RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Nader begins: "The same neocons who persuaded George W. Bush and crew to, in Ron Paul's inimitable words, 'lie their way into invading Iraq' in 2003, are beating the drums of war more loudly these days to attack Iran. It is remarkable how many of these war-mongers are former draft dodgers who wanted other Americans to fight the war in Vietnam."

Ralph Nader doing an interview during his 2008 Presidential campaign, 08/01/08. (photo: Scrape TV)
Ralph Nader doing an interview during his 2008 Presidential campaign, 08/01/08. (photo: Scrape TV)



Iran: The Neocons Are At It Again

By Ralph Nader, Reader Supported News

12 January 12

 

he same neocons who persuaded George W. Bush and crew to, in Ron Paul's inimitable words, "lie their way into invading Iraq" in 2003, are beating the drums of war more loudly these days to attack Iran. It is remarkable how many of these war-mongers are former draft dodgers who wanted other Americans to fight the war in Vietnam.

With the exception of Ron Paul, who actually knows the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, the Republican presidential contenders have declared their belligerency toward Iranian officials who they accuse of moving toward nuclear weapons.

The Iranian regime disputes that charge, claiming they are developing the technology for nuclear power and nuclear medicine.

The inspection teams of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) that monitor compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran belongs, have entered Iran numerous times and, while remaining suspicious, have not been able to find that country on the direct road to the Bomb.

While many western and some Arab countries in the Gulf region have condemned Iran's alleged nuclear arms quest, Israel maintains some 200 ready nuclear weapons and has refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty, thereby avoiding the IAEA inspectors.

Israelis in the know have much to say. Defense minister, Ehud Barak, responded to PBS's Charlie Rose's question "If you were Iran wouldn't you want a nuclear weapon?" with these words:

"Probably, probably. I don't delude myself that they are doing it just because of Israel. They have their history of 4,000 years. They look around and they see the Indians are nuclear. The Chinese are nuclear, Pakistan is nuclear as well as North Korea, not to mention the Russians."

The Iranian regime, with a national GDP smaller than Massachusetts, is terrified. It is surrounded by powerful adversaries, including the U.S. military on three of its borders. President George W. Bush labeled Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, one of the three "axis of evil," and Teheran knows what happened to Iraq after that White House assertion. They also know that North Korea inoculated itself from invasion by testing nuclear bombs. And all Iranians remember that the U.S. overthrew their popular elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and installed the dictatorial Shah who ruled tyrannically for the next 27 years.

Recently, Iran has experienced mysterious cyber sabotage, drone violations of its air space, the slaying of its nuclear scientists and the blowing up of its military sites, including a major missile installation. Israeli and American officials are not trying too hard to conceal this low level warfare.

Israel military historian-strategist Martin van Creveld said in 2004, that Iranians "would be crazy not to build nuclear weapons considering the security threats they face." Three years later he stated that "the world must now learn to live with a nuclear Iran the way we learned to live with a nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear China....We Israelis have what it takes to deter an Iranian attack. We are in no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us...thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from the U.S. and Germany."

U.S. General John Abizaid is one of numerous military people who say that the world can tolerate a nuclear Iran-which, like other countries, does not wish to commit suicide.

Using the "Iranian threat," served Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who on his first tour of duty back in 1996, speaking to a joint session of Congress, made a big point of the forthcoming Iranian bomb.

Somehow the Iranians, who were invaded in 1980 by a U.S.-backed Saddam Hussein, resulting in a million casualties, and who have not invaded anybody for 250 years, are taking a very long time to build a capability for atomic bomb production, much less the actual weapons.

In mid-2011, Meir Dagan, recently retired head of Israel's "CIA," repeated his opposition to a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, adding it would engulf the region in a conventional war.

He further took the Israeli government to task for failing "to put forth a vision," noting that "Israel must present an initiative to the Palestinians and adopt the 2002 Saudi Arabia peace proposal, reiterated since, that would open full diplomatic relations with some two dozen Arab and Islamic countries in return for an Israeli pullback to the 1967 borders and recognition of a Palestinian state."

The war-mongers against Iran have often distorted Iranian statements to suit their purpose and kept in the shadows several friendly Iranian initiatives offered to the George W. Bush Administration.

