IRAN

[muir]

there is a discussion worth having here, but it is not about how the people need to rise up and overthrow thier economic system in the hope that a better one is waiting to flower.

You are completely wrong about that, that is what this whole issue is about: the unequal dynamic in our societies

I for one am hopeful that the Iranians will back away from a nuclear showdown with the US.

They DID. The US agreed to drop the sanctions and Iran agreed to stop processing uranium

Congress however has applied pressure to have more sanctions placed on Iran and iran has said if more sanctions are placed on it the agreement is off

the reason congress has pressured the whitehouse is because congress is itself pressured by its paymasters, namely the central bankers who created Israel. Don't rely on my opinion for that listen to the CIA agent in the clip i posted above say as much or general smedley butler saying the same thing in the other clip i posted above

It is them that have scuppered the deal. The deal was there, Obama and Iran were happy with it, israel wasn't so the deal is sunk

The sanctions are not just a slap on the wrist they cripple economies

the US did this to Iraq and it lead to shortages of food, clean water and medicines. The people this affects most are the children. The sanctions alone, before any bombs or bullets were fired killed an estimated 1 million iraqis, many of which were children

I believe it is possible that Iran can maintain its sovereignty despite the historic fact that the US overthrew its government in the fifties.

The Iranians fully intend to maintain their sovereinty but the central bankers want to peel their country open like a tin can and 'liberalise' its markets, privatise its resources and assets and create a privately owned central bank to control its economy like it did to your once free country (now being turned into a police state by the bankers)

Rather than arresting bankers for being in a super secret organization determined to control the world the US should consider looking at prosecuting or at least formally investigating the actions its government took when it installed the Shah.

Your government is controlled by the bankers. Your political system is totally dominated by MONEY

If you want to cleanse your political system you need to follow the money back to its source and then you will get to the central bankers

 

[Stu]

thank you for being succinct and not expecting me to watch a video.

My rudimentary understanding of the negotiations with Iran is that they have agreed stop enriching, not dismantle, their enrichment capabilities. They have also agreed to allow UN Atomic inspectors to visit specific sites at specific times.

Your point (as usual) is that everything we read in the media is false.
from that position, it is unproductive to really discuss anything but metaphysics with you.

As far as anyone else who is interested in the topic, I would like to hear if they believe that the anti Iranian camp in the US has forced the hand of the US administration to end these negotiations or if the administration as put them at bay while it attempts to make a deal that ensures a non nuclear armed Iran?

 

[muir]

thank you for being succinct and not expecting me to watch a video.

If people don't provide any sort of info to support what they are saying then it can just sound like opinion

So i often post clips of people who are well informed speaking on the issue to give a perspective not offered by the corporate media news channels which are owned and controlled by the central bankers

My rudimentary understanding of the negotiations with Iran is that they have agreed stop enriching, not dismantle, their enrichment capabilities. They have also agreed to allow UN Atomic inspectors to visit specific sites at specific times.

That was the deal in geneva. that was cool, it was all great but certain elements wanted to scupper the deal so they have called for further sanctions. The lifting of sanctions was the whole point of the deal from the Iranian perspective so this would ruin the deal. All you need to do is listen to Benjamin netenyahu complaining about the deal to realise who was applying the pressure to sink the deal

Your point (as usual) is that everything we read in the media is false.

No i'm not saying that everything in the media is false. i am saying that the corporate media spins false narratives to either get support from the public or to at least not draw resistance from them

This is the process that Chomsky called 'manufacturing consent' (it was an older term but he has used it a lot)

from that position, it is unproductive to really discuss anything but metaphysics with you.

The corporate media is not the only source of information out there. So if you want to hear a perspective that does not come from the centrally controlled corporate media then listening to me could prove very 'productive'

As far as anyone else who is interested in the topic, I would like to hear if they believe that the anti Iranian camp in the US has forced the hand of the US administration to end these negotiations or if the administration as put them at bay while it attempts to make a deal that ensures a non nuclear armed Iran?

Here is a non corporate perspective from the media:

[video=youtube;tF6dqlGQpsQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF6dqlGQpsQ[/video]

Are you going to call for an audit of the Israelis nuclear arsenal? Also are you going to call for them to sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty? If not then you are guilty of a double standard

 

[muir]

[video=youtube;4GwApvroWkE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GwApvroWkE#t=443[/video]

 

[just me]

I know time will tell.

