dec 1, 2009 8:29 PM
|
JimEarl,
Good stuff as always. The overarching lesson to my mind in the mideast (and everywhere else for that matter) with regard to military imperialism is this: if you can't afford to TRULY own the results, just as you would in one of your own wholly controlled states (ex: invade Iowa to put down a local rebellion of pork producers), then you have NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER being there AT ALL! NONE!
All else is MIC influence, and NOTHING ELSE!
Eisenhower (man from Kansas, kudos RainyJane) had it right EVEN MORE than we knew (certainly!) or have yet to truly comprehend.
We're under attack all right. By the MIC and Financial interests within. Our time's running out, the tipping point's almost here (and in fact, I believe it's already passed).
NoBama was our last best hope, and unfortunately, it was unfounded. It's unfortunately time to find out what's next.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
7,701
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
7,701
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
7,701
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(230 of 237)
Oct 11, 2009 11:15 PM
|
> I don't believe that most Iranians support
> Ahmadinejad anymore than I ever believed the majority
> of Americans voted for or supported W.
>
> A few of the many voting irregularities were the
> landslides in Moussavi's hometown and in his wife's
> hometown where he was wildly popular, and that Ajad's
> votes tripled in number from the last election is
> all by itself highly suspicious.
That it is and there is also the fear factor as concerns
the posted poll. Nevertheless, western and Saudi
governments are up to their old tricks in undermining
the government of Iran and are using "Facebook"
and "Twitter" in that effort.
Without adequate polling data, there is no way that
we should embark on any policy that assumes such
as we assumed that Saddam had reconstituted his
WMD programs.
We just sponsored an election in Afghanistan, btw,
in which 1/3 of the ballots are suspect and had a
UN whistleblower fired for pointing that out.
--
Edited by JimEarl at 10/11/2009 8:18 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
3,029
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(229 of 237)
Oct 11, 2009 1:49 PM
|
I don't believe that most Iranians support Ahmadinejad anymore than I ever believed the majority of Americans voted for or supported W.
A few of the many voting irregularities were the landslides in Moussavi's hometown and in his wife's hometown where he was wildly popular, and that Ajad' s votes tripled in number from the last election is all by itself highly suspicious.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,701
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
7,701
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(227 of 237)
Oct 10, 2009 2:27 AM
|
Most Iranians still seem to support Ahmadinejad,
which calls into question our assumptions that the
recent election in Iran was "stolen" and that the
turmoil afterwards wasn't engineered by the US and
Saudi governments who have, in fact spent hundreds
of millions of dollars to undermine the regime in Iran.
http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/09/23/most-iranians-support-ahmadinejad-and-nuclear-power-poll-finds/
That is a western conducted poll and I'm as guilty
as anyone else in joining in on those assumptions
without reliable polling data being available before
the recent Iranian election.
--
Edited by JimEarl at 10/09/2009 11:31 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
7,701
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(226 of 237)
Oct 2, 2009 4:06 AM
|
Downloadable MP3 interview.....Scott Ritter clears the hype on Iran's new enrichment plant
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter discusses the
overblown "gotcha" revelation of the "secret" Iranian
nuclear facility, how the wonkish debate over IAEA
Additional Protocol minutiae turned into accusations that
Iran is building nukes, the secret Saudi, UK and US
funding of opposition candidates in the Iranian election
and the likely disastrous results of a war with Iran.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,029
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(225 of 237)
Sep 28, 2009 8:57 AM
|
Thanks, JimEarl.
Very helpful information from you and RC, along with his technical knowledge.
"The new round of talks between Iran and the 5+1 group (China, the United States, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany) is scheduled to begin on October 1."
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=204104
9/7/09 report from IAEA Board of Governors, Director General Mohamed ElBaradei...
"Also, Dr. ElBaradei answered accusations that information has been withheld from the Board of Governors about Iran´s nuclear programme. "I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member States, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith."
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/bog070909.html
|
|
|
Posts:
7,701
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(224 of 237)
Sep 28, 2009 2:22 AM
|
> With Iran admitting a secret nuclear plant, this
> brings up serious questions about the accuracy of
> NIEs. Isn't this what the world relies on for
> foreign policy decisions? Are they completely
> useless?
>
No they aren't. The NIE's assessments are just
that though.....assessments from 9 intelligence
services and not always based on 100% knowledge.
As I understand it, the assessment that Iran had
a nuclear weapons program up until 2003 was based
on intercepted communications of Iran's military hats
about a non-specific canceled military program that
they weren't happy to see canceled.....that's according
to former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter and
may or may not be the complete assessment.
Btw
Iran is who reported it's uranium enrichment facility
to the IAEA as they are required to do before they
begin to enrich uranium in it. They are NOT required
by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to report it
to countries who repeatedly threaten to bomb their
nuclear facilities before then.
More on this from Scott Ritter
|
|
|
Posts:
1,957
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(223 of 237)
Sep 25, 2009 11:01 PM
|
RapidCreek,
That said, that's not a very good STORY. You REALLY need to learn how to sell you narratives better.
DaN
|
|
|
|
|
