Nix all the toxic thumpings for war against Iran
I have been a very serious student of current events since high school, that’s fifty years and counting. I haven’t stopped. I’m no expert but I have a deep background in world history, especially U.S. political history, and from it I know more about government duplicity than your average bear. You can take my word for it that when any bureaucrat or politician opens his or her mouth that the odds are that what will come out is propaganda to further a political agenda which could be anything from lying about WMDs to the “benefits” of universal health care. The propaganda today is going to draw us into another shooting war in the Muddled East strictly for the benefit of the profiteers in the military-industrial-complex and their cohorts.
After the Cold war ended with the demise of the Soviet Union the Air Force admitted that it had fudged the facts to make the USSR more of a threat than it actually was to get more money to build a bigger Air Force. When it is about power, the power hungry do what is necessary to accomplish their goals. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!
I have taken all of the rhetoric about Iran with a grain of salt. Experience has shown me that in the beginning of a crisis the media sides with the government and promotes the propaganda that the government dishes out and then later cries crocodile tears after their complicity has gotten our troops murdered in some off-shore military empire building scheme. Iraq and the WMD’s of late, Vietnam and the USS Maddox/Tonkin Gulf Incident, from my time, are concrete examples of governmental duplicity and media cooperation so I’m not surprised about what this web site has to say about the goings on in the Muddled East and at home.
Note- Each of us has a personal responsibility in this matter. War is extreme and causes extreme pain. When we vote for officials that make war based on information we know is false, we become morally responsible for our part in the death and destruction of resulting war. So please take this seriously.
War often begins with dehumanizing rhetoric. Listen to the first part of this clip about the Rwandan genocide. Public radio broadcasts prepared the people for weeks to think of the Tutsis as cockroaches. Such are the public outcries of Muslim death chants and so are the U.S. mainstream media broadcasts that portray them as the centerpiece of Iranian society.
Iran is a gracious society who welcomes visitors and treats them well. Witness this video. Yes, they have their religious madmen. Yes they have their hard liners. And we have ours. But the culture and the people are very accommodating and generous. These are human beings. They are your brothers and sisters. Its time to stop the madness that dehumanizing rhetoric produces.
OUR RHETORIC CONTINUES TO SUPPORT THEIR HARD LINERS when we negatively characterize the entire populace. Their media, like much of ours, is hawkish. When you see or hear commentators dehumanizing a culture as in “those people are a bunch of …..,” be aware they are misleading people and causing real harm. Call the commentators and correct them. And if they don’t give you the time of day, write their sponsors and explain why you are not going to buy their products any more. It doesn’t take a lot of such messages to be heard.
I have done the heavy lifting and picked cogent excerpts for your consideration from the site: “A top level U.S. intelligence report states with certainty that Iran terminated its nuclear weapons development at the end of 2003. This fact is omitted from nearly all media reports. A clear explanation of the enrichment issue is provided.”
Smoking Gun “After the Iranian revolution in 1979 Iran edged closer and closer to a somewhat tolerant and modern form of government. Moderation really took hold between 1997 and 2005 under the administration of President Khatami. This article chronicles times when Iran reached out to the U.S. in a spirit of cooperation only to be rebuffed.”
“As we shall see, the mainstream media has muddled these issues to create the impression that Iran is currently building nuclear weapons, whereas the IAEA report does NOT support that conclusion. Possibilities and suspicions are not justification for preemptive military action.”
“In fairness to the media, the IAEA report is jumbled when it comes to distinguishing between pre-2004 activity and recent events. And the rhetoric by some of Iran’s leaders has inflamed fears for Israel’s safety. However, it is time for the media to stop playing into the hands of the power brokers who have a profit motive for getting us involved in another war.”
“Both Iran and China feel marginalized and isolated by the West. This gives them incentive to trade and cooperate.”
“Any regional war in has the distinct possibility of spreading for an unknown number of military and cultural reasons. These things are unpredictable and there is so much madness in this picture that this conflict could develop into a World War. Its not the Bush “Axis of Evil” that we need to worry about. Its the Russia-Iran-China axis.”