Flynt L. Leverett, now with Brookings and before a State Department and CIA official, listed three initiatives that were rejected. Right after the Sept. 11 attacks, Iran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban. The U.S. declined the offer. Second, in the spring of 2003, top Iranian officials sent the White House a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve questions regarding its weapons programs, relations with Hezbollah and Hamas and a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel. This proposal was rebuffed and ignored.

Third, in October 2003, European officials secured an agreement from Iran to suspend Iranian uranium enrichment and to pursue talks that Mr. Leverett said "might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal." The Bush administration "refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed," he added.

A few days ago, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Iran was developing a capability for making nuclear weapons someday but was not yet building a bomb. So why is the Obama Administration talking about a western boycott of Iran's oil exports, so crucial to its faltering, sanctions-ridden economy? Is this latest sanction designed to squeeze Iranian civilians and lead to the overthrow of the regime? Arguably it may backfire and produce more support for the government.

Backing the Iranian regime into such a fateful corner risks counter-measures that may disrupt the gigantic flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Should that occur, watch the prices of your gasoline, heating bill and other related products go through the roof-among other consequences.

Isn't it about time for the abdicatory Congress to reassert its constitutional responsibilities? It owes the American people comprehensive, public House and Senate hearings that produce knowledgeable testimony about these issues and all relevant history for wide media coverage.

The drums of war should not move our country into a propagandized media frenzy that preceded and helped cause the Iraq invasion with all the socio-cide in that country and all the costly blowbacks against U.S. national interests?

It is past time for the American citizenry to wake up and declare: Iran will not be an Iraq Redux!

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+98 # RMDC 2012-01-12 18:31
As much as I admire Ralph Nader, he really does not have a plan. He says, "It is past time for the American citizenry to wake up and declare: Iran will not be an Iraq Redux!" Well, the world did stand up in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and declared "Iraq will not be invaded." This did not deter the Bush regime for a single second. What makes Nader think the Obama regime will be deterred for a single second. When the time is right, the US fascist regime will launch a blitz krieg on Iran that will make Iraq and Libya look like kids' games.

There is nothing Americans or indeed the people of the world can to. The people who run the US (and Israel) are psychopaths. They cannot be reasoned with. They are armed to the teeth and will smash any protest that is mounted against them. They are armed with a mass media propaganda machine that will confuse and dumb-down most people.

Nothing can stop the washington regimes criminal spree of world violence until it collapses from its own internal corruption. Someday it will go bankrupt. Weapons suppliers will tire of being paid with worthless dollars. When the US regime collapses, then the wars will end. Not before.

I wish it were not this way. I wish there were some reason in Washington or the Obama regime. But Obama does not make the decisions. Those are made at CIA, Pentagon, and Tel Aviv and they don't listen to anyone; they don't care about anyone. They piss on everyone.
 
 
+57 # colvictoria 2012-01-12 21:42
You are right RMDC that Obama does not make the decisions. It is no wonder Obama looks like he has aged 10 years with his graying hair and his toned down enthusiasm. His lackluster appearance in his latest speeches in Chicago show that he is tired and dissatisfied. Why he wants to win and take another 4 years of abuse is any-body's guess. Maybe he has no choice.
 
 
+26 # futhark 2012-01-13 05:18
Marionettes and ventriloquist dummies never look very life-like when viewed close up or watched carefully for a long time.

After Cheney/Bush, we really needed a transformationa l president. I'm still waiting.
 
 
-19 # RLF 2012-01-13 06:41
Just another apologist for this spineless president! Wake up! This is what Obama wants! He is a Republican in every possible aspect.
 
 
+16 # bugbuster 2012-01-13 11:24
This coming from someone under 40 would be understandable. Anyone older should know better.
 
 
-7 # Johnny 2012-01-13 12:53
Obomber knows what he is doing, and he knew he would be doing it before he was elected. That is why he received millions from Goldman Sachs and the other Wall Street giants. He was never anything but their errand boy.
 
 
+14 # jack123 2012-01-13 00:14
well said, I tend to agree.
Short of the front line troops refusing to play their game (extremely unlikely) or mass nationwide demonstrations by the people of the U.S. there's little chance of avoiding this.
I wonder however, how Russia & China will react and whether this is an influencing factor on what happens.
 
