War In Iran
- Thread starter MATT MAson
- Start date
vimothy
yurp
Why is it that the most dogmatic people on this board are also the most rude?
& for what it's worth, it is no suprise, and I don't agree that it's true in any case - there's obviously a massive difference between, say, Front Page Mag and the BBC.
vimothy
yurp
How original, Bush as a monkey!
Thought I'd have a go as well:
[I've lost a "better" - i.e. more offensive - cartoon than this, actually. It had Rice as a monkey with a giant spider growing in her womb.]
Arg, this conversation is going nowhere. But let's give it a try anyway.
My question is, regardless of whether the US actually will attack Iran or not, can anyone actually picture a situation in which a US attack on Iran will work out well? A situation:
- that does not just further inflame Muslim hatred of the US and feed into more terrorism
- that does not result in the deaths of 10s of thousands of innocent civilians
- in which the current Iranian gov't is overthrown and replaced with a more peaceful government that accurately represents the interests of the Iranian people (note: the IRANIAN people, not the interests of the US gov't)
- in which all of the justifications for the attack (nuclear, terrorism, humanitarianism, whatever) actually turn out to be TRUE
because i really can't see it happening. not in a million years. in fact i don't see even ONE of the above points happening. and this is why i'm truly frightened of a US attack on Iran, whatever sketchy justifications the US has put forward so far are not worth it.
My question is, regardless of whether the US actually will attack Iran or not, can anyone actually picture a situation in which a US attack on Iran will work out well? A situation:
- that does not just further inflame Muslim hatred of the US and feed into more terrorism
- that does not result in the deaths of 10s of thousands of innocent civilians
- in which the current Iranian gov't is overthrown and replaced with a more peaceful government that accurately represents the interests of the Iranian people (note: the IRANIAN people, not the interests of the US gov't)
- in which all of the justifications for the attack (nuclear, terrorism, humanitarianism, whatever) actually turn out to be TRUE
because i really can't see it happening. not in a million years. in fact i don't see even ONE of the above points happening. and this is why i'm truly frightened of a US attack on Iran, whatever sketchy justifications the US has put forward so far are not worth it.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Let's translate this thinly veiled vilification: Mr Tea, you imagine that what most people here (who, from most of the reactions so far on this thread, cannot rise further than parroting the hysterical ravings of the mainstream media) "have to say" on the subject of the Iranian crisis is somehow (you don't specify) superior and more insightful than the reportage of the world's leading journalists and commentators. The reason for the "barrage" (as you dismissively call it) is precisely because most posters here really need to inform themselves about Iran instead of parading their lazy and destructive ignorance of the topic, yourself included. Indeed, your post here does nothing to advance understanding of the crisis; on the contrary, you clearly wish to shut down serious discussion, news, and commentary, and so - as your post above amply indicates - replace it with irrational, personalised rants by status-quo conservatives who mistake for original opinions the most jaded and erroneous propaganda of the popular media.
[BTW, it was you, Mr Tea, who first invoked the Bush-primate analogy further up this thread, though without any contextual substance; I placed such comparisons in the context of Bush's equally deranged predecessor, and if you were to actually bother reading Seymour Hersh's superb latest article, linked by Guybrush above, you might just begin to see the connection between the 1980s Iran-Contra affair and Bush/Cheney's current black-ops in Iran].
Guybrush said:
Needless to say, I'm delighted you posted this link to what is one of the best investigative reports on the Iran crisis in recent weeks, Guybrush. I was going to do so yesterday, but - given the appalling ignorance and indifference on this forum - concluded that doing so would be a waste of time, falling on deaf ears and post-lexic eyes. Hurray for the honourable exception ...
vimothy said:
Is there? Unless you define as a "massive difference" a sensationalist, frivolous approach to reporting propaganda versus a more grave, arrogant approach to reporting the very same propaganda ... But what you're really, as a BBC apologist, attempting to pull off here is to suggest that the BBC is always right, especially when it is wrong, especially when it - as a matter of policy - colludes in the commission/justification of war crimes.
turtles said:
Yes, and it could also be pointed out that virtually all US interventions abroad since the first one over one hundred years ago [its military coup in Hawaii in 1898] have provoked prolonged hostility. What the US has always failed to realize is that resentment over its numerous interventions burns in the hearts and souls of people in foreign countries and later explodes violently. Iran is no different.
As Stephen Kinzer maintains, in his just published Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, a detailed examination of 14 coups over the last century that the U.S. was involved with:
It's hard to believe today that we could even use the word “Iran” and “democracy” in the same sentence, but the fact is Iran was a functioning, thriving democracy in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Because Iran nationalized its oil industry, rather than allow it to continue being exploited by foreigners, Iran became a target for foreign intervention, and the U.S. did overthrow the democracy of Iran in the summer of 1953.
We placed on the throne the Shah. He ruled for 25 years with increasing repression. His repression produced the explosion of the late 1970s, the Islamic revolution. That revolution brought to power a fanatically anti-American clique of mullahs who began their regime by taking American diplomats as hostage, has then spent 25 years oppressing its own people and doing whatever it could, sometimes very violently, to undermine American interests in the world, and that is the regime with which we are now approaching a very serious world crisis regarding the nuclear issue.
Now, had we not intervened in 1953 and crushed Iranian democracy, we might have had a thriving democracy in the heart of the Muslim Middle East all these 50 years. I can hardly wrap my mind around how different the Middle East might be now. This regime that's now in power in Iran would never have come to power, and the current nuclear crisis would never have emerged. This is a great example of how our intervention ultimately leads us to regimes much worse than the ones we originally set out to overthrow.
Now, how do you think that people in Iran react when Americans point a finger at them and say, “You’re a tyranny over there. You’re a brutal dictatorship. You should have a democracy. You should have a free regime”? Well, they say, “We had a democracy here, until you came in and overthrew it.” Now, the United States today has some very legitimate complaints against the Iranian government, but we have to understand that Iranians also have some very legitimate complaints against us, and that should be a recognition that would lead us into negotiations with them at this point.
We placed on the throne the Shah. He ruled for 25 years with increasing repression. His repression produced the explosion of the late 1970s, the Islamic revolution. That revolution brought to power a fanatically anti-American clique of mullahs who began their regime by taking American diplomats as hostage, has then spent 25 years oppressing its own people and doing whatever it could, sometimes very violently, to undermine American interests in the world, and that is the regime with which we are now approaching a very serious world crisis regarding the nuclear issue.
Now, had we not intervened in 1953 and crushed Iranian democracy, we might have had a thriving democracy in the heart of the Muslim Middle East all these 50 years. I can hardly wrap my mind around how different the Middle East might be now. This regime that's now in power in Iran would never have come to power, and the current nuclear crisis would never have emerged. This is a great example of how our intervention ultimately leads us to regimes much worse than the ones we originally set out to overthrow.
Now, how do you think that people in Iran react when Americans point a finger at them and say, “You’re a tyranny over there. You’re a brutal dictatorship. You should have a democracy. You should have a free regime”? Well, they say, “We had a democracy here, until you came in and overthrew it.” Now, the United States today has some very legitimate complaints against the Iranian government, but we have to understand that Iranians also have some very legitimate complaints against us, and that should be a recognition that would lead us into negotiations with them at this point.
UPDATE: Video interview with Seymour Hirsh about his latest New Yorker article on the US planned invasion of Iran.
And:
Bush's Future Iran War Speech
Building a Fraudulent Case Using Coercion
No More Encores for Iran
American Is Preparing To Invade Iran : There Are Eight Battle Groups At Sea
US boosts secret missions in Iran: US is reportedly stepping up covert operations in Iran in a new strategy that risks sparking an "open confrontation" with the Islamic republic.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
A BBC apologist! That's certainly news to me. In fact I think the BBC is heavily propagandistic, convinced of its own infalibility and a total waste of tax-payers money. It's axiomatic that nationalised companies are in-efficient and not value-for-money and I would say that the BBC is a paradigm example.
Is FPM the frivolous and sensationalist reportage, by the way, or is that the BBC? (It's the BBC, isn't it)?
Your final statement is a little confusing, in what sense does the BBC collude with war crimes as a matter of policy? What are these mysterious war crimes?
And while we're talking about mindlessly rehashing propaganda, haven't you liked several times to that scourge of the capitalist conspiracy, the very rational and rigorously researched Lenin's Tomb?
vimothy
yurp
Which leading journalists and commentators are you refering to, hundredmillionlifetimes? Do they not also work for the "mainstream media"? Are we not all in the same boat? If I link to Hitchens, say, or Cohen, will you read them as "leading commentators" or will you dismiss them as hysterical propaganda?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Isn't it about time we had the maturity to admit that *anything* you read is going to be 'propaganda' in some sense? That there's simply no such thing as a disinterested, unbiased source of 'pure' news, that hasn't been filtered, to some extent or another, through someone's opinions or sympathies?
In other words, I'd like to see a bit less of the "don't read the pro-war propaganda in BBC/CNN/Fox etc. etc., get your pure, unsullied truth from www.radical-revulotionary-times.com" (the point you eloquently make about 'Lenin's Tomb', FFS).