“Let’s assume for the moment a war with Iran could be contained regionally. What then? Do you intend to occupy Iran? Or annihilate them? They are not going to go away any time soon. If we take out their peaceful energy program, sooner or later they will purchase a nuclear weapon and feel fully justified in delivering it. They have already proven they don’t forget.”
“The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year).”
The Muslim Threat Irrespective of the true meaning of Jihad, some clerics on both sides of the ocean (both Muslim and Christian) regard it as forceful expansion of belief. Since the West stands in the way of that expansion, violence to Western nations is perceived by some as doing God’s (Allah’s) work. What should our response be to such violence?
Answer: The same as it would be to violence for any other reason. When diplomacy fails, hold those accountable who refuse to honor it and who use violence. But this should be done by holding the governors responsible, not the masses, as Reagan did with Libya. This type of action should be taken with the proper diplomatic warnings that indicate only the magnitude of the intended action. And they should not be overstated or understated.
As far as Israel’s general security, the U.S. should keep it’s promise to not sell the quality of weapons to Israel’s enemies that it sells to Israel, and to trade intelligence.
Reports Concerning the IAEA November Report This NY Times article, titled Iran’s Nuclear Program, is typical of the coverage of the IAEA report released November 2011. The news article fails to distinguish between a peaceful nuclear program and a weapons program. It treats them as one and the same. Nowhere does it mention that the U.S. signed a treaty with Iran in 1968 that entitles Iran to develop all of the peaceful nuclear facilities they are proceeding with. Nowhere does it mention that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were established by the Shah, who the U.S. put into power. Or that the first nuclear reactors in Iran were built under the Atoms for Peace program by American Machine and Foundry. It proceeds to falsely characterize the IAEA report:
‘The problem with these arguments is that they flatly ignore or reject outright the best advice of America’s national security leadership. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, former congressman Admiral Joe Sestak and former CENTCOM Commander General Anthony Zinni are only a few of the many who have warned us to think carefully about the repercussions of attacking Iran. Two months ago, Sestak put it bluntly: “A military strike, whether it’s by land or air, against Iran would make the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion look like a cakewalk with regard to the impact on the United States’ national security.”
Meir Dagan, the recently retired chief of Israel’s Mossad, shares the assessment of the Americans cited above. He noted earlier this year that attacking Iran “would mean regional war” and went on to say that arguments for military strikes were “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”
Running for President means running for commander in chief of America’s armed forces. If the candidates favor military action, as is their prerogative, they should desist from peddling the false notion of a simple “surgical” strike and answer the hard questions. How would they contain a larger regional war? Would they commit to a ground invasion? How would they pay for it? What is their view on the implications of another major deployment for the U.S. military? And why are they ignoring the advice of some of America’s most experienced military leaders?’
http://iran.ogs7.com/ IF you are evangelical, then you’ve been lied to by the mainstream media.
WELCOME to the story that the mainstream media refuses to publish concerning Iran, the U.S. and Israel. We will take you through the FACTS and let you verify for yourself how the press is misleading the American people.
U.S. Rhetoric http://iran.ogs7.com/ the-problem Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and a plethora of other commentators and news publishers are claiming:
- Iran is building a nuclear weapon.
- Iran would attack Israel with a nuclear bomb if it got a chance.
- Iran is governed by Islamic extremists and thus only respects force.
- Iran is breaking international laws by enriching uranium.
These allegations are being used for a pretext to use conventional warheads on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Some of the top U.S. strategists point out this could initiate a much wider conflict. This would likely not be another Iraq. It could be much worse because of the possible involvement of Iran’s allies, China and Russia. (Not that invading Iraq reflected wisdom.}
Each of the above allegations is disproved on this site.
“The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution. Under our (constitutional system) – either we’re going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we’re going to have to rethink our process of decision-making. (I believe in) “very strong but limited federal government. I am for the United Nations.” — Newton Gingrich
This post has been read 1470 times!