 
+37 # lcarrier 2012-01-13 08:50
It's hard to see Americans being conned again as they were in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. There are no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iran. There is no stomach for further wars in the Pentagon and no more money in the treasury. Instead of ranting about a "US fascist regime," get out and support progressive, anti-war candidates. Get in tune with UN and EU efforts to promote world peace. Help get the US out of its unilateral, exceptionalist, military mindset so our policy makers can catch up with the rest of the world. Get out and occupy. Because we are the 99%.
 
 
+15 # Johnny 2012-01-13 12:57
It is not hard to see the American masses conned again into another war on false pretexts, as they were conned into wars against Spain, Germany, Vietnam, and Iraq. Most of them depend on the fascist controlled media for their view of the world, and so catch on only in hindsight.
 
 
+14 # Johnny 2012-01-13 12:51
If the Russians really want to deter a Zionist attack on Iran, they should sell Iran a few thermonuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them with. Then the US and Israel would think twice about aggression against Iran, and the Russians would not have to commit any soldiers or actively take part in any fighting if Israel did attack Iran.
 
 
+12 # REALITYBITESUALL 2012-01-12 19:18
This is from 2008...Can we get any verification on anything more recent please?
 
 
-19 # REALITYBITESUALL 2012-01-12 19:19
Never mind the previous statement...Her e is my take on it. The GOP is not in charge. The current regime attacked Libya and continues to start crap in Afghanistan. Both parties are to blame so Mr. Nader should focus on that fact.
 
 
+32 # DaveM 2012-01-12 23:50
Remember the days when the U.S. did not start wars or invade other countries? Perhaps there ever truly was such a time but this ridiculous state of constant warfare with countries that pose no threat whatsoever to the United States has got to stop.
 
 
+32 # jack123 2012-01-13 00:08
If war is what these people want then fine - but with the proviso that any invasion is led by the President, then Congress and then any other politician who supports the idea.
Here in Australia I would love to see our Prime Minister Julia Gillard (who will no doubt support any action) in the front line with Obama.
The way to Peace is NOT through War.
 
 
+14 # angelfish 2012-01-13 00:23
Too late, Ralph. The Beat goes on. The Partisan ReTHUGlicans REFUSE to allow ANY sensible discussion, let alone, Legislation pass through the House or Senate because they MUST make President Obama a "one term President"! Never mind the fact that they have utterly DESTROYED sensible Political discourse in Congress, they have just about DESTROYED us Morally, Economically and Ecologically as well! It was plain to see in the New Hampshire Debates when they all vilified Jon Huntsmann for his Non-Partisan service as Ambassador to China! God FORBID that anyone DARE put Country over PARTY! I hope to be a face in the choir when each of them has to present his sorry a** and stand in front of God Almighty and read his page out of the Book. Perhaps THEN, Justice WILL be served!
 
 
+20 # grouchy 2012-01-13 03:05
I would like some more work on the "why" of this obsession with Iran. How about some documented discussion about the reasons behind it? We have been saber-rattling as a background theme song dealing with Iran for years--so why? Why this one country? There are so many others to focus on. Why this one?Someone has something to gain here. I have wondered just what it is--and Ralph is the first to give at least some possible answers!
 
 
+12 # madams12 2012-01-13 09:39
Grouchy .....it's not an obsession with THIS ONE COUNTRY....perh aps "ONE AT A TIME"...but the original plan both as Gen Wesley Clark revealed in a FORA TV taped speech in 2007 and as long known from a white paper written for KIVUNIM World Zionist Journal by Oded Yinon, called "Yinon Plan"...to brek up all regional sovereign states into their SMALLEST component parts/tribes/se cts to DIVIDE and CONQUER to enable Israel to become the absolute HEGEMON, written in 1982...used to be easy to locate on line...a short pointed paper declaring the GREATER ISRAEL plan. It is real was the basis for early NEOCONS like PERLE and Wolfowitz pushing Bill Clinton to invade IRAQ, SYRIA, LIBYA, et al.
 
 
+5 # Johnny 2012-01-13 13:06
The reason for the coming war with Iran has nothing to do with its nuclear program, any more than the aggression of Iraq had to do with weapons of mass destruction. The reason for the war is Iran's support for Hezbollah, which has already proven it can repel Zionist aggression against Lebanon.
 