In regard to the BBC, I wouldn't hold it (or any other) news agency up as an example of perfection, but I do think it does a very good job and I'm glad it exists. It also reports almost daily on the horrific violence going on Iraq at the moment and gave in-depth coverage of (for example) the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, which I find hard to square with the image of the resolutely 'on-message', pro-war news agency being touted in this thread.
crackerjack
Well-known member
I, for one, would be happy to be called 'BBC apologist'. i think it's an oustanding broadcaster, provides a wealth of good programmes and radio and helps tilt the national tone away from the far-right tabloid foghorns as well as shrill nincompoops like howmanyfeckintimes and his spiritual home at LT. personally I'm happy with its job, both cultural and journalistic (tho i could do with less of the Paxman-led "lying bastard" scchool of political interviewing), and couldn't given a monkeys about Thatcherite Marks of Cain like 'inefficiency', as if the greatest service anyone can provide is to balance the books.
And no I don't work for them and yes, I have paid my licence fee (today, as it happens).
vimothy
yurp
Well, I just found it amusing that hundredmillion had confused me with somebody with completely different, even opposite, views - but maybe he's not read enough of my posts to remember who I am yet. I would dispute all that you have said here actually (except the bit about Paxman), but maybe that should wait for another thread.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Well yes, but that's because lotsandlotsandlotsoftimes lives in a little fairy world made up of good (him, Lenin, the Che poster on his wall, Galloway, anyone who blows up Americans) and baaaaaaaaaaaad people (anyone who doesn't sign up to everything by those above).
Anyway, work calls, and i can't go into the myriad reasons why the BBC is essential to the health of the nation, though i will leave you with one: Berlusconi.
Hey! You lot! Stop slapping yourselves on the back and answer my question! 
Anyway, one of the good things about a place like lenin's tomb or antiwar.com is that they wear their biases on their sleeves, so you know where they are coming from. what's so pernicious about the BBC and similar institutions is that their whole schtick is based upon their supposed "objectivity" and neutrality. The BBC (as Mr. Tea rightly points out) has it's own biases and filters, it's aiming for a particular segment of society, ie "the news watchers," mostly the more wealthy, older sector of society. And it has an interest in maintaining a good relationship with those institutions that provide the BBC with a steady stream of news that "the news watchers" want to hear about. This is all pretty obvious. But because the BBC does not present itself in this way, when the do screw up (and they did, in the lead up to the Iraq war, that is indisputable), it causes a lot more harm than when a openly biased news source continues to tow the party line.
Ultimately it's up to the reader to recognize the biases in the news sources he or she reads and interpret accordingly
Anyway, one of the good things about a place like lenin's tomb or antiwar.com is that they wear their biases on their sleeves, so you know where they are coming from. what's so pernicious about the BBC and similar institutions is that their whole schtick is based upon their supposed "objectivity" and neutrality. The BBC (as Mr. Tea rightly points out) has it's own biases and filters, it's aiming for a particular segment of society, ie "the news watchers," mostly the more wealthy, older sector of society. And it has an interest in maintaining a good relationship with those institutions that provide the BBC with a steady stream of news that "the news watchers" want to hear about. This is all pretty obvious. But because the BBC does not present itself in this way, when the do screw up (and they did, in the lead up to the Iraq war, that is indisputable), it causes a lot more harm than when a openly biased news source continues to tow the party line.
Ultimately it's up to the reader to recognize the biases in the news sources he or she reads and interpret accordingly
The BBC is horrific, totally and utterly, and large chunks of it need to be privatised immediately, unless it actually delivers something alternative to that which the market already provides. Its news is sub par, newsreaders more like children's TV presenters now, Newsnight turned into a mass of ill-advised and pointless arts features (thanks Kirstie Wark you relentless narcissistic non-entity)... BBC radio 1 and Radio 2 are essentially difficult to distinguish from commercial operators... the only successful dramas it can make are costumed or for kids- utterly pathetic. We would be best without the illusion of "good common sense" that the BBC provides, which is little more than a wilting fig leaf...
Guybrush
Dittohead
I agree completely with this. We have the same debate over here, and most of my neo-liberal friends always bring up this argument. Usually, my response is that, in the grand scheme of things, the amount of the tax-payers’ money disappearing into the public service’s black hole is trifling in comparison with how much is spent in far more questionable sectors, the military being a good example.
crackerjack
Well-known member
OK, Turtle, i'll give it a go. The only likely one of your scenarios arising from a US attack is the second one, since any attack is likely to be limited bombing raids on nuclear facilities rather than all-out assault on the nation's infrastructure. Casualties would probably be fairly slight. Which doesn't mean it will achieve any of the positive objectives you've outlined.
Ahmadinejad might fall: or he might be made stronger. The theocracy would almost certainly survive.
