NEWS: Monsters Speak: Iran Bad! Saudi Arabia Good!

POLITICS: Monsters Speak: Iran Bad! Saudi Arabia Good!

Dick Cheney has already gone to war with Iran and now he’s just waiting for the rest of us to catch up with him. He is very concerned that Iran will get their dirty, evil hands on a nuclear weapon. Yesterday, Dick warned that the US and other nations are “prepared to impose serious consequences” all over Iran, hard and long.

Ooooooo. Ima scared. Hey, here’s a question: All that money we gave to Saddam Hussein in the '80s, does that make us terrorist supporters? What about Pakistan? What about Saudi Arabia? Blah, blah, blah, on and on. The number of countries who support “terrorism” that we give money to is staggering. But, please keep speaking, Dick.

Uh, really? Did you just say that another country uses deceit? Seriously? I feel like I am in that episode of "Star Trek," where four member of the crew are beamed to an alternate, evil universe. We are basically dealing with an evil Kirk here. I want the good one back. Fix the fucking transporter, Scotty.

Expect quite a bit of this kind of talk coming out of the White House. The other day Bush started rambling about “World War III,” with no understanding that he is going to be the one to start it.

I am really comfortable that George is in charge. Not at all scary when the president says if Iran “has the knowledge” to make a nuclear weapon that he will start WWIII. He most probably didn’t realize he was saying that, but drunks tend to accidentally speak the truth. Of course, the not drunk guy is scarier.

Uh, hey Dick. The Ayatollah Khomeini was educated in Iraq. Odds are Iran is going to have a few connections to the Shiites there, but you would have known that if you had picked up a book before you charged into the Iraq with all the planning and thoughtfulness of a drunk frat boy slamming his cock into a passed out sorority girl.

Bah ha ha. Iran does not want a weak Iraq. A weak Iraq could lead to conflict with Saudi Arabia. Iran just wants the US to leave, so the process of turning Iraq into the theocracy it was always meant to be can finally happen.

But the most important point of this entire debate is that Iran will never use a nuclear weapon on the US or Israel. People in power simply want to stay in power and that includes the Iranian religious nuts who run the country. If Iran used a nuclear weapon, the country would be wiped off the map the next day. It’s suicide and it will never happen. To argue such a point is moronic. But Iran is today’s big bad, so be very afraid!

Meanwhile, you should not be afraid of our buddies Saudi Arabia. While Cheney was getting ready for our future attack on Iran, George was certifying Saudi Arabia as an anti-terrorism ally! Yay!

The declaration is required under US law if we want to give aid to Saudi Arabia. And Lord knows they need some aid! Those poor bastards have been suffering for too long.

Super. Most of the 9/11 bombers came from Saudi Arabia. The country has been linked to supporting terrorists over and over and over. Just two months ago, undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey, had this to say about Saudi Arabia.

According to Levey, not a single individual that has been identified as a terrorist by America or the UN has been prosecuted by Saudi Arabia. Those crazy helpers! So, what have we learned?

First, get those evil motherfuckers Iran! And second, help Saudi Arabia, so they can kill us!

This is all the same stuff they said before they invaded Iraq. Those aluminum tubes were clearly for Iraq's development of nuclear capabilities.

It is never going to stop until some of our elected officials grow spines and do some of what they promised prior to the last election. Not to mention invading Iran would almost surely require instating a draft as our military is already spread so thin.

But hell, who cares as long as arms manufacturers and Haliburton make money. Right?

Often times I wonder why no one has tried to assassinate Bush, then I remember Dick would replace him.

it'd have to be a 2-part assassination..."Do we have confirmation that Vader is down? I can't take the Monkey down before Vader, do we have confirmation?"

Chomsky has said it many times. Whether or not a nation is branded a terrorist state is almost invariably a question of whether or not their policies are cooperative with the strategic interests of US multinational corporations. The Saudi royalty has long had financial connections with the Bush family, which has been well documented...



The Bush-Saudi Connection

Yeah, I get it. You're not overly fond of Dick Cheney. But don't let you're hatred of the current administration blind you to a real threat. Even the French have hinted at military action against Iran and they usually support anti-American trouble makers.

Ahmedinejad did say that Isreal should be wiped off the map and the loss of Iran is a small price to pay for it (according to the Iranian government's IRIB/IRNA translation). He is a Hojjatieh Shia, a branch of apocalyptic fundamentalists so radical that Ayatollah Khomeni actually banned them. This is not a "George Bush fundamentalist Christian" fundamentalist; this is a David Koresh kind of fundamentalist. With a nuclear bomb (almost). I would not bet on him not doing something foolish to his own detriment as his reward is in paradise.

