Iran and Aggressive Gliberal Posturing

P

Padraig

Banned
Reading the insistently complacent, dull reality principle ("accept the way things are" and "nobody can do nothing bout' anthing" and "anyone who does is arrogant and belligerent") posts/threads hearabouts on Conspiracy Theories, on the US publicly-announced (by the Bush regime, by Israel, by US military, by numerous US senators and members of Congress and their UK political lapdogs - Blair, Straw etc) planned attack on Iran recalls similar responses three-and-a-half years ago when those [including myself] warning about the US planned invasion of Iraq were similarly dismissed [at the time by American right-wingers and gliberals, who dismissed such notions as "conspiracy theory mongering", a media-parasitic attitude now having taken up residence in Britain and on this forum].

But of course the 2003 US invasion of Iraq is just a "conspiracy theory", right?
But of course the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan is just a "conspiracy theory", right?
But of course the 2004 US-orchestrated military coup in Haiti is just a "conspiracy theory", right?

How could you possibly claim otherwise? [Just a paranoid phantasmatic support of a deranged reality?]

As the US adopts the "North Vietnamese" option in Iraq - a carpet-bombing air war [assisted by civil war-provoking death squads], has it yet occured to you how they intend to attack Iran? Oh, apologies, I "forgot" - its all a "conspiracy teeree."

Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs against Iran?: This Way Lies Madness
By Stephen M. Osborn

The "bunker buster" is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting.

Is Another 9/11 in the Works?
By Paul Craig Roberts

If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran? Yes, you would.

Rice steps up rhetoric against 'troubled state' Iran:
Condoleezza Rice on Thursday raised the diplomatic temperature over the nuclear stand-off with Iran, accusing the country of lying about its activities and again calling it a "central banker to terrorism".

US restates strike-first policy, warns Iran :
Making no apologies for the war in Iraq, the United States reaffirmed its strike-first policy of preemption and warned that Iran may pose the biggest threat to US national security.

Video: John Bolton Interview:
Will the U.S. attack Iran?

Phyllis Bennis: New War Dangers: Iran, the U.S. and Nukes in the Middle East:
The Bush administration's rapid escalation of anti-Iran rhetoric in the last few months should not be dismissed as posturing.

Launch of Iranian oil trading hits wall: :
Despite repeated reports over the past 18 months or so that the planned bourse would finally open for business on March 20, 2006 -- and go head to head with the New York Mercantile Exchange and the ICE Futures Exchange in London -- the start date has been postponed by at least several months and maybe more than a year.


America's nuclear hypocrisy undermines its stance on Iran:
Even as he was telling Iran not to produce nuclear weapons, President Bush was urging Congress to pay for a new nuclear weapon designed to destroy underground military facilities

Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.

First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.

Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.

Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shia majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.

Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.

Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?

That’s what Bush is doing.

Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.

The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country’s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.

In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.

In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.

It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.

Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.

Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some “black ops” group will orchestrate the attack.

One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.

Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?

Fantasy? Let’s hope so.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase an insightful poster on another forum: You talk about Iran as if I'm the one who came out with the reports. Do you really fantasize that I, or anyone else in the anti-war movement, actually wishes for a war [on whatever date] with Iran just to prove
a point or something? What are you actually saying?

Say it loud, say it clear. If you dare ...

Not that you'll be protesting tomorrow or anything, just watching the fucking football on teevee [or "watching the shit", as Slavoj Zizek concluded last night in his analysis of the obscene underside of The Screen in the CH4 doc The Pervert's Guide To Cinema].

rafmeteorb.jpg
Pak-India_Nuclear_Blast__1.jpg
 
S

sherief

Generic Human
I think there's very little I disagree with in this post. My general point regarding the conspiracy theories was related more to conviction, or perhaps better, convinc-tion. The point is not that every elaborate theory, and every theory which runs counter to "common sense" (a horrible thing, really) is somehow relegated to "nutty" or filed away amongst fake moon-landing data. What makes the conspiracy theory weak is the way in which people will so often become embroiled in discussions, attempting to "rationally" convince people of the truth of what they are saying, whereas rationalization generally lies on the side of discourse belonging to the status -quo, powers of (C/K)apital, and the like. I think that what you're talking about is the balance I was searching for earlier. Present the information (though it may be recieved "skeptically," the face of placid inaction), correlate it with the structural realities, which would seem in the three-four scenarios you mention to predict this type of action. Then, declare the truth, stand up and assert what actually has happened in Badiou's terminology. The problematic hereafter is taking this truth and placing it into a political sequence. The problem occurs when the conspiracy theory becomes a mere conspiracy theory, the lone Jeremiah crying out in the wilderness, or when you sacrifice the political relevancy of this truth in attempting to convince those who will be unconvinced, who will marshall just as much evidence as you to your contrary, or whatever.
 