 
+5 # Johnny 2012-01-13 13:01
The reason for the coming war with Iran has nothing to do with its nuclear program, any more than the aggression of Iraq had to do with weapons of mass destruction. The reason for the war is Iran's support for Hezbollah, which has already proven it can repel Zionist aggression against Lebanon.
 
 
+41 # RMDC 2012-01-13 04:33
Nader is right to point out that the same neo-cons who lied about Iraq, al Queda, and Afghanistan are behind the ramping up of war against Iran. Many of these neo-cons worked for Netanyahoo in the 1990s when Clinton was president here. Some are dual US / Israeli citizens. Any sensible person would see a conflict of interest. They are actually agents of the Israeli government with enormous power in the American government. They want the US to fight Israel's war. Netanyahoo wants to make Israel the military hegemon of the entire middle east and he wants the US to pay for it and do the fighting.

Obama could have prevented all of this if he would have allowed (or ordered) his Attorney General to open investigations and prosecutions against these neo-cons for lying to congress (felony), theft ($12 billion went missing in Iraq), torture, and many other crimes. The neo-cons are psychopaths but basically bullies. They love power but will back off if pushed hard enough. If some of them were in jail or on trial, they would not now be spreading more lies about Iran and pounding the drums of war.

Obama told all of us that his administration would not prosecute any of the neo-cons because he wanted to look forward and not backward. Well, now he's looking forward to a terrible war that he cannot stop. When you don't prosecute criminals, they keep doing what they did in the past. In order to change the future, you must deal with the past.
 
 
+32 # RMDC 2012-01-13 04:58
I wonder how many US warships off the coast of Iran (including submarines) are carrying nuclear bombs? My bet is that there are more than a few hundred nuclear bombs surrounding Iran. The Pentagon will never "confirm or deny" the presence of nuclear bombs anywhere but they want us all to believe that they do have nukes ready to be fired.

This sort of threat is an explicit violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferati on Treaty which the US has signed but Israel has not. Iran has signed it. Why is this violation of international law not bringing UN mandated sanctions against the American regime?

Obama's sanctions against Iran are an act of war. Right now it is just economic war. Geithner is making the rounds of the world getting other nations to join the US in its economic war against Iran. When Iran is bled down and made weak, the bombs will begin to fall. This is how the US works -- it bleeds people into starvation (Iraq, Afghanistan) and then bombs the hell out of them.

The roots of the neo-con movement go back into Nazism in Germany of the 1930s. They did not like Hitler but they loved the Nazi movement with its commitment to corporatism, militarism, racial supremacy, and conquest of the world's natural resources. The US is not the standard bearer of the Nazi legacy. If Obama has any brains, he will get out of this movement. He will not be their useful idiot. They will take us just where Hitler took Germany in the 40s.
 
 
+31 # stonecutter 2012-01-13 05:39
Myself and my whole family marched in the massive anti-Iraq invasion demonstration in New York back in 2003, just before Bush pulled the trigger, and just as RMDC stated above, it didn't have the effect of a hummingbird pissing on a wildflower. It made us feel good, but that's all. Virtually no media coverage. We marched in a few subsequent demonstrations, until we realized the Bush administration didn't respond to popular, peaceful demonstrations, other than with indifference or contempt. Of course, the rest is history.

If Nader is right, where is the media "calling out" the neocons to spotlight accountability for their new drum-beating regarding Iran? Can it be the whole military/media complex is headed down the same dead-end all over again, with the same collusion, while the rest of us, slightly distracted by this Depression, sit by powerless to affect any rational course correction?

Unless there's blatant provocation (i.e., blockage of the straits of Hormuz), it seems to me there'll be no act of war until 2013, once the re-elected, or new, president is sworn in.
If it's Romney, you can basically bet the farm on war with Iran, and all that implies. With Obama, based on his performance so far, there's a better than even chance of avoiding an all-out war. He is not a neocon, the last time I looked, nor is Panetta. Richard Perl and William Kristol aren't giving them advice. Question: who is?
 
 
+1 # RLF 2012-01-13 06:39
This is what Obama calls an employment program that he can get through congress.
 