 

[muir]

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2013/12/aipacs-exploding-christmas-gift-obama/
[h=1]AIPAC’s Exploding Christmas Gift To Obama[/h]

by MJ Rosenberg​

Just when President Obama was starting to believe that it was safe to go back into the water, the lobby has come out with a new Iran sanctions bill designed to torpedo negotiations with Iran. And, once that is accomplished, it provides for automatic U.S military backing for Israel if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu decides to bomb.
This may be the lobby’s most brazen attempt yet at subverting negotiations and, in Andrew Sullivan’s words, “handing over American foreign policy on a matter as grave as war and peace to a foreign government….”
The resolution, introduced by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Mark Kirk(R-IL), seemingly responds positively to President Obama’s request that Congress hold off on new sanctions during the negotiations. It does that by giving Obama the authority to waive its proposed new sanctions until the two sides successfully reach an agreement. It is only at that point, with the agreement in hand, that the new sanctions would go into effect, effectively killing the deal.
The bill is almost like an exploding Christmas present. It looks pretty under the tree, all wrapped up nicely, but then in six months it blows down the house.
Here is how it would work, according to an exclusive report in Foreign Policy by Ali Gharib, who obtained a copy of the AIPAC bill. The legislation would expand current sanctions to include all aspects of its petroleum trade and its shipping and mining sectors. However, these new sanctions would not take effect so long as Obama certifies that Iran is negotiating in good faith and that imposing them would not be in the U.S. national interest.
That is all well and good. Other than threatening to further damage Iran’s economy while in the midst of negotiations, the new sanctions remain theoretical so long as the president can waive them. Although damaging (there is no telling how the Iranian government will react to such an insulting action by Congress while it is in the midst of negotiating with the administration) the resolution is par for the course. If it’s not one donor-backed lobby dictating policy, it’s another.
But then the bill goes off in a truly unprecedented direction. It states that if negotiations fail (it defines failure as leaving Iran with the capacity for any nuclear enrichment at all (a goal President Obama calls unrealistic) and Prime Minister Netanyahu decides to dispatch his bombers, the United States is automatically at war too. Here is the language of the resolution:
If the government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide in accordance with the laws of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, and economic support to the Government of Israel in the defense of its territory, people and existence.
It is difficult to know where the deconstruction should start. First, is the resolution’s assumption that the existence of an Iranian weapons program makes Israel “compelled” to take “military action of legitimate self-defense” against Iran. That is absurd. The mere possession of a “weapons program” by any state does not give any other country a “legitimate” right to respond militarily.
If it did, the United States would have had the right to bomb the Soviet Union when it ended our atomic bomb monopoly in 1949. In fact, given that there are today nine states with nuclear arsenals (including Israel), recognition of such a right would have meant that the last 60 years would have seen one war after another as various nations felt “compelled” to attack when they suspected that an unfriendly state was on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough. Accepting the logic of the Menendez bill, Iran has the right to attack Israel right now, given that Israel not only has nuclear weapons but is clearly hostile to Iran.
And then, of course, is the resolution’s acceptance of Binyamin Netanyahu’s view that any Iranian capacity to enrich uranium is tantamount to nuclear weapons development. This is not the view of any nation on earth but Israel’s and yet the resolution would have us “stand with Israel” in combined “military action” should Netanyahu decide that Iranian enrichment at 5% or 10% or whatever means a nuclear bomb is being developed.
But worst of all is the fact that this resolution would enable Israel to make the decision to go to war for us. Israel would decide it feels threatened and we would have to back an attack on Iran with “military force,” not to mention all the other forms of support the resolution spells out.
Never in American history have we permitted another government to decide such matters of life and death for us. Israel is a friend but the United Kingdom was our foremost ally in 1940 when it was under constant bombing by Nazi Germany (50,000 British civilians were killed in the Blitz). Nonetheless, President Roosevelt could not join the war alongside Britain until Nazi Germany declared war on the United States. Not even Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor automatically brought us into the war against its German ally. No, it took Germany declaring war on us before Roosevelt was able to go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war.
This resolution would dispense with all that in the case of Israel, giving Netanyahu a power that not even FDR had, or any other president, for that matter.
Andrew Sullivan has it exactly right:

For the US Senate to proactively bless future aggressive military action by a foreign government when it is not justified by self-defense is an appalling new low in the Israeli government’s grip on the US Congress.​

But to proactively commit the United States as well to whatever the Netanyahu government might want to do in a war of choice against Iran is more staggering. Yes, this is non-binding language. But it’s basically endorsing the principle of handing over American foreign policy on a matter as grave as war and peace to a foreign government, acting against international law, thousands of miles away. George Washington would be turning at a rather high velocity in his grave.​

But, of course, George Washington never imagined the awesome clout of campaign donors.

*****************************************​

About the Author​

M.J. Rosenberg is Special Correspondent for The Washington Spectator. Previously he served as a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow with Media Matters Action Network, and prior to that worked on Capitol Hill for various Democratic members of the House and Senate for 15 years.

 

[just me]

New, faster centrifuges are being installed now.

 

[muir]

New, faster centrifuges are being installed now.

You know that Iran already has 19,000 centrifuges right?

They will need to upgrade stuff sometimes

They have a legal right to pursue nuclear power

If people are worried that Iran might try to develop a nuclear weapon the best thing they could do is stop threatening Iran. Israel could be made to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation pact and could allow weapons inspectors in and could disarm and allow a nuclear free middle east

The US could pull its military bases away and stop trying to encircle Iran....but these things won't happen will they....because the Rothschilds want to get their claws into Iran....they want to set up a Rothschild central bank there and take the oil at rock bottom price

 

[muir]

[video=vimeo;50531435]http://vimeo.com/50531435[/video]

 

[just me]

Tell me; what do they call anti's like yourself?

 

[muir]

Tell me; what do they call anti's like yourself?

Anti war you mean?

Well i guess in your holy book anti war people would be held in high esteem by the peace loving logos jesus

I guess if we need a label we could perhaps use the word 'humanitarian' in a sense

 

[just me]

Anti-war? You amuse me.

 

[muir]

Anti-war? You amuse me.

Absolutely

The people i criticise the most are the primary drivers behind all the wars: the war profiteers eg the banksters

 

[just me]

 

[just me]

If you think having a nuclear-armed Persia will stop war....

 

[muir]

If you think having a nuclear-armed Persia will stop war....

I don't remember advocating a nuclear Iran

What i said was that Israel should disarm and the US should step back from threatening Iran

However thats not going to happen because the oil/banking mafia families that created israel and who control the US congress (through their vast wealth) want to control the oil and currencies of the region

The only thing that can stop their beligerance is a withdrawel of support from the US public

If Israel is not pulling the strings of the US then it can't act unilaterally and will instead need to stop its war like behaviour and begin to sit down at the negotiation table

And i don't mean pretending to negotiate....i mean some reasonable compromise

 

[just me]

anti-everything. You are wanting to dismantle so many things, and I would bet you could not run a government and get along in a world that does not see eye to eye with you. Iran has leaders more greedy than the bankers you always speak of. Why not let them steal from everyone awhile?

 

[muir]

anti-everything. You are wanting to dismantle so many things, and I would bet you could not run a government and get along in a world that does not see eye to eye with you. Iran has leaders more greedy than the bankers you always speak of. Why not let them steal from everyone awhile?

I'm not anti-everything....i just trace a lot of the worlds problems back to the same source: the banksters

I don't see greed manifesting in Iran in anywhere near the same magnitude that it has in the bankster occupied countries

i think Iran has been portrayed in a false and negative light by the corporate media which the banksters control. I don't believe the Iranians are the enemy of the US people in any way

Here is an American overturning some of the false myths about Iran:

[video=youtube;1CDFuSVN6R8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CDFuSVN6R8[/video]

 

[muir]

Here's an ex US marine discussing Iran after being there. As a godly man [MENTION=680]just me[/MENTION] i would have thought that you would have a lot of admiration for a country like Iran where god is reverred:

[video=youtube;RWqI7m0Mmbk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWqI7m0Mmbk[/video]

 

[say what]

Why is this an Obama(US)/Iran issue? Isn't it a global issue?

I don't mean to be ignorant (although, I am not well informed on the subject) or disrespectful...but I don't see how one man/country could be the cause of Iran obtaining the ability for nuclear war, and/or his/their duty to deal with it.