P

Padraig

Banned
The problem relates to the "literalness" of the fundamentalist and the "disavowal" of the liberal [as Zizek says, "nobody really believes today"]: the fundamentalist who, say, believes literally in Noah's Ark or in Extraterrestrials [hardly lone Jeremiahs, with 25 per cent of Americans believing in aliens and a substantial portion of this figure believing that they're already here, circulating amongst us] and then resorting to a twisted application of the "scientific method" in order to "prove" their reality-short-circuited illusions; the liberal who disavows same but acts in his/her everyday behaviour as though they were true [eg commodity fetishism, silly superstitions, etc, or knowing that Iran does not have nuclear weapons but nonetheless believes and acts as though they possess them]. The former group we usually term "paranoid" even though their displaced "real" fantasies are a fundamental support to their everyday reality, the latter group we call practical and "common sensical" because such fantasies are seemingly, "safely" disavowed, though no less crucial to their perception of reality.

So if my believing that the US has plans on Iran, as opposed to others' disavowing of it (even continuing to do so after the "fact" of it, as also occured after the actual invasion of Iraq] gets me pathologically, delirially labelled a "fundamentalist", then I plead guilty: I would rather believe than comfortably fantasize to the contrary ...

[And "conspiracy theory" has nothing to do with it :) ]:

Rhetorics of Empirical Fundamentalism
moonlanding05.jpg
 
T

turtles

in the sea
Y'know, a few months ago I was definitely in the "no way would they attack Iran, are they stupid??" camp when it came to the Bush gov't. But these days, the similarities to the buildup before Iraq are really starting to worry me. The rhetoric seems so damn similar; now they've re-released the damn national security strategy with more talk of "preemptive" strikes. It's all looking very familiar. But what about Iraq right? Surely they couldn't do it again, surely public opinion would be against it? But then this-- iran is now regarded as the largest threat to national security by Americans, and 47% support some kind of military action against it. Great. I love you, America.

If they didn't have Iraq hanging over their heads right now, I would say definitely, the US will attack Iran before Bush leaves the white house. Even with all the stories of the military being depleted etc. etc., I am still quite worried. I don't trust those bastards, and even though the logistics seem to be against it, I don't doubt their will to kill more arabs.
 
D

droid

Guest
The Gliberal 'Media-Parasitic' point of view:

Rattling Iran
Submitted by Noam Chomsky on Fri, 2005-02-04 23:28.
Categories: US Foreign Policy | World

About US plans, we can, of course, only speculate. We do know that the US has been advertising threats to Iran very openly, for some time.

What's called "the Israeli air force" might more accurately be called a US air force with Israeli pilots. As such, it can credibly claim to be larger and technologically more advanced than that of any NATO power (apart from the US). According to scholarly sources, about 10% is deployed in Turkey, and it has been flying at the Iranian border from the US bases in Eastern Turkey as part of a program to harass and if possible subvert the Iranian regime. In the past year, the US has sent over 100 of its most advanced jet bombers to Israel, with loud announcements that they are capable of bombing Iran, and are updated versions of the planes that Israel used to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 -- an act that probably initiated Iraq's nuclear weapons program, according to available information. They are, furthermore, equipped with what the Hebrew press in Israel calls "special weapons," a phrase surely intended for the ears of Iranian intelligence, as are the very public declarations about the bombers -- not reported here, but surely heard in Teheran. Later, there were leaks that the US may also be providing deep-penetration "bunker busters." All of this signals to Iran that the US might attack them, via its Israeli military force. The recent leaks about special forces on the ground, true or false, I presume were released for the same purpose.

What can we conclude from this? It's a matter of judgment of course.