 
+3 # MidwestTom 2012-01-13 07:08
Until we insist that our leaders both elected and appointed by ONLY AMERICAN citizens, no dual citizenship allowed, we will constantly be drawn into Israel's wars. We should sell them all of the Weapons they can afford. But 'their' people should not be making our foreign policy. Speak to anyone with dual citizenship and you will find that they live here to earn money, but their heart is where their second citizenship is, and they send their money their. Many Jews live here, but want to be buried in Israel.
 
 
+13 # MidwestTom 2012-01-13 07:14
Two recurring words on this thread bother me. First, this or that candidate is for JOBS; who on earth is against jobs? Saying that your candidate is for job growth is like saying he or she is for breathing. The second word is NEOCON; when the Repibs ran Washington it was easy to declare Bush and his war starting crew Neocons; but now we have our man Obama, who also appears to be surrounds by Neocons who want to go to war. Why not simply call them Israeli Americans who want to rule the world with the blood of American troops.
 
 
-4 # stonecutter 2012-01-13 15:02
@ Midwest Tom

You think if you use the oxymornic term "Israeli American" you can euphemize your anti-semitism? Doesn't work. Israelis who come here to live and/or work are no different than Indians, Pakistanis, Canadians, Taiwanese, Japanese,South Africans (black and white), who all do the same. That's one of the unique things about America...alway s has been. If you're opposed to "Zionism" for whatever reasons, I can deal with that, but when you start drawing blanket conclusions about the motives of a whole demographic, you simply don't know what you're talking about, and that just stinks.
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-01-14 09:53
You don't suppose the oil industry has something to say in all of this, do you? Look at Iran on a map.

Note the access to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

Ask yourself this: How will we get all of that Iraqi oil to market? By the way, Iran has some oil too.
 
 
+5 # MidwestTom 2012-01-13 07:16
Do a search under TYoutube t=for The Other Iran you Do Not See.
 
 
+17 # fredboy 2012-01-13 07:50
This is perhaps the most telling and significant column ever posted here. Send it to everyone you know.
 
 
+10 # fredboy 2012-01-13 07:58
Realitybitesual l, you are correct in asserting that "both parties are to blame" in this context. The neocon (or neandercon) mindset is entrenched in both major political parties and our news media. Reactionary. Paranoid. And very, very mean-spirited. We no longer have the intellectual ability to consider or put ourselves in the others' place to understand their points of view. And our narcissism is both self-aggrandizi ng and self-terrifying . Indeed, our absolute commitment to only our self-gain and self-interest will likely be our undoing.
 
 
+10 # Glen 2012-01-13 08:02
Yes, REALITYBITESUAL L, both parties are to blame. The neo-cons are only associated with the republicans, not of their ilk. Their agenda and organization began decades ago outside the system under people who also operated outside the system but with the funding of the government. Sure, they are well known, but their ultimate goal was yet to be discovered.

Their power is breathtaking and heinous and the U.S. is totally under their control, aided and abetted by all those listed in many RSN posts and by RMDC above. Folks should abandon the myth of the two party system and those who put on that show year after year.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-01-13 08:20
Why doesn't Nader just run for president again as a Democrat?

I'll gladly vote for him as a Democrat. I just won't vote for a 3rd party.

Nader seems like the only person who'd might be willing to break the taboo.
 
 
+10 # Johnny 2012-01-13 13:03
Why doesn't he? Because he will not receive millions in campaign contributions. Money, not voting, determines the outcome of "elections" in the United States.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-01-14 09:50
He managed to run for president before with the same situation in play. He just didn't run as a Democrat. He could run again, but he's given up all hope.

If he chose to run again as a Democrat, I'd vote for him in the primary.
 
 
+3 # madams12 2012-01-13 10:12
Speaking of NEOCONS.....I found this article last night.
"Bashar al-Assad is right. There are international conspiracies to take him down.
This is OBVIOUS as expat Syrian National Council uses a policy papers arguing FOR military intervention in Syria that was WRITTEN by a NEOCON & Israel supporter & PAID FOR by U.S. State Department.
To further the military intervention the paper is defended DOING AWAY w/ local Syrian protesters who OPPOSE intervention was written by Michael Weiss, PR guy for a Brit NEOCON org w/ patrons like U.S. neocons Richard Perle, William Kristol & James Woolsey.