The Iranians are trying to destabilize Iraq. The forces they control within Iraq focus their energy on destroying infrastructure and local government/police personnel, rather than attack US forces. Yes, they want the US to leave. But they want this so that they can have a showdown with the Sunnis in the gulf states over the directoin of world Islam.

So hate the current administration by all means, but don't be like the well-meaning liberals who supported German re-armament after WWI as a reaction to the French, without thinking about the wider picture.

Iran is very dangerous.

+1

what I'd like to ask the administration is "We know how to make a nuclear bombs, and we have them in our arsenal ready to go, but does that mean other countries have the right to disarm us?" You know, if we kept our noses out of other peoples' business, we wouldn't have entire countries hating our guts. Last time I checked, Australia wasn't getting bombed by these fools.

Iran may be capable of threatening American lives and interests, but it doesn't follow that it's analogous to Nazi Germany, or that the administration's policy of confrontation and belligerent rhetoric is even an effective approach to dealing with those threats. And Ahmedinejad may be a whacko, but that doesn't mean he has the authority to use nuclear force aggressively.

um...Iran is not dangerous. The political players are. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan are not dangerous. Their leaders are a threat. What do we learn in this story??? THEY ARE ALL THE SAME. It does not matter which country, which government reigns over the lands...governments are as dangerous as they are just. What is the solution to such a complicated question/system? Simple: if the people being ruled over are not happy; they change it!

I'm no way an atheist, anti-government, liberal/republican or any of that BULLSHIT category pasting. I am a citizen upset with the rulers, the country's direction, the world's direction and ALL that is directing how I live my life day to day. WE are unhappy. Period.

So, there is a little thing called revolution...

The rhetoric may be somewhere between useless and counterproductive, but the policy of the US and Europe in confronting them is key. This is not one of things that you can ignore and it will go away. I believe a nuclear Iran will eventually either use its weapon, or else Isreal will strike first. The Iranian programme learned from the mistakes of the Iraqi programme destroyed by the Isrealis and is geographically decentralised and in hardened structures. It is likely that only a nuclear strike would be effective against it. So either way you get nuclear war, without even thinking about what happens to the surrounding region.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Ahmedinejad hasn't got the power. But know one knows that in the west, and the reports that his support is falling away is coming from the same sort of dissident sources that said we'd be welcome in Iraq. The only option is to keep up sanctions with the firm threat of military action in the hopes that the lunatic fringe gets pushed out by calmer heads in Iran.

Can we just say "Goodwin" and move along ?

That image is great and all, but it would be nice if it wasn't poorly Photoshopped.

Actually, it's now accepted that Ahmedinejad didn't say that, even if someone in IRIB News chose to translate it that way.

"Israel must be wiped off the map" means, in idiomatic English, Israel must be destroyed or obliterated. But there is no equivalent expresion in Farsi. What Ahmedinejad said, apparently, was "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)." In other words, it was the now familiar attack on Zionism, rather than a threat to obliterate the land of Israel. Some will find Ahmedinejad's anti-Zionism equally offensive, I know, but there is a big difference. One is the threat of war or genocide, the other a call for the end of particular form of government.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has on several occasions tried to correct this mistranslation, but the story has a life of its own.

Fascinating post. Literally, everthing you have written here is wrong.

First, let's take the comment about the French. The French recently had an election. A very conservative leader took over - for his domestic policies, not his foreign policies. So, to bring up the French at this point as a method of comparison is spin bordering on a blatent lie.

Second, Ahmedinejad DID NOT say that Isreal should be wiped off the map. That translation was provided by ONE media service. The true translation is quite different. Some paper called the NY Times wrote an article about it. It is a blatent and pathetic lie, just like the ones we saw in the build up to the Iraq war. But I'm sure the truth won't stop you from using it. The rest of your line of thought that Iran is David Koresh is based on the first lie, so obviously you now see that you were wrong and will apologize.

Third, Iran is trying to destabalize Iraq? Hey, what's left to destabalize? America already did that. Have you been in a coma the past four years? There is no proof of Iran doing anything in Iraq. NONE. The US Army trotted out a bunch of bombs that were made in Iran, and after the press noticed all the bombs had English written on them, instead of Farsi or Russian or Chinese, the bombs were quickly scooped up and the press pushed out. That's what happens with lies. Also, any "news" coming from a military source is the definition of propaganda. But you keep believing it, as it seems to service your need for war so badly.