Mine is that if the US intended to bomb Iran (via Israel, or directly), it would not be announcing it publicly for a long time, thus allowing Iran to disperse targets and in other ways construct defenses. Iraq was quite a different story, since it was understood that Iraq was defenseless. The purpose of all of this show of intention to attack may be to rattle the Iranian leadership and provoke them into repressive actions at home, which could increase internal resistance and contribute to US campaigns of subversion that are almost certainly underway, and also provoke the leadership to undertake actions that will undermine the really serious threat that Washington faces: namely, that its efforts to overthrow the regime will be undercut by diplomatic and economic initiatives from its rivals in Europe and Asia -- which have been proceeding, even India recently. And even apart from those possibilities, US militancy and aggressive has the effect of frightening away foreign investors. The Wall St Journal, Jan 28, reports that major European firms are drawing back from Iranian investment because of US "saber rattling," and simply fear of US retaliation. Thus the huge Thyssen-Krupp steelmaking conglomerate fears that it will lose access to US car manufacturers, under threat of US sanctions. The threatening posture and gestures is having what are surely its intended effects.

Will the US go on to attack? Personally, I doubt it, unless Iran can be internationally isolated and shows signs of collapsing from within.

I suspect that the militancy -- most of it openly announced, some of it leaks -- is intended to contribute to these ends. If there is any serious chance that Iran can defend itself, or retaliate, I doubt that there will be a direct attack.
Click to expand...

http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/rattling_iran/
 
O

Omaar

Guest
Padraig said:
[or "watching the shit", as Slavoj Zizek concluded last night in his analysis of the obscene underside of The Screen in the CH4 doc The Pervert's Guide To Cinema].
Click to expand...

Sorry, OT, but that was a brilliant ending to that show - though I'm not sure that using that expression is useful in describing the football gaze. Another thread, perhaps.
 
Slothrop

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
Padraig said:
Reading the insistently complacent, dull reality principle ("accept the way things are" and "nobody can do nothing bout' anthing" and "anyone who does is arrogant and belligerent") posts/threads hearabouts on Conspiracy Theories, on the US publicly-announced (by the Bush regime, by Israel, by US military, by numerous US senators and members of Congress and their UK political lapdogs - Blair, Straw etc) planned attack on Iran recalls similar responses three-and-a-half years ago when those [including myself] warning about the US planned invasion of Iraq were similarly dismissed [at the time by American right-wingers and gliberals, who dismissed such notions as "conspiracy theory mongering", a media-parasitic attitude now having taken up residence in Britain and on this forum].

But of course the 2003 US invasion of Iraq is just a "conspiracy theory", right?
But of course the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan is just a "conspiracy theory", right?
But of course the 2004 US-orchestrated military coup in Haiti is just a "conspiracy theory", right?
Click to expand...
Hang on... there's a pretty broad gulf (sorry) between saying that the US government quite likes excuses to invade people and may have plans to do so should the "need" arise[1] and has a tendancy to skew its presentation of facts[2] to make this look like a good idea, and suggesting that they orchestrate large scale, highly destructive (and remarkably convincing) fake terrorist attacks just to give them that excuse. And conspiracy theories that, rightly or wrongly, focus on the latter tend to distract people from questioning why the former has to be the case. I thought that this was the point that Droid was making in the other thread?

[1] didn't it come out recently that they had contingency plans to nuke half of europe if it fell to the reds or did I imagine that? In which case it would seem incautious to jump from that to the idea that they were planning the russian invasion of europe to give them an excuse to nuke france...
[2] or 'lie', as we used to call it.
 
bruno

bruno

est malade
bipedaldave said:
iran is now regarded as the largest threat to national security by Americans, and 47% support some kind of military action against it.
Click to expand...

it's worrying when bush makes more sense than the american public and congress (eg mrs clinton on dubai-owned ports). he's spawned a monster!
 
rewch

rewch

Well-known member
bipedaldave said:
...I don't doubt their will to kill more arabs.
Click to expand...

Iranians are not arabs... though i doubt that distinction is widespread in us government circles
 
P

Padraig

Banned
RE: Chomsky

The views expressed above by Chomsky over a year ago have since been radically revised. Chomsky currently believes that a nuclear strike against Iran is "inevitable". Simply arguing here about the planned "date of attack" is an unfortunate distraction, serving merely to disavow the underlying reality.

Droid, views aren't static, they change subject to new contingencies [as Bipedaldave's post above illustrates]. In fact, two months ago I had - however sceptically - accepted Chomsky's then position vis-a-vis US designs on Iran [Return of the MacGuffin: Iran and Nuclear Weapons], but it is now clear what is in fact planned.

[Yes, Rewch, Persians are not Arabs].
 