WEISS recently wrote a policy paper "Safe Area for Syria – An Assessment, etc" an amateur attempt (since Weiss is neither lawyer NOR has military experience) to write a PLAYBOOK FOR MILITARY intervention in SYRIA: "...this paper examines the way in which foreign military intervention could work for Syria." --was written for Strategic Research & Communication Centre run by Syrian expat Ausama Monajed former dir. of Barada TV”. - known from Wikileaks cables: Barada TV is affiliated w/ Movement for Justice & Devel, a network of Syrian exiles.
U.S. diplomatic cables showd that US State Dept funneled about $6 MILLION to the group since 2006 for satellite channel & finance "other" activities INSIDE Syria.
 
 
+15 # Steve5551 2012-01-13 11:01
I think Ralph is on target and is speaking truth just as Eisenhower issued truthful words that should have been heeded in his "Farewell Speech". Of course by the time the media puts the neocon prescribed spin on world events the American people feel it their "patriotic duty" to "support the military", send their sons and daughters and husbands and wives off to fight yet another unnessasary war that bleeds the national coiffers and leads to the wholesale murder of innocent victims the world over and, not the least, brings Americans home wounded or in body bags. The fact is we are all complicit to some degree. We continue to work, pay our bills and pretend that all is normal, its all ok. We need one of those Jeffersonian prescribed "periodic revolutions". We need to stop listening to the myriad of lies and distortions and educate ourselves as best we can on the issues. We also need to wake up and realize the Fascists have increasingly been in control of the United States of America since they murdered the Kennedys and MLK. Our government is controlled by the world's most brutal crimminals and they are ever thirsty for innocent blood and monetary rewards regardless of who suffers.
Iran is not our enemy, just as Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam, etc were not enemies of the American people.
 
 
+4 # reiverpacific 2012-01-13 11:11
Well, if Iran goes ahead and executes this American they just condemned, what then?
I dislike Theocracies but Israel is also one by default and in the deeply narrowly-focuse d conservative hands of LIKUD + there are those who would have the US be such -especially some of the current Republican wanna-be's, certain members of congress and some on the supreme court into the bargain.
The real danger is having nuclear weapons in hands who rule from the pulpit, or minaret, or synagogue, or deathly-looking marble temple -or as in N. Korea's case from secular worship of the "Beloved leader" while the people are starving in both substance and isolated ignorance.
It's one thing to somewhat justify Iran allegedly arming itself or adopting nuclear power but the whole point is that the entire planet should be cooperating to get rid of it and pursue sustainable means of power production.
Consider: sanctions and possibility of a military garrote being applied to the straits of Hormuz could well be a hard lesson in this supreme irony by making war and concurrently sending oil prices into the stratosphere -and guess who will get priority monopoly on what oil there is? -Yep, the already bloated military death machine, not the already over-stretched civilian populace.
But even that will no doubt escape the US and allied power structure who seem to dunk deeply of the draught that takes reason prisoner.
 
 
+1 # Johnny 2012-01-13 13:12
The reason for the coming war with Iran has nothing to do with its nuclear program, any more than the aggression of Iraq had to do with weapons of mass destruction. The reason for the war is Iran's support for Hezbollah, which has already proven it can repel Zionist aggression against Lebanon.
 
 
+10 # marigayl 2012-01-14 02:08
How surprising that in all these comments nobody mentions the elephant in the living room, i.e., the real reason the US wants to gain hegemony over Iran--Iran is sitting atop the largest oil reserves in the world. The US would be attacking Iran, if it does, for the same reason it attacked Iraq and spearheaded the attacks on Libya. Israel is the willing attack dog for the corporate imperialism of the US of Oil.
 