Iran, by most accounts, is relatively pro-western (for the region) and ripe for democratic revolution, which is not the same thing as being pro-US. I can't think of anything worse for democratic forces in Iran than been cornered into a pro-American position.
Gek-Opel: you're off the meter chum.
Ahem. How is any bombing of Iran not going to be seen as a continuation of the US's aggression against muslim countries? How is it not going to feed right back in to the rhetoric that is pushing so many muslim groups in a more and more radical, anti-US direction?
And yeah, there might be low casualties...that is, unless the US mistakenly decides another couple of crucial pharmaceutical plants are also somehow part of the supposed nuclear network (*cough* Sudan *cough*), and take those out too. Again, given either the complete disregard for or complete lack of proper intelligence (take your pick) there's no reason to assume something like that won't happen. At which point, yes AGAIN, things just get worse in terms of regional and global stability.
And this is still assuming that Iran really is persuing nuclear weapons, that the US knows where they are, that Iran actually posses a big enough threat as a nuclear power that they must be attacked (unlike, say North Korea), and that it's the US's job in the first place to unilaterally go in and blow the fuck out of some poorer, less-powerful nation.
And yeah, there might be low casualties...that is, unless the US mistakenly decides another couple of crucial pharmaceutical plants are also somehow part of the supposed nuclear network (*cough* Sudan *cough*), and take those out too. Again, given either the complete disregard for or complete lack of proper intelligence (take your pick) there's no reason to assume something like that won't happen. At which point, yes AGAIN, things just get worse in terms of regional and global stability.
And this is still assuming that Iran really is persuing nuclear weapons, that the US knows where they are, that Iran actually posses a big enough threat as a nuclear power that they must be attacked (unlike, say North Korea), and that it's the US's job in the first place to unilaterally go in and blow the fuck out of some poorer, less-powerful nation.
Last edited:
Crackerjack: You're living in a comfortable fantasy land: large chunks of the BBC (with a few very obvious exceptions) have fallen into a steep decline. You mention above "Berlusconi" as prime reason for the continuing necessity of the BBC for the health of the nation- but surely such issues might be more effectively tackled by far tighter laws regulating against the amassing of monopolistic media interests?
Lots of people attacking Lenin's tomb... obviously (mind-numbingly obviously) he presents an extremely biased view, (from the dubious BBC view that any view can be free from bias...) but its a pretty rigorously researched one. And some of his persistent criticisms of news media organisations like the BBC and the Guardian stick: the way they effectively follow the contours of govt agenda even when appearing to disagree (the pisstaking lack of coverage of the BNP bomb plot compared to a far less advanced Al-Qaeda one reaching the conclusion of its trial at the same time being an object lesson in the ways that getting unfiltered news is impossible).
Lots of people attacking Lenin's tomb... obviously (mind-numbingly obviously) he presents an extremely biased view, (from the dubious BBC view that any view can be free from bias...) but its a pretty rigorously researched one. And some of his persistent criticisms of news media organisations like the BBC and the Guardian stick: the way they effectively follow the contours of govt agenda even when appearing to disagree (the pisstaking lack of coverage of the BNP bomb plot compared to a far less advanced Al-Qaeda one reaching the conclusion of its trial at the same time being an object lesson in the ways that getting unfiltered news is impossible).
crackerjack
Well-known member
I've no doubt any assault on any Muslim country by the US is "going to be seen as a continuation of the US's aggression against muslim countries" though I do have trouble taking seriously anyone who plays into this tired notion that US foreign policy is a war on Islam (not sure if this is actually your view, or whether you're just reiterating how it will be portrayed by some).
You did say "10s of thousands of innocent civilians". Unless the US can't tell the difference between chemical labs and high population ares this figure is way off the map. How many were killed in Clinton's disgusting (*cough* Sudan *cough*) escapade?
Oh dear, this is a joke, right?
What difference does their comparative lack of wealth and power make? Or is this just a handy button to push on this site? Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be a direct threat to Washington itself but they're certainly destablising to the region, unless you subscribe to the old MAD doctrine which is probably our best hope if Iran does go fully nuke. I'd recommend you read this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2008094,00.html
but since TGA is a liberal centrist I suspect you're probably going to dismiss out of hand.
crackerjack
Well-known member
comfortable fantasy land? Bethnal Green? Its output has certainly declined, but the digital age means you get quantity, not quality these days. Sad, I know, but still better than the alternatives.
I agree with you that there should be "far tighter laws regulating against the amassing of monopolistic media interests", but there is no way this is going to happen. Can you imagine any political party getting elected with an anti-Murdoch agenda? Just as democracy's main benefit is that it protects us from dictatorship, the BBC's is that it stops us turning into Murdochracy.