Last edited:
O

Omaar

Guest
Padraig said:
RE: Chomsky

The views expressed above by Chomsky over a year ago have since been radically revised. Chomsky currently believes that a nuclear strike against Iran is "inevitable".
Click to expand...

Have you got a reference or a link? Cheers.
 
T

turtles

in the sea
rewch said:
Iranians are not arabs... though i doubt that distinction is widespread in us government circles
Click to expand...
:eek: woops. yes persians...no excuses for that really. :(


Anyway, I think it's worth asking if the Americans aren't planning on attacking Iran, what exactly is thier end goal in all this posturing? Like I said above, I feel less and less secure that the "common sense" view will hold correct here.
 
P

Padraig

Banned
Omaar said:
Have you got a reference or a link? Cheers.
Click to expand...

You'd "prefer" if others conducted all the research for you? All too tired and emotional to doodle on google? Better, its yet another conspiracy theory and ya want to call my bluff?

You're not really interested in an answer, are you? Only in the absense of such ...

But here's a recent wee hint, lazybones ...

p1642.gif
lazy-size.jpg
 
Last edited:
O

Omaar

Guest
Listen Padraig, I've tried to remain civil and tolerate your increasingly arrogant posts and posturings but they're becoming increasingly tiresome. Have I somehow done something to personally offend you? Where do you get off on making such rash and belligerent claims?

How dare you assume what I am thinking, what my opinions on the current situation is with Iran beyond what I've said.

I've been incredibly tolerant of your posts so far, but you've apparently got some kind of axe to grind against me (and all the other people here you've treated incredibly disrespectfully), which I can't for the life of me fathom. As for me starting a flame against you, sorry that's just a ridiculous claim. Why should a simple request for a reference trigger such an angry response?

What makes me really angry is that you're spoiling the atmosphere of a place where people can normally come together to disagree and share information without things ever becoming personal.

This is doubly ridiculous because I'm actually interested in what you have to say, or rather was up until now.

And no, I'm not saying this as you've claimed because I don't think that these issues should be discussed here, if you have look back over the archives you can see that I've been discussing the threat of military action against Iran for some time now. It's because I believe it's important to treat other human beings with respect, and to actually listen to their opinions, both of which you seem incapable of doing.

Insulting people with pictures rather than words is just cowardly.

Well done, you've successfully alienated a number of people sympathetic to your POV.
 
B

blunt

shot by both sides
Padraig said:
You'd "prefer" if others conducted all the research for you?
Click to expand...

How tiresome it must be to have to actually support your arguments with some evidence... I'd forgotten that yours is the law that must be obeyed. Silly me.

Christ, you really are a total twat, aren't you? I didn't think it was possible for your behaviour to be any more childish than it has been in the past, but this last post has proved me wrong. You can be proud of that, if nothing else.
 
P

Padraig

Banned
Omaar said:
How dare you assume what I am thinking, what my opinions on the current situation is with Iran beyond what I've said.


Well done, you've successfully alienated a number of people sympathetic to your POV.
Click to expand...

It's your assumptions that are the difficulty here: your "simple" [assumption: neutral, harmless, fair and reasonable] request for links/references/information was anything but simple - it was patronising and, yes, lazy. And its your "opinions on the current situation" which are disturbing and, yes, destructive.

I'm not here in search of "sympathy", some fantasy of Dissensus involvement as some kind of pomo New Agist ego-boosting "therapy," and your recourse here to an adolescent-existentialist use of cinematic terminology is telling ...
 
P

Padraig

Banned
blunt said:
How tiresome it must be to have to actually support your arguments with some evidence... I'd forgotten that yours is the law that must be obeyed. Silly me.

Christ, you really are a total twat, aren't you? I didn't think it was possible for your behaviour to be any more childish than it has been in the past, but this last post has proved me wrong. You can be proud of that, if nothing else.
Click to expand...

When we have the supreme pleasure of witnessing your arguments and your evidence, as opposed to the above reactionary economy of school-yard bile, then we might entertain you some more appropriate syllables.

I've been "presenting" arguments and evidence relating to this issue for the past few months on this forum, but passive-aggressive naifs like yourself have zero interest in same, just in vacuous, nihilist-schoolboy quips like the above ...

Now was there something on your mind about Iran, apart from your uncivilised attempt above to conveniently deflect the subject onto personal abuse, as the "civilised world" continues its civilised agenda of mass slaughter of non [civilised]-persons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top