Love how you put all the blame of attacking the infrastructure on the Shiites. Links please. That would be great since if is contrary to everything I know about the Baath party (Sunni) and their ongoing war, also the fact that the Sunnis don't control any of the oil and therefor don't want stability as it may lead to the formation of a country where they have zero power. But that's just me thinking unrationally. Your "They want a regional war" theory is so fucking plausible and easy to back up that I could easily be wrong.

I'm not a "well meaning liberal", I'm a "well read liberal."

Totally different.

Where's the evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and not nuclear power??

He fears they MAY GET THEIR HANDS ON A NUCLEAR WEAPON!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?
AS I REMEMBER IT, THAT'S WHY THE FUCKING WAR WAS STARTED.... WOMD. THEY JUST ADMITTED THAT SHIT WAS MADE UP..... ANYONE ELSE PISSED?

you had me at "hard and long."

hey if you people havn't seen it, you should really check out the movie zeitgeist. You can find it at www.zeitgeistmovie.com its about everything and and how shit is not as it seems. I mean come on, a documentary thats lists sources at the end, there is definatly some truth to this movie. And it will blow your mind.

hmm, never heard of it.

he had me at that too...and then had me again at

I loved it!

If there's one thing I've learned from war... actually there were two things, but I've forgotten the other one. Anyway , the point is that deterrence is not a reliable means to prevent war. If someone gets their hands on a nuke, there's no reason to believe they won't use it.

The other thing was something about American economics relying on war. I think an episode of the X-files mentioned it.

I've yet to see or hear any damning evidence against Iran. Deja vu...

I completely agree with this statement. Even if the PR faces of a government are complete idiots (both Bush and Ahmedinejad share this trait), the underlying power structures on both sides are most certainly very smart people striving for their own gain and those of their allies.

The concept of an acceptable loss is vital in military strategy, but guaranteed total losses are never acceptable, hence strategies that lead to that outcome can never be chosen. The reason why the US, Israel and France do not want Iran to develop the nuclear option is simply due to the fact that the THREAT of THEM using that option on Iran will no longer be on the table, creating a much more balanced conventional war scenario. Obviously, they do not want that to happen. Both the US and Israel believe that a confrontation with Iran at some time in the future is inevitable, hence, it makes sense to strike them before they are in a much improved strategic position.

If Iran wanted to develop a nuclear weapon secretly it would have done so ages ago. There is a strategic reason why they chose to do this out in the open. It is proving a very successful strategy so far.

Nuclear war will never happen. I'm hoping that some sensible leaders are chosen soon on both sides and confrontation is avoided completely. But I wouldn't choose to bet my last buck on it, yet.

OK, point by point...

After the election the French Foreign Minister Bernard Koucher (co-founder of Medicin Sans Frontiers) said that 'we must prepare ourself for the worst...that is war, sir". This is a quote, not spin. It is not out of context, and your attempt to spin as such is either disingenuous or uninformed.

The 'one media service' was the government controlled official translation that came out immediately following the speech. The government then tried to distance themselves from the comment by translating it differently as there is no exact analog to 'wipe off the map' as we mean it. But it means something between 'cause them to cease to exist' and 'erase the regime occupying Juruselam (ie, the Isrealis) from history'. Neither of these is particularly encouraging, and the fact that the official translation translated it the way it first did certainly goes to state of mind prior to any climb-downs issued later. Why does the left trip over itself trying to make this sound like a nuetral statement?

The techniques being used by the Shia extremists have the Hezbollah fingerprint all over them. Many of the arms used in Iraq of are Iranian origin. There is a mountain of evidence against Iran and several Iranians have been captured in raids within Iraq. We know this because the Iranians usually protest in the media when we capture their personnel.

I am in no way trying to claim that the Sunni extremists are any better. Destabilization is the name of the game right now. I was rebutting a specific point you made about Iran not wishing to destabilize Iraq. By the way, the Sunnis control the southern oil fields, though they would like all of it I presume. I have friends who are both Sunni and Shia Iraqis and they will all tell you that the Iraqis are the main targets of other Iraqis. Some 4,000+ police officers have been killed in since the end of combat operations. The American role in this destabization is clear, but unlike the factions scrabbling for control it was not something they wanted to achieve and would dearly like to correct so they could withdraw.

I do not know the level of your reading, and I am unlikely to because you constantly make angry, unsupported comments like a petulant child. I welcome debate but I do wish you'd try harder.

As for my bona fides, I spent three years in Iraq in British army, as well as working with the Iraqi emergency services, as well as various coalition agencies. This does not make my analysis right, but it does make it informed by primary sources.