 
+1 # nudefish 2012-01-14 14:50
We have only one real chose this election cycle TERRANY or LIBERTY and you all know who that is
 
 
+2 # Anarchist 23 2012-01-15 15:37
Quoting nudefish:
We have only one real chose this election cycle TERRANY or LIBERTY and you all know who that is

Colbert?
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2012-01-15 14:45
This may be a little off topic, but it nevertheless relates to the overall war fanaticism of the neocons re. Iran & other "rogues." It's from an episode of the original Twighlight Zone series entitled "No Time Like the Past" starring Dana Andrews, & written by Rod Serling. Andrews plays Paul Driscoll, a time traveler fed up w/ the 20th century who goes back to 1881 in a town called Homeville, Indiana to live a simple life. He rents a room in a boarding house. In one scene the boarders are having dinner together. A Mr. Hanford is talking, fond of wanting to plant the "American flag" everywhere. Someone sitting beside him quietly, dutifully hangs on his every word, a silent cheerleader. Hanford turns his attention to Driscoll sitting across from him. Here's the following dialogue:

Hanford: Hey Mr. Driscoll. What are your international views?
Driscoll: I don't have any Mr. Hanford.
Hanford: Of course you do. Everyone has to have views as to the destiny of our country.Now you take the case of the Indian wars. All this silly, conciliatory nonsense about giving the Indians lands. As if you could actually make savages understand treaties. We should have swept across the prairie, destroying every redskin. Then we should have planted the American flag deep high and proud!
Abigail Sloan, a teacher: I think the country is tired of fighting Mr. Hanford. We were bled dry by the Indian wars. Anything we can accomplish with treaties should do.
Contd...
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2012-01-15 15:02
Contd
Hanford: This isn't the pap you spoon-feed your students. Treaties indeed! Peace indeed! The virility of a nation is in direct proportion to its military prowess. I live for the day when this country sweeps away...
[Notices Driscoll's disapproving look]
Hanford: You some kind of pacifist Driscoll?
Driscoll: No, just some sick idiot whose seen too many boys die because of too many men who fight thier battles at dining room tables and probably wouldn't last 45 seconds in a real skirmish if they were thrust into it.
Hanford: I take offense at that remark Mr. Driscoll!
Driscoll: And I take offense at arm chair warriors who don't know what a shrapnel, a bullet or a sabre wound feels like. Who've never smelled death after three days on an empty battlefield. Who've never seen the look on a man's face when he's lost a limb and his blood is seeping out. You have a great affinity for planting the flag deep; but not a nodding acquaintance of what it's like for families to bury their sons in the same soil!
Hanford: I'll not sit here and take that!
Driscoll: No, you'll go back to your bank. And it'll be business a usual until next dinner time when you give one of your vacuous speeches about a country growing strong by filling its graveyards. Well, you're in for some gratifying times Mr. Hanford. They'll be filling lots of graveyards for you; in Cuba, in France, all over Europe and the Pacific.
Contd
 
 
+2 # David Starr 2012-01-15 15:17
Contd
Driscoll: You can sit on the sidelines because according to you this country is going to get as virile as the Devil; from San Juan to Inchon we'll show how red our blood is because we'll spill it. There are two unfortunate aspects to this: One is you won't have to spill any; the other is you won't live long enough to know I'm right.
Cheerleader, w/ obvious, but unintentional hypocrisy: A violent man.

I'll add to Driscoll's statement: The recipients of attempts at planting the "American flag" have had to bury their dead & not even that, being unable to find the bodies. Obviously, Hanford is the relic the neocons aspire to; Driscoll, symbolic of one of many responses to be used derived from ammunition ironically provided by them to effectively refute their "flag-planting" fetish.

Finally, to conclude (again off topic): The Twilight Zone was one of the best series broadcast in U.S. TV history. And Rod Serling definately had a way w/ words, verbally & written.
 
 
+4 # linuxluver 2012-01-15 20:15
Israel invoked the Iranian nuclear bogeyman every time they are under pressure to re-engage in the peace process in Palestine. They have no interest in that peace process as it would mean they wouldn't be able to steal more Palestinian land for new settlements. We've been around this cycle so many times now I'm amazed anyone still falls for it.
 
 
+1 # jimyoung 2012-01-15 20:29
I appreciate Admiral Fallon, but who can we depend on next time, a President like Kennedy who didn't fall into the prevailing military thinking that could have started a particularly gruesome, and difficult to limit war? See http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon
 
 
0 # KLA3114 2012-01-15 20:48
How did the United States of America "get" the responsibility for preventing Nuclear proliferation? Aren't there a lot of other interested parties?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN