Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIran War Drums Begin Beating in Washington
WASHINGTON - As nuclear negotiations between Iran and the West
continue to move slowly, U.S. President Barack Obama is coming under
growing pressure from what appears to be a concerted lobbying and media
campaign urging him to act more aggressively to stop Iran's nuclear
program.
Obama has given Tehran
an end-of-September deadline to respond substantively to his offer of
diplomatic engagement. But already hawks in the U.S. – backed by
hardline pro-Israel organizations – have pressed him to quickly impose
"crippling" economic sanctions against Tehran, and some are arguing
that he should make preparations for a military attack on Iranian
nuclear facilities.
The
pressure campaign kicked off in earnest this week. On Thursday,
hundreds of leaders and activists from the U.S. Jewish community
descended on Washington to lobby for harsher sanctions, while
widely-publicised media reports suggested that Iran is already nearing
the verge of a nuclear capability.
Leaders from Jewish groups came for a national "Advocacy Day on Iran", during which they met with key Congressional figures.
Rep.
Howard Berman, a California Democrat who heads the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, suggested that the clock "has almost run out" on
Iran's nuclear program, and indicated that he would move ahead next
month with a bill imposing sanctions on Iran's refined petroleum
imports "absent some compelling evidence why I should do otherwise".
The
bill, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), has for months
been the top lobbying priority of hawkish pro-Israel lobbying groups
led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). To their
frustration, Berman has held up consideration of the bill for most of
the past year
Not all U.S. Jewish groups are lining up behind the legislation, however.
Americans
for Peace Now (APN), for instance, issued a statement arguing that
"arbitrary deadlines are a mistake" and that "pursuing sanctions that
target the Iranian people, rather than their leaders, is a morally and
strategically perilous path that the Obama Administration must reject".
M.J.
Rosenberg, a foreign policy analyst at Media Matters Action Network,
suggested on the website TPMCafe that the advocacy day "marks the start
of the fall push on Iran".
The advocacy group United Against
Nuclear Iran (UANI) has launched an intensive television advertising
campaign this month claiming that the U.S. "must isolate Iran
economically to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon".
UANI's
two co-founders are now both high-ranking officials in the Obama
administration – Dennis Ross, currently overseeing Iran policy at the
National Security Council (NSC), and Richard Holbrooke, now the State
Department special representative in charge of Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Also on Thursday, the New York Times published a
front-page story claiming that U.S. intelligence agencies believe "that
Iran has created enough nuclear fuel to make a rapid, if risky, sprint
for a nuclear weapon", although the article did not provide an estimate
of when Iran could have a nuclear capability.
The same day, the
Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by former Senators Charles Robb
and Daniel Coats and retired four-star Air Force General Chuck Wald.
Claiming that Iran "will be able to manufacture enough highly enriched
uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2010", the authors urged Obama "to
begin preparations for the use of military options" against Iran.
However,
official U.S. intelligence estimates provide a far slower timeline. In
February, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dennis Blair told
Congress that Iran would be unable to produce highly enriched uranium
(HEU) until at least 2013, and stated that there is "no evidence" that
Iran had even made a decision to produce HEU.
Iran insists that
its nuclear program is intended solely for civilian purposes. In
2007, the U.S. intelligence community released a National Intelligence
Estimate suggesting that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program
in 2003.
The campaign comes on the eve of a series of key
international meetings in late September, including the annual opening
of the U.N. General Assembly in New York and the Group of 20 (G20)
Summit in Pittsburgh.
Iran and its nuclear program are
expected to be a major topic for world leaders who will attend these
meetings, and hawks in Washington and Jerusalem hope that Obama will
use them to push for the imposition of far-reaching economic sanctions
by the U.N. Security Council as soon as possible.
While Obama
faces pressure to move quickly to sanctions, the government of Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still struggling at home to overcome
challenges to its legitimacy resulting from the disputed presidential
election in June. Many analysts suggest that Iran's government is
currently in no position to respond coherently to U.S. engagement.
This
week, Ahmadinejad's government finally issued a formal reply to
proposals by the P5+1 powers - the U.S., China, Russia, Britain,
France, and Germany - for talks on its nuclear program and related
issues.
But the five-page-reply has been deemed too vague by
Washington, with State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley dismissing it
Thursday as "not really responsive" to U.S. concerns.
Other analysts suggested that the Iranian proposal was more promising than initial media reports would indicate.
"Iran's
uncompromising stance and its cursory references to nuclear matters are
most likely an opening bid, and not a red line," wrote National Iranian
American Council (NIAC) president Trita Parsi in the Huffington Post.
He
suggests that the proposal's language "may offer an opening to push
strongly for transparency and acceptance of intrusive inspections and
verification mechanisms".
The Obama administration, however, continues to hold out hope for the engagement strategy.
"We'll
be looking to see how ready Iran is to actually engage, and we will be
testing that willingness to engage in the next few weeks," Crowley said.
At
the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov all but ruled out
his country's cooperation with new sanctions against Tehran at the
Security Council, and called instead for renewed negotiations based on
Iran's reply.
Lavrov's comments came shortly after a secret and
still-mysterious visit to Russia by Israel's right-wing prime minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu.
The latest developments - along with growing
amount of attention being paid to U.S. policy in Afghanistan, at the
expense of Iran - have only added to the frustration of Iran hawks in
Washington. They believe increasingly that economic sanctions alone,
even if they are imposed multilaterally, are unlikely to be enough to
persuade Tehran to halt what they see as its drive to obtain a nuclear
weapon.
For this reason, many suggest that the U.S. should
either make preparations to attack Iran militarily itself, or step
aside and allow Israel to do so.
"No one should believe that
tighter sanctions will, in the foreseeable future, have any impact on
Iran's nuclear weapons program," former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, a
noted hardliner, wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month. "Adopting
tougher economic sanctions is simply another detour away from hard
decisions on whether to accept a nuclear Iran or support using force to
prevent it."
Earlier that month, the Journal featured an article
by Gen. Wald - who was one of the co-authors of Thursday's op-ed urging
preparations for a military strike - entitled "Of Course There's a
Military Option on Iran".
But critics suggest that the constant
threats of military action against Tehran will only make the regime's
leadership more intransigent on the nuclear issue.
"Pointing a
gun at their heads merely reinforces their desire for a reliable
deterrent, and probably strengthens the hand of any Iranian officials
who think they ought to get a bomb as soon as possible," wrote Stephen
Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, on
the website of Foreign Policy magazine.
113 Comments so far
Show Alljust a little suggestion for those of you who disagree on stopping the crazies who are Iran's leaders , they don't listen to anyone not even their own people, look at their elections. For those of you living safely in the U.S. , Iranian people who reside here as well my suggestion is to get a resident Visa to live in Israel for say 3 years if you are right about Irans's good intentions with nuclear power you will have nothing to be concerned about and you don't have to live too near Israel's borders so you won't have to put up with the occasional pesky rockets. I am not a war monger, my son serves in the military. But we have been putting up with Iran's bull.... since 1979 when they took americans hostage in my opinion that is way too long...
We sold them the weapons and trained them and now we are surprised? Really? Read some history and then tell us the whole story. What did we do?
I see you've swallowed the latest propaganda about the danger of Iran. Too bad, so sad.
Of course the fact that the US overthrew Iran's legally elected government in the early fifties and imposed a murderous and repressive authoritarian government doesn't enter into your equation. Does it? What about Iran having to put up with the US's aggressive 'bull' since then? What about their right to defend themselves from our aggression?
And of course US leaders listen to their people don't they? No they don't. That's why we won't get reasonable health care, or transfer some spending from supporting the military's 700+ bases oversees in 130+ countries to more necessary or productive enterprises - like repairing our failing infrastructure. Nor will they get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq anytime soon, or even demand an accounting for all the crimes committed and money spent on the spread of what amounts to the American empire. Or work on wringing money out of politics that disenfranchises people but benefits corporations that feed off American hegemony in the world. All these are issues that the public want addressed, often by overwhelming percentages, but our leaders refuse to address them because, as they say: 'it is not politically feasible'. Meaning, their financiers won't like it and the people can go to hell.
Or that Iran, if it is actually pursuing nukes, may have learned the lesson taught by us in the last 10 years - that if you may have a nuke then the US won't try to invade. Not surprising since we've been the aggressor in the Middle East since the sixties. I would frankly be surprised if Iran didn't develop a nuke - for all their denials and for all our whining demands. In a world threatened by the US, why shouldn't Iran be able to defend itself? Do we demand that Israel dump their nukes to please us? Would they if we did? Not likely. Not surprising.
The likelihood that Iran would attack Israel is less than zero while the converse is far more likely. The Iranians are an intelligent, reasonable people without a penchant for suicide. When was the last time Iran invaded another country - save in self-defense during the Iran/Iraq war - started by Iraq with our complicity?
However, Israel has demonstrated that it is quite happy to ignore international law to invade others, if not knock out their legally derived nuclear facilities - the Osirak reactor in Iraq for example - without realistic sanction. In Israel, it is more likely that the 'Iranian threat' is a manufactured political tool used by crass and opportunistic politicians to get elected and re-elected - just like it is here.
I sincerely hope your son survives his stint in the military, intact, but frankly, you do sound like a war-monger.
Thank you for that bit of rational thought and understanding of history. Too bad history isn't taught in the schools enough so people understand the past. Guess we are doomed to repeat it.
I will visit Israel when they stop the crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people, and make peace with them. Israel won't even stop building illegal settlements on Palestinian lands. Who is the real criminal in the Mideast; the countries who pose a threat, or the countries who are engaged in illegal activities? How can Israel be allowed to have a nuclear arsenal, and no one else? First demand that Israel veritably scrap their weapons, then demand that Iran veritably scrap their enrichment program, if it is shown to be for making weapons grade material. It is time to start treating Israel as an equal in the Mideast, no some kind of blameless victim. The Holocaust happened a long time ago, and while regrettable, it is time to move on. Israel is no longer a victim, but now has become a perpetrator.
Saturday's media here in the UK are reporting UK/US "security services" as claiming Somalia is the new Afghanistan (the old Afghanistan being just SOOOOO! last season). Looks like yet another war our Glorious Leaders are determined to involve themselves in.
OH BOY! HERE WE GO AGAIN.
General Wald, Mr. Ross, Mr. Holbrooke, Rep. Berman,and ex-Senators Robb and Coates.So you want the United States to attack Iran. #1 Where is your tangible proof? None of this, well we know that the weapons of mass destruction are north, south, east and west of Bagdad. And no, we are not going to take the NYT's CNN or Fixed New's word for it.
I suppose you brain sturgens know that while G.W. Bush was still the resident in chief, Iraq and Iran right under his and Cheney's noses signed a mutual aid/non aggression treaty? No? Well this here treaty states that if either country is attacked by an outside source such as the United States, the other country is treaty bound to come to the aid of the other. I only mention this because you brain sturgens should be aware that we still have 130,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq. Its bad enough that they have to walk around with bullseyes on their chests, you want them to have bullseyes on there backs too. Brilliant strategy! Brilliant I tell ya.
Plus I just love your back up plan, just step aside and let Israel bomb them. Thats all we need in that part of the world is to been seen as doing Israel's bidding. Just ask Ronald Reagan and 241 U.S. Marines how well that worked out. (Let alone the thirtysome dead American sailors on the U.S.S. Liberty).
It really is time for a wholesale change of our leadership in this country. Just think, in less than a century we have gone from "we have nothing to fear but fear its self", to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" to "Ketchup is a food and trees cause pollution"to "thousands of OB/GYN's can't practice their love for women" to finally, the government is going to take away your insurance and set up death panels! Right! It is time for the United States to do what is right for the American people and not what is right for Israel or our multinational war machine.
In the racist simplicity of your world views there is no oil industry nor weapons industry, just "Jews" out for war. Yet it is unclear how the effects (a stronger Iran and more Islamic extremists) benefit Israel. As much as PNAC sucks, its interests are purely American and hardly the rationlization for antisemitism you are looking for.
Stuarttootell, How is punishing working-class Israelis (20% of whom are Muslim) response to anything? In the real world anyone influential, Zionist or otherwise, profits from stock in multinational corporations. That level of schadenfreude is uncivil, disturbing, yet still completely ineffective.
Leave it to the New York TImes to enable the war makers. This stinks much like Judith Miller's bogus WMD stories leading up to the Iraq war. Where in the Times are there also stories from the other camp refuting the bogus hype, AGAIN, about a middle eastern country's so-called imminent threat. Not to be found. Why? The corporate press serves the ruling class, which always stands to profit from war. What a pitiful racket.
And right on cue the MIC/MSM has trotted out the boggieman Bin Laden:
.
.
.
wwwDOTreutersDOTcom/article/topNews/idUSTRE58D0CX20090914?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
(Replace the DOT's with a ".")
DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden warned the American people over their government's close ties with Israel in an apparently new audio tape posted on an Islamist website on Monday.
"The time has come for you to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby," Bin Laden's latest tape said.
"The reason for our dispute with you is your support for your ally Israel, occupying our land in Palestine."
The message, entitled "A statement to the American people," was around 11 minutes long and was posted a few days after the eighth anniversary of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks.
Reuters was not immediately able to verify its authenticity but the website often is used by supporters of al Qaeda.
In the tape, the al Qaeda leader said there had been no real change in American policy because U.S. President Barack Obama had retained people like U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates from the administration of former President George W. Bush.
"If you think about your situation well, you will know that the White House is occupied by pressure groups," Bin Laden said.
"Rather than fighting to liberate Iraq -- as Bush claimed -- it (the White House) should have been liberated."
The website had said earlier this month it would soon carry a "present" to Muslims from bin Laden on the occasion of the holy month of Ramadan.
The leader of the group that mounted the September 11 attacks in the United States is thought to be in hiding in the mountainous terrain along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
The attacks carried out by al Qaeda operatives in 2001 killed nearly 3,000 people....
UNQUOTE
.
.
.
Notice how they're trying to frame dissenting anti-war politics with being on the side of the bad guys. It's the Iraq pile of whoppers, all over again. Hey, when is Collin Powell going to show up with his WMD tapp dance? When is Rumsfield going to show up and do his hypnotizing finger Act for the camera while he claims he knows right where those WMD's are? How about Condesleaza and her Mushroom Cloud Scare Talk? It's just frightening how dumb we all are.
What a Whopper!
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
What is the aim of these "Jewish Groups" that are pressuring our Government Leaders.?????
Who are these "Jewish Lobby Organizations" working for????
Who pulls the strings of AIPAC ?????
The United States has only recently been lied and pressured into an illegal invasion of Iraq, as well as, disasterous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. is currently fighting on a full war-time basis in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
Let Israel, with 400 Nuclear Missles and a seasoned Military, do its own "bloody" warring on Iran......
The top priority of the Obama Administration and the Democrats must be to pull our military out of the Middle East.
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME,,,,,,,,,,NOW
.
The deceit prsactised by both the American and Israeli mis-administrations is amazing.
The only problem now seems to be that the manipulation of American foreign policy seems a little harder for the vocal Zionist lobby who control the American banking system and therefore hold the power. Obama is willing to stand against these people.
America is indeed the world biggest terorist and in cahoots with the Israeli's. We've been brainwashed over the years concerning Israel and the Zionist still cannot nor willnot stop until they provoke yet another war to line their pockets from the proceeeds of the armaments sold to kill innocents just as they did in all wars in the course of the worlds history.
Perhaps a boycott of Isralei products along the lines of the World Wide Zionist boycott of German goods and services in the 1930s which led to the rise of Adolph Hitler and then W.W.2.
Emasculate the Israeli mis-administration and let common sense rule,the majority of Israelis as di their neighbours want to live in peasce and haromny with each other as they did so for centuries prior to the establishment of the modern terrorist stae of Israel.
The cancer creating the problem is Zionist hate and meglomania.
The gorillas that are beating their chest on this Iran thing are the SAME ultra right wing players who got us into Iraq. Dick Cheney and HIS branch of the CIA. These guys are basically the same group of people that have expanded the indutrial military complex under W. and control just about EVERYTHING in Washington. These are powerful players that even Obama is scared of. That is why he has kept everything just about the same (as far as our Military goes) as Bush. The last time a president went against the wishes of these hawks they were eliminated. Kennedy lost his life as a result of going head to head with these guys.
How conveniently we overlook all the nuclear arms that Israel holds.
We are also overlooking things here.
There is a relation between the pandemic and the financial meltdown - both crises for a purpose.
http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Peace-Studies-Examiner~y2009m8d2-Part-1--The-global-economic-crisis-H1...
A Canadian conference of science and legal experts broadcast globally last night from Quebec that the pandemic is artificially created by the military and pharmaceutical industry which control the WHO and is a military agenda . Be sure to watch the videos.
http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Peace-Studies-Examiner~y2009m9d3-Canadian-health-experts-to-expose-H1N...
In France , LeMonde and Liberation reported on the discovery of secret documents showing the Sarkozy government planned to use the pandemic as a pretext to remove all civil rights there.
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/judges-report-france-to-use-swine-flu-to-commit-liberticide/
Sarkozy was put in office by the pharmaceutical industry - specifically Hoechst/Aventis/Sanofli.
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/ghosts_of_auschwitz_20090807.htm
From Charlie Sheen's interview with Obama on 9/8/09
CS – Sir, I’d like to direct your attention to the stack of documents in the folder I just handed you. The first in from the top is entitled “ Operation Northwoods“, a declassified Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US soil, to be blamed on Cuba as a pretext for war. ...
CS - ... published by the think-tank, Project For a New American Century and it’s entitled “ Rebuilding Americas Defenses“, and was written by Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush. To quote from the document sir – (the President interrupts)
PBO – “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
CS - ... Vice President Cheney didn’t stop there. In early 2008, Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh and MSNBC, both reported that Cheney had proposed to the Pentagon an outrageous plan to have the U.S. Navy create fake Iranian patrol boats, to be manned by Navy Seals, who would then stage an attack on US destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz. This event was to be blamed on Iran and used as a pretext for war."
Today, here, orders left by Bush and Cheney and not revoked by Obama, set up the declaration of a "pandemic emergency" (based on no criteria and requiring no evidence of proof) as the pretext for martial law and the permanent suspension of the US Constitution - the end of the US as a democratic country. Bush also has a connection to the German pharmaceutical industry.
http://www.rense.com/general7/gw.htm
From the Rath Foundation.
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
The U.S. government ... [decided] without IG Farben the Second World War would simply not have been possible. ...[I]t was not the psychopath, Adolph Hitler, or bad genes of the German people that brought about the Second World War. Economic greed by companies like Bayer, BASF and Hoechst was the key factor in bringing about the Holocaust.
The U.S. lead prosecutor at Nuremberg: "These IG Farben criminals, not the lunatic Nazi fanatics, are the main war criminals. If the guilt of these criminals is not brought to light and if they are not punished, they will represent a much greater threat to the future peace of the world than Hitler if he were still alive."
[Bayer/Baxter was indicted for war crimes at Nuremberg for buying, experimenting on and killing people with vaccines. It and Hoechst/Aventis/Sanofli are both making the swine flu vaccines. Last year, Baxter released lethal avian flu mixed with human flu which would have killed millions and was immediately selected to make the swine flu vaccine. There is no independent confirmation the lethal vaccines were destroyed.]
Iran did not prepare to do what is mentioned in the San Francisco Chronicle - hundreds of FEMA camps and reports of specially out-fitted trains.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
We need to be watching our own government.
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." Winston Churchill
All the Joe Liebermans in this government who recieve money
from that Israel Lobbyist AIPAC should be removed from congress as they are not loyal to this country. No man can be loyal to
two masters..
A number of our Government officials including members of Congress have dual citizenship, both US and Israeli.
Either Obama was being naive as to keep the Bush military on, and Bush sr. pal Gates, to keep the wars going, or he was threatened to do so, for the sake of Israel. I wonder why he also caters to Joe Leiberman. Israel doesn't just want the land from Syria to Iran, but demands it to happen.
Pentagon knowingly sold weapons to Iran,
as in selling another war..
not enough money to the politicians yet?
this one is about the Pentagon,
selling F-14 fighter jet plane parts to Iran..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/01/national/w125315D64.DTL&tsp=1
somebody's making money.....$$$$$$$
Dear China and Russia,
Please give Iran a few hundred nuclear weapons, to match Israel's, so that we'll back off. I hate to admit it, but our problem controlling our aggressive impulses is getting worse, as you may have noticed, and we desperately need your help in stopping another round of wars.
Since we will look for another victim once Iran has achieved nuclear deterrence, I ask also that you announce that you will give nuclear weapons to any other country, for example, Venezuela, that we threaten in the future.
Thank you in advance for your help in this matter.
With best regards,
All of us who aren't looking forward to Armageddon
Russia-China Warn US That Israeli Attack On Iran Means “World War” (18 July, 2009)
"A chilling report circulating in the Kremlin today states that President Medvedev and Chinese President Hu have issued an “urgent warning” to the United States that says if the Americans allow an Israeli nuclear attack upon Iran, “World War will be our response”.
Please note: World War will be response "if the Americans allow Israeli nuclear attack upon Iran".
Read the rest, at:
http://www.cfciowa.org/K017/index.php?option=com_content&
view=article&id=255:russia-china-warn-us-that-israeli-attack-
on-iran-means-world-war&catid=4:national-news&Itemid=7
That's why Netanyahu met Lavrov in Russia.
I would think he was also trying to con the Russians into not delivering anti-aircraft missiles to the Iranians. They are very sophisticated and can nail a jet at low altitude as well as high altitude and would really mess up the Israeli Air Force if they made an attempt at attacking Iran.
I believe you're right, although it's not quite clear what and how much of Russian air defence technology Iran already possesses. According to "Russia Today" on 17 Feb, 2009: "Moscow and Tehran have fulfilled only one contract in air defence dating back to 2005 when Russia sold Iran 29 Thor-M1 middle-range missile air-defence systems for US$700 million." (http://russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-02-17/Russian_
missile_defence_to_Iran_on_hold_till_meeting_with_Obama.html) But in big politics, no-one is trustworhty: who knows if Iran already has more sophisticated S-300 air defence systems.
But what I had in mind was from the article in my post: IDF planning to use cruise missiles with nuclear warheads to attack crucial military and urban targets in Iran, to which Russia and China threaten with retaliation.
Scary by all means.
The nature of the warmongering related to this issue, and who is fomenting it, is exactly why a Jew will never be elected president. Whether true or not, it raises questions about the loyalty of American Jews to the interests of this country versus the separate and different interests Israel.
Many years ago the worry was about a Roman Chatholic as president. Maybe our only hope now is for a Muslim.
It's not analogous to compare Jews with Catholics. Israel is different because it is a theocratic political state with its own distinct national interests. While the Vatican is technically an independent state, its domain is a few acres in Rome and poses no threat to other countries. A Catholic's faith will not require support of aggression and war crimes in furtherance of Vatican imperial adventures. Unfortunately, there are a great many Jews in America who have in the past and continue today to support any action by Israel, no matter how illegal, immoral, or genocidal, and with disregard to the long term consequences for U.S. interests. That is the source of a significant amount of anti-Semitism in America that is based on the issue of loyalty.
Theocratic states are inherently evil. It doesn't matter whether it is a Muslim theocracy such as Saudi Arabia, or a Jewish theocracy such as Israel.
Of course, the argument is that Israel isn't a theocracy, it's a western democracy. Tell that to the Muslims whose families have lived there for a hundred generations, and who have an entirely different set of rights and freedoms than Jews who may have emigrated there last week.
"A Catholic's faith will not require support of aggression and war crimes in furtherance of Vatican imperial adventures."
Are you sure about this? Since there's no paper trail to track dollars thrown into the offering plate, how would you know if some of it was diverted, say for example, to the IRA or to buy Islamic rebel's arms in Bush's infamous "Faith-based Initiatives"? Since it's tax-free and untraceable, we can't easily know where it goes. Maybe Catholics and other Christians support holy wars that they just don't know about? Another poster pointed out the suspicion the US has always held with Rome and for good reason. Many European wars and treaties were in fact orchestrated by the Pope. The Western limit of the American Colonies was determined by the Pope. King George III respected that line, even though he was protestant because he knew the Pope could cause Spain or France to declare another expensive war on England. The reason Latin America speaks mostly Spanish instead of Portuguese was the Pope picked a longitudinal line out of the air and gave everything East of that line to Portugal and Everything West of that line to Spain. Those are just two examples out of hundreds all through history of "imperial adventures" of the Vatican.
To pretend that the Vatican is somehow non-threatening to the world because it sits on a few acres is as absurd as saying the Mafia is harmless because they have no official address. The Vatican's influence and wealth is a huge determining factor in many poor country's revolts and revolutions to this very day. Few of course succeed. But they are doomed without the blessing of the National Arch Bishops. Pretending to speak for god, they have a huge impact on their weak-minded followers.
The semantic distinctions offered by you Caleb are interesting, but imho, misleading. All religions, are really, nothing but devices to control the masses, imho. They themselves are what is actually "inherently evil" and are responsible for most of the wars throughout recorded time.
"The Rights of the Colonists" approved by the Boston Town Meeting and reprinted in London by Ben Franklin and passed unanimously on November 20th, 1772 stated:
In regard to Religeon, mutual tolleration in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced; and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind: And it is now generally agreed among christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society "is the chief characteristical mark of the true church"1 & In so much that Mr. Lock has asserted, and proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only Sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach Doctrines subversive of the Civil Government under which they live. The Roman Catholicks or Papists are excluded by reason of such Doctrines as these "that Princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those they call Hereticks may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of Government, by introducing as far as possible into the states, under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty and property, that solecism in politicks, Imperium in imperio2 leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war and blood shed--
UNQUOTE
So the question of Loyalty in vetting a president may be a valid one in the case where citizens pledge their primary allegiance to a smelly old man in a robe or a global organization instead of their constitution like they should. In light of the destruction of the government by big corps and banks recently, I think we should exclude everybody that went to Harvard or Yale from consideration of holding the highest office in the land.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
What about a freethinker? Or an atheist? namely, someone with a more nuanced view of humanity and reality and not automatically tied to a religious bias of one kind or another?
I agree: let's have a very smart atheist for President.
Someone who has proven himself in Science, maybe a Nobel Prize...
Steven Chu for President !
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1997/chu-autobio.html
Iran should just file a lawsuit against the U.S., et al, at the International Court, as professor and expert in law Francis A. Boyle recommended to Iran I believe last year, or maybe 2007. I believe to have read an article by him at globalresearch.ca, but am not finding the piece. However, a Web search did turn up a July 2008 interview that PressTV.ir had with him on this subject.
http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=64435§ionid=3510302
Wikipedia also mentions these words of his, and this is where I got the above link; both during the past 15 minutes or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_military_action_against_Iran
As professor Francis A. Boyle, an expert in international law, explains, if Iran sued the U.S. (and possibly guilty European countries and Israel) at the International Court of Justice, then this would basically force the U.S. (et al) to back down from all of this bogus, corrupt, hegemonic, criminal conduct against Iran. He also says this based on a 1990's precedent, but even if that didn't exist, which it does, then Iran logically and strategically should sue. After all, it's the U.S., Europe and Israel that are guilty; they're guilty of supreme hegemony and hypocrisy, which is always criminal and rogue (in its worst senses).
But why is Iran not filing the lawsuit? There are no valid reasons that I'm aware of, and the article by Prof. Boyle that I had read didn't give any examples of such reasons; whether they be possible or known. Iran not doing this leaves me rather uncomfortable, say, about this lack of legal recourse, which Iran has the right to apply. Is Iran secretly playing this stage game or act with the U.S. (et al) to try to fool the public, or what?
How come Israeli, Indian and Pakistani nuclear reactors were not bombed when those countries *refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty* ?
Israel argues that if Iran just, legally, quits the Treaty it has signed, so that it is no longer obligated to tolerate unending demands from the IAEA, over and above what the Treaty requires, that will be "proof" that they intend to develop nuclear weapons, hence they will bomb them (which happens to be against the UN Charter, by the way).
So why did nobody bomb Israel when it refused to sign ?
Or India ? Or Pakistan ?
It boils down to "although Iran is following all the commitments of the NNPT, we just don't like them."
I think India *is* a signatory to the NNPT.
Although I admit I might be wrong.
Walk in peace.
Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and withdrew from it in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
Go ahead.
Bomb Iran.
I for one look forward to the total and utter disruption of the oil trade out of the Middle East, with it's attendant surge in anti-US sentiment and resulting revolutions and insurgencies in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, France, Germany, the UK, and Spain. Hell, anyplace with a large Muslim population will become a powderkeg that the US will have thrown a road flare into. Israel will be wiped off the map by a screaming horde of it's enraged neighbors, secret (and illegal) nukes or no secret (and illegal) nukes.
I will chuckle as the Western Industrial/Corporate Economy grinds to a smoking halt as it's petroleum lifeblood is choked off as the members of OPEC shut off the spigot.
I will dance in the street seeing the collapse of the Wall Street titans that have bet heavily on oil and commodities futures. All that easy credit built on a single resource and it's products will come tumbling down like a house of blood-stained cards.
I will grin like a DC idiot when oil prices rocket into the stratosphere, putting transportation and food production beyond the reach of the common man. Only the obscenely wealthy will be able to afford food at the insanely inflated prices that will follow.
And the conservative (and racist) idiot 'tea-baggers' will be out in the street, screaming for salvation, looking to the very criminals responsible for their plight, begging for now completely unattainable rescue.
Welcome to the end of your empire. I hope you enjoy it.
I would be dancing too, but I think we would be tripping over too many corpses for it to be enjoyable.
Obama Year 1 Failures:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Domestic Spying
Palestine
Honduras
Failures to come?
Healthcare
Iran
- Plenty of other things deserve a place on your list, including:
Wall St bailout
torture, rendition & secret CIA prisons
prosecutions of Bush administration criminals
plan to establish military bases in Colombia
Thanks Rich M--these are vital if we are ever to correct the problem--here are other failures: to speak out against Israeli atrocities--but I guess, do to his own atrocities(Drones in Pac/ civilian deaths in Afg.) it would sound pretty hypocritical.
Exactly what I would have added!
Joe
Yeah, well I thought your post at 2:09 pm really nailed it, as well! (re: Balfour Declaration)
Its frustrating this thing is coming around again so soon. Calvin Thomas had a column last week (again) equating arabs (and Iranians) with the Nazi Germans who conducted the holocaust. The Ameircan liaison to IAEA comes to completely different conclusions than Elbaradei. Motoromouth Biden gives his personal "Green Light". There is Israeli military activity in Georgia (Not a bad flight line to Iran. Another reason the Russkies are pissed.)
The final straw causing our recession was oil speculation driving gasoline above $4/gal. That speculation was caused by Cheney's saber rattling and the horrifyimg aftermath scenarios. Its hard to believe the administration would be so stupid as to put us all through this again.
Obama needs to keep a firm hand on his own people, starting with Clinton and Biden, and remind characters like Holbrooke and Ross who is the boss. He needs to be let Israeli hawks know that bombing Iran would be the gravest mistake, and the US will not participate or allow it to happen. Finally, Obama needs to let the weird but powerful alliance of AIPAC, neocons, and Christian zionist/armageddonists know they won't have their way on his watch.
Maybe a joint Air Force / Navy exercise placing jet fighters in defensive positions PROTECTING Iranian air space might send a good message.
Your inference about flights from Georgia to Iran is precious. I mantioned this several months ago but nobody bit. The shortest route for Israeli warplanes to targets in Iran by several hundred miles is from Georgian airbases. Moreover, the planes do not have to fly over Jordan, Syria, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia but can fly almost directly from Georgia crossing either Turkey or Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan would be even better because it has a border with Iran.
Actually I got it from that paranoid Alexander Cockburn on the Counterpunch site.
Wake up and smell the double cross--O'bomber is in on it--just like Bush couldn't get her done,O'bomber will--God help us all!
Even neocon front man W realized the insanity of bombing Iran and put a stop to Cheney's plan. There are also many people in the military that understand there will be unintended consequences no one can imagine. It won't happen. The US won't do it, and Israel can't pull it off alone.
For those that think Obama has broken with the Bush administration policy towards Iran please take note of the following:
"The advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) has launched an intensive television advertising campaign this month claiming that the U.S. "must isolate Iran economically to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon".
UANI's two co-founders are now both high-ranking officials in the Obama administration – Dennis Ross, currently overseeing Iran policy at the National Security Council (NSC), and Richard Holbrooke, now the State Department special representative in charge of Afghanistan and Pakistan. "
Also, when the article talks about people pressuring Obama to pursue these policies,
"U.S. President Barack Obama is coming under growing pressure from what appears to be a concerted lobbying and media campaign urging him to act more aggressively to stop Iran's nuclear programme. "
it neglects to mention the pressure Obama put himself under with his pre-election speech to AIPAC.
OBAMA:
"There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel's security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.
The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat. "
"Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432
It would really help if Obama would stop pandering and groveling to AIPAC and the other Israeli Lobbying groups. The fact tht Dennis Ross is now in the National Security Council is proof of how thoroughly the Israeli Zionists have managed to infiltrate our government. He wrote a book with another Zionist named Michael Makovsky that suggested that we should act like we are serious about bettering relations with Iran, but that enough obstacles would be thrown up that the Iranians wouldn't want to talk. This would then be the excuse to attack Iran. Makovsky was one of the Uber Zionists recruited by Douglas Feith into the Office of Special Plans to create the lies that were needed to start the war against Iraq in early 2003.
Read "The New Pentagon Papers" by Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski.
Bombing of Iran would be madness wih the possibility of World War 3. As long as we, the Russians, Israelis et al possess nukes others will try to join the nclear club. Sanity requires a denuclearized wold. Obama stated such a goal. Let's get started.
From 1933 to 1940 and 1940 to 1945 I lived either in Nazi Germany or in Nazi-occupied Netherlands. I am hesitant to make comparisons but several of the comments here that contain the words "Jew", "Jews", or "Jewish" have the smell of the vile propaganda of these thugs such as: "Die Juden Plutokratische Schweine versauen Deutschland". A number of comments on this site would have been accepted (obviously after translation) for publication by "Der Angriff".
Be careful that you don't start using the well worn term "Anti-Semitic" against people who see many Israelis treating the Palestinians as badly as the Jews of Europe were treated by the Nazis. There is a drastic difference between being Jewish and being Uber Zionist. The Uber Menshen mentality of the Zionists is very dangerous and has gotten the US suckered into an unjustified war against Iraq. The
Zionists are now ratcheting up their propaganda campaign to precipitate an attack against Iran and that's why so many people are speaking out on these posts.
ROFL
Once again...
Your comparisons don't make ANY sense at all.
Maybe you should start living in the world of TODAY.
I understand the difference between Zionists and Jews. I don't criticize one when I mean the other.
But DO I dislike the religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc...
If you are a religious Jew, then your religion is inextricably tied to Israel (it's why they are a "chosen people"). If you want to ignore that, then you really aren't a believer in Judaism (well, I guess Reform Judaism will still except you, but Reform Judaism is a little like New Age Christianity or Unitarianism).
In addition, I dislike the undefinable concept of secular Jewishness (i.e. secular Jewish identity not genealogy). I hate all "identity politics".
I will continue to criticize Jews for being Jews. Any "Jew" who drops their religion or secular Jewishness, I have no problem with. I have no problem with any human being on the basis of their ancestry.
Therefore, I see nothing wrong in criticizing a belief system.
So I hope you don't count me as a Nazi. I'm a communist. Please remember, that I would have been killed in the Holocaust too. In fact, many more communists were killed than Jews.
"several of the comments here that contain the words "Jew", "Jews", or "Jewish" have the smell of the vile propaganda "
What an insinuation! "Jew", "Jews", or "Jewish" is what they are! What would you prefer, "Jewish person"? When was the last time you said "Christian person" as opposed to "Christian"?
The comments I see say,
Whirled Peas:
"it is foolish to blame Jews for something they have very little say in."
", the rogue inception of of the Israeli state, created against the wishes of most displaced European Jews by the way"
Humbaba :
"The Israeli Jews are hi-jacking the American military to carry out yet another bloody aggression for them."
chet380 :
"The American Jews who comprise AIPAC consider Israel's interests first, and then America's, even when the Israeli position will cause enormous damage to the US."
jclientelle:
"Good point. Starting with the Balfour declaration, the British and Americans did not agree to the homeland out of love for Jews. On the contrary. The powerful in both countries despised Jews. They didn't let them into their country clubs or swimming pools or let their children marry Jews."
GwNorth:
"The Russians created a Jewish Homeland in Siberia under Stalin.
The Oblast was to be a Jewish Autonomous region and wa slocated near the Chinese Border in what was called Birobidzhan.
Stalin had tried to create a Jewish Homeland where Jews could escape persecution in areas of the Ukraine before that but failed due to local opposition. This agai out of no particular love for the Jews. He just wanted to be rid of them somehow."
yo :
"What is the current percentage of American politicians and business leaders who refer to themselves as being "Jewish" ? I wonder if that has anything to do with it ?"
hamorabi:
"the neocons, who are by-and-large american jews subservient to israel "
None of these usages are even remotely close to how you have depicted them.
The closest thing that fits is,
Dracula:
"I'd like to just sit back and watch the Jews go it alone...it would be fun to watch...they are full of drek."
Although, I think it's clear he is referring to the Israelis who live in a "Jewish state".
Well said. I admire your thorough answer.
Look, it's obvious to most everyone that Neocon Jews were central in helping to precipitate the Iraq War. The appearance of attempted hegemony by Israeli's and American Zionists of American foreign policy is a concern to Americans. Jew's, and particularly the Zionists are subject to criticism just like any other group or movement. Holocaust victimization no longer offers the cover it once did. Americans are against going to war with Iran. I believe that today, Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. It is guilty of brutal war crimes. American's will not go to war for Israel. It is better that America clip it's imperialistic wings and settle into a more balanced foreign policy in the Middle East.
Having said this I reject the criticism that confronting Zionism both American and Israeli is anti-semetic. It is not! Zionism must be challenged in order to move the United States away from a deepening conflict in the Middle East. AIPAC in the United States must be weakened to achieve a more balanced foreign policy. Americans are awakening to the Zionist threat to United States peace. Jews can namecall and rail with little impact. Attitudes toward Zionists are changing rapidly.
Joe Biden: "One need not be a Jew to be a Zionist. I am a Zionist."
If I rail against Joe Biden's Zionism, am I also anti-semitic?
You missed the whole point 'Crowsnest' was making.
I don't get the sense that Crowsnest disagrees with any of your criticisms of Israel or of Zionists. (For my part, I agree with all these criticisms.) And no one here is suggesting that confronting Israel is (necessarily) "anti-Semitic." On the contrary, it's very important to understand that challenging or opposing Israel is perfectly legitimate, & that there's nothing intrinsically anti-Semitic about doing so.
But this is not a matter of "Jews" vs non-Jews. Yet your post makes this same mistake of blurring the distinction between the word "Jews" on the one hand; and "Zionists" and/or "pro-Israel" on the other. For example, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell & Condi Rice all pushed for war with Iraq. So did the Christian Right. None of them are Jewish. Meanwhile, there are plenty of Jews in both the US & Israel who oppose (both Israeli & American) militarism.
When you write, "Jews can namecall and rail with little impact," THAT sounds anti-Semitic. When you write, "Look, it's obvious to most everyone that Neocon Jews were central in helping to precipitate the Iraq War," that also sounds anti-Semitic, because not all neocons are Jews, & the Iraq War had many non-Jewish supporters. Your specific criticisms of Israel's actions are perfectly legitimate, but your overly casual blurring of terms is not.
"When you write, "Jews can namecall and rail with little impact," THAT sounds anti-Semitic. When you write, "Look, it's obvious to most everyone that Neocon Jews were central in helping to precipitate the Iraq War," that also sounds anti-Semitic, because not all neocons are Jews, & the Iraq War had many non-Jewish supporters. Your specific criticisms of Israel's actions are perfectly legitimate, but your overly casual blurring of terms is not."
And if someone said "the Christian conservatives are making a mess of this country", would you accuse then of being anti-Christian because not all conservatives are Christian? I kind of doubt it.
Also, the phrase "anti-Semitic" is utterly bizarre. Why not "anti-Jewish"? I'd postulate that the answer is because it serves Zionism to conflate all "Jewish" people (religious Jews/secular Jews/people who don't have a Jewish identity but perhaps have a Jewish parent/mother) into one homogeneous (and inescapable) group. You can be raised Jewish, convert to Islam, and many people will still call you Jewish. You can have a Jewish mother, be raised Catholic, become an atheist and you will still be called "Jewish". Judaism is not a race, yet it is strangely considered hereditary. This is a unique status for a religion.
If you criticize the religion you are immediately accused of criticizing someone's ancestry. Never mind that not all Jews are even descendant from Semites. If you criticize the concept of hereditary secular Judaism (anyone care to explain how that concept makes any sense) then you are called a racist, even if your point is that Jews are not a racial group.
Your post consists of 4 paragraphs. The first simply copies mine.
In the second, you ask, "if someone said 'the Christian conservatives are making a mess of this country", would you accuse them of being anti-Christian?'"
- No. I'd only accuse them of being anti-Christian if the person said "Christians are making a mess of this country." THAT is the correct analogy to blaming "Jews" for the Iraq War.
In your last 2 paragraphs, I don't really know what you're talking about, but I get the impression that you're trying to blame me for the fact that our society uses the phrase "anti-Semitic" to mean "anti-Jewish." I do agree that "anti-Semitic" is a peculiar & not-very-forthright label, but I didn't invent it.
The phrase you were responding to was "Neocon Jews" as well as "Jews". You voiced the same objections to the use of "Jews" as you did "Neocon Jews". Sorry to quote you again, but, come on -
"When you write, "Jews can namecall and rail with little impact," THAT sounds anti-Semitic. When you write, "Look, it's obvious to most everyone that Neocon Jews were central in helping to precipitate the Iraq War," that also sounds anti-Semitic,"
So why it is wrong to compare "Neocon Jews" (which you call antisemitic) to "Christian conservative"?
Contrary to your claim, Stone is not blaming "Jews" for the Iraq War, Stone is blaming "Neocon Jews". Stone's statements were:
1) "Jew's, and particularly the Zionists are subject to criticism just like any other group or movement.
2)"Jews can namecall and rail with little impact. "
Neither of those statements supports your claim that Stone is "blaming "Jews" for the Iraq War."
Stone does, however, say:
"Look, it's obvious to most everyone that Neocon Jews were central in helping to precipitate the Iraq War. "
That's true. It's also true that they weren't the only Neocons who supported the war. And yes, it's true that Christians aren't the only conservatives, but no one really cares about THAT distinction.
"In your last 2 paragraphs, I don't really know what you're talking about, but I get the impression that you're trying to blame me"
Sorry. That was not my intention. I guess I was just trailing off, but certainly not blaming you. In fact, I think you're a very astute commentator. I look forward to reading your posts.
"I do agree that "anti-Semitic" is a peculiar & not-very-forthright label, but I didn't invent it."
Right, so my point is that it makes more sense to use "anti-Jewish" instead of "anti semitic".
"...Contrary to your claim, Stone is not blaming "Jews" for the Iraq War, Stone is blaming "Neocon Jews"..."
- "Neocons" were certainly central in drumming up support for the Iraq War. But that means ALL neocons, not just "Neocon Jews." Why does Stone single out only those neocons who are Jewish? His phrase "Neocon Jews" shows anger at the Jewish neocons, but lets non-Jewish neocons off the hook. This is unjustifiable, because it's the "neocon-ness" that's at issue here, not the "Jewish-ness."
"...So why it is wrong to compare "Neocon Jews" (which you call antisemitic) to "Christian conservative"? ..."
- In a certain sense, blaming "Neocon Jews" for the Iraq War IS the same as blaming "Christian conservatives" for screwing up the country. The problem with the first is that ALL neocons (Jews & non-Jews) are equally bad. Likewise, the problem with the second is that it implies that non-Christian conservatives are somehow more enlightened than Christian conservatives.
In another sense, though, the 2 phrases aren't on an equal footing, because "Neocon Jews" is not in common usage, while "Christian conservatives" is. (For example, it would not be at all shocking to see a story headline in TIME or NEWSWEEK about "The Religious Right," or "Christian conservatives." But it would be shocking -- in fact, unthinkable -- to see a headline about "The Neocon Jews.") Christian conservatives are not offended by being called "Christian conservatives." In fact, they're proud of it. But Jewish neocons would be offended by being called "Neocon Jews," and no reputable US publication would use this term. (A publication might use the term "Jewish neoconservatives," which is not the same as "Neocon Jews." The former is not offensive; the latter is.)
The phrase "Neocon Jews" has shock value, & roughly forces the listener to accept the idea that the Jewish neocon are worse than other neocons. The phrase "Christian conservatives", meanwhile, refers to a very well-defined group of people, & is not regarded as offensive by that group of people. Therefore, the 2 phrases are not entirely comparable.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I see your point, although I'm not convinced that Stone was trying shock anyone, because he/she might have been attempting to just distinguish that not all Jews are Neocons. I'm not quite convinced, that Neocon Jews is even such shocking phrase, especially given the neoconservative obsession with "the Jewish State".
"Christian conservatives are not offended by being called "Christian conservatives." In fact, they're proud of it. But Jewish Neocons would be offended by being called "Neocon Jews,"
Even if they are offended, I'm not sure I care. It's a double standard and there really is nothing inherently wrong in the phrase, regardless of how commonly it is used (which is pretty subjective). When certain women wanted to be renamed "womyn" I felt no need to oblige them. I still resist using the phrase "African-American" though I'm not sure what else to use, "dark-skinned person" is even more cumbersome. I also won't use "transgendered" because I disagree with the way it defines gender, I don't care if that makes "transgendered" people unhappy.
We hear of "radical Islam" and "Muslim extremists", and certainly some commentators try to apply these terms broadly to all Islam. But many moderate Muslims also apply the terms in order to distinguish themselves from a different brand of Islam. Obviously, not all Muslims are radical extremists, not all extremists are Muslims.
I suppose I get tired of the double standards Jews have regarding labels. Even the word "Jew" has become a slippery slope. How many people have started saying "Jewish person" for the fear of misusing the word "Jew"? It's getting a bit ridiculous. On one hand, due to the history of the persecution of Judaism, I understand the certain degree of sensitivity (or at least awareness) that some people feel.
But on the other hand (and I'm sure you agree), there are people like Abe Foxman or Alan Dershowitz who nurture these sensitivities and double standards in order to make all forms of Judaism and Zionism immune from criticism, and to make any discussion of the issues digress into arguments over labels of antisemitism. (Again, to be clear, YOU are not doing this at all. You make a reasonable request for people to be more clear in who they are referring to in their terminology)
Frankly, if the person using the phrase is not trying to insult the group, but merely stumbling into a semantic trap (that they may or may not be aware of) and depending on the nature of the phrase (i.e. I understand being offended by "kike" but not "hey, look at that Jew with the funny hat") I just don't think it's a big deal.
I'm grateful to you for pointing this out.
I notice the tendency you describe all the time. It's increasing, as time goes on. It's one thing to criticize Israel, but jumping from this into railing against "the Jews" is something very different.
with these clowns clamoring for is it their kids that will be doing the killing? i think not! it never is. it sure would
be nice to see the palistinians get their land back and
have those israeli bullies disappear.
I wonder who has considered the one big potential looser out of the prospect of a war in Iran--China.
They would loose ground on their progressive application of 'Social Capitalism' (so far a success, and successful enough to have the USA owe THEM a trillion and 'counting').
If China wishes to have their 'great experiment' continue with its success, they would need to eliminate the 'major problem' to that; i.e. an uninterrupted supply of oil. Mostly from Iran and the other Arab states.
The Arab states have a major problem, that being, the "Chosen ones" who have taken illegal possession of Israel with the major assistance of the USA (and a few other of their similar criminal nations). While doing that the Israelis have proved themselves to be a blood thirsty and dangerous nation almost identical to their major supporter, the USA.
But the USA is well armed and their integrity has always been 'challenged' and have proved themselves to be exceptionally dangerous to themselves as well as others. In fact their entire history bears this fact out.
So here is the problem that China has.
The USA being a dangerous nation of mostly criminals, supporting another nation of mostly criminals, the Israelis,
are acting as if they may 'make war' on the major supplier of
oil to China, Iran.
So the only remedy would be to eliminate the problem of the USA supporting Israel (who may wish to at 'any moment' attack Iran --whether in the name of "God" or 'national security' or 'both')---and keep the area intact.
Since Israel, being a criminal and cowardly nation, only surpassed in that category by the USA ---could never hope to survive without the USA, and would never attack Iran without the 'assurances' of the USA-- they are weak and powerless without the USA.
So to solve the problem, they must eliminate the USA, since Israel is only an appendage of the USA.
It would be suicidal to attack the USA, except for one very important consideration. They do not need to invade the USA and risk the possibility that the USA would use nuclear weapons for the third "+" time, even though China is nuclear.
Those Americans are crazy enough as it is. Just cut off the credit lines and they will turn on themselves.
Their rivers will run red with their own blood, their skies will have nuclear clouds and death will 'visit their land and stay awhile' and it will be at their own hands.
As soon as this happens the Israelis will be devoured by the Arabs---and they will deserve receiving that which they have 'visited upon others', and will cease to be anything but a small 'group of survivors'--- if that.
I think that the Iranians are laughing at the Israeli and USA intimations of another illegal war of aggression. They are sure to realize that the USA has now become its own worst enemy. The few 'decent Americans (12 of them) are out numbered and over powered by the fools who have been in control from the beginning. They cannot even manage their own economy or any other vital factor much less win the wars they start. But for that matter, neither can the Israelis.
Speaking as one of the USA's 'prisoners of one of their other illegal wars of aggression', I recommend highly that they 'attack Iran'----the sooner the better.
"If the USA were another nation, the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe' and they would be justified."
Good Luck America, you really need it.
"They cannot even manage their own economy or any other vital factor much less win the wars they start."
The greatest, most powerful military ever to walk the earth so far has been unable to "pacify" one city, Baghdad.
Native Son said:
Since Israel, being a criminal and cowardly nation, only surpassed in that category by the USA ---could never hope to survive without the USA, and would never attack Iran without the 'assurances' of the USA-- they are weak and powerless without the USA."
.
.
.
While I don't wish to silence or coerce your postings in any way, and I sincerely like reading your posts as they are always good and full of wisdom, I still need to take issue with your characterization of all 300 million Americans as "cowards" and "criminals". I'm sure you tar us all like this because of something my ancestors, who I never met, did to your ancestors, who you never met.
In fact the very notion of "bravery" and "cowardice" in battle is an absurd suggestion since decisions to run or fight are not made in today's conflicts by the people fighting the battle, but by chicken hawks playing chess to amuse themselves and get richer hiding behind a bunker or in a pentagram shaped building in another country.
I think your analysis of China's oil strangulation is correct. As much as I hate War Hawks, you have to give them the worry that Capitalism has created a new monster: China's huge Military buildup. And just like their economy, it runs on oil and manufacturing machines of war, which they are doing in breakneck fashion. No one is safe right now in the region from China. They are not doing this for defense. Nothing in conventional warfare can stop a mechanized two billion man army if it comes to that. Nothing.
But this is exactly how Perl Harbor started. We cut off all their Oil and Imports knowing that it was only a matter of time before the blowup happened.
We need to demand that pot be smoked by all world leaders and CEO's. Then drug test them to make sure they stay mellow. Otherwise I see the coming decade as nothing but a wet dream for the "Brotherhood of Death" aka., The Skull and Bones Society. It might interest you to know that they worship the Skull of Geronimo for christs sakes, because he was the most fearless, bloodthirsty opponent they ever came up against (they dug it up at midnight the story goes.) That is about the only thing they admire. Sad testimonial. We need to bury dead religions and head-hunting tribal societies before they see us all go extinct.
Cheers my Native American Friend,
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I mention the '12 decent Americans' often.
Obviously you are one of them.
NativeSon
Thanks Native Son,
That means a lot to me.
Best Wishes,
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Read the book, "The Unsteady March". I'm sure it is behind a lot of what President Obama is doing in regards to war. You see, when all is said and done, President Obama would like to do something to help African Americans. I think he's going about it the wrong way but what I think doesn't count.
The conclusion of this well researched and scholarly book on the role of African Americans in the USA from the moment slaves were brought to the colonies to the present is that African Americans have progressed in their liberty, freedom and rights in the USA ONLY during periods of hot or cold war. In each war, from the revolutionary war when they were promised emancipation (only the British side honored this promise) to the cold war when Russia was using the treatment of blacks as a propaganda tool against the USA, whenever blacks were needed by the government, a campaign was put in place to convince them to help and that after they helped, they'd be treated as citizens. Most of that was bullshit but, with each war, a little was gained. With each period of peace, some of what was gained was lost by crap such as Jim Crow laws. So here we have a bright African American who is "needed" by the establishment to con the folks some more. He says sure but privately thinks that he's got to help the black part of his family too. So he won't let go of war because he firmly believes that the moment americans are not giving "rag-heads" the evil eye, they'll go back to the business of demonizing and marginalizing minorities in general and blacks in particular. It's as american as apple pie!
THE UNSTEADY MARCH
The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America
by Philip A. Klinkner with Rogers M. Smith
published 1999
I don't think Israel is prepared to back up its threat to attack Iran if the U.S. doesn't. False Flag Nation specializes exclusively in the slaughter of the defenseless -- it's what they do. Iran is not defenseless and this fact is not lost on the consciousless and cowardice genocide monkeys that make up the IDF.
Only a few summers ago they sent ground troops into Lebanon after a merciless and wholly unjustified bombing campaign that targeted and killed over a thousand Lebanese civilians and displaced several hundred thousand more (a serious war crime), which included the use of cluster bombs. They met a determined and competent Hezbollah resistance force in this ground assault and when False Flag Nation began taking casualties they immediately turned tail and scampered back home -- a very telling international exhibition of what they're actually made of, and it will likely be their eventual undoing.
The Lebanon attack has me confused, I must admit. Was it NeoCon Warhawk revenge for Ronald Regean's well publicized retreat out of Beruit? Level the city, then go in? From the lack of coverage, near total in the English world, I cannot determine what the hell went on. I read that the world-funded no-bid contract to rebuild the city was given to "The Bin Laden Group" which used to be called "Bin Laden Brothers Contracting for Industry" and was hired repeatedly by the Carlyle Group which of course was chaired by one H.W. Bush. My guess is, that just like much of the "rebuilding" that never happened in Bagdad, it's another scam to steal money from the little guy again (the taxpayer.)
Just like the Mafia, the "Consolidators" that Thomas Jefferson so often warned us about, have consolidated all power and wealth under one tent.
This is not how the government was designed to function.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
the neocons, who are by-and-large american jews subservient to israel against the interest of the US, and who were disgraced for giving away themselves as such, are no longer useful to carry the water for israel. but the israeli determination and ambitions in the middle east never changed.israel's politic is bent on dominating the middle east. but since they don't have the muscles to do that, they reverted to leaning on their lackeys in the US to do their dirty work.camoufaged largey and intertwining this ambition with the US interest, and with the assistance of the corporate-israel-controll medii, they normally succeed with lies and deciption as has happened with the war in iraq : weapon of mass destruction, quoting unexisting british intelegence, the yellow cake, the potable germ labs( thank you general powel) etc, etc. now that was over and the neocones are useless. their new attention is diverted toward iran nuclear weapon.it is another camoflaged drama since israel cannot put the middle east under its hegemony with iran owning nuclear weapons. and here again comes the good old USA marines and armada to inforce the israeli ambitions.good luck rahm emanuel and axelrod.you may still be able to pull another war to serve israel.
The neocons are not solely represented only by Israel-subservient American Jews, as you are suggesting, and they have another interest, you haven't mentioned: A military and weapons buildup such as that envisioned in eastern Europe against the Soviet Union would certainly aid the defence portion of the American economy, and would likely presage a general buildup to a second Cold War. For this very reason neoliberals have begun to distance themselves this week from a previous Iran strategy that concentrates on obtaining Russian cooperation in obtaining sanctions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-mankoff/the-road-to-tehran-does-n_b_284458.html
Chickenhawks are proven to be the greatest war-mongers. I want to see a poll of how many of them have ever been in a war, or even in the military.
Go! Go! Can't happen soon enough. The upcoming world war should be quite spectacular and I don't have many years left to watch the fireworks.
Is anyone taking bets on the outcome? My money's on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Last time I checked, Iran was an associate member.
With the right hand, Bibi shows the middle finger to Obama with respect to halting expansion of settlements knowing that right wing extremists and AIPAC will cover his back. With the left hand Bibi, through his proxies in US is starting to stampede the sheeple towards a third war. You never know, may be many of those without jobs will line up to go and kill those people over there. A very smart way for other peoples children in US to fight his wars.
I'd like to just sit back and watch the Jews go it alone...it would be fun to watch...they are full of drek.
They are trying to get the US to "throw the brick."
They are abusers and like all abusers they are cowardly and only pick on women and children and the defenseless.
Their most efficient best weapon is the bulldozer and wall building which they use with impunity against the defenseless. And we the US are the enablers for Israelis with the billions we send them every year.
Karma is stacked against Israel for all the hardship that they've made the Palestinians endure all these years.
Please don't conflate "the Jews" with "the Israelis". This Jew thinks Iran should be approached with diplomacy (and facts in hand!).
Agree totally. Like most governments (mafia families) the peoples' wish for peace is of little concern.
Need anyone take advice from a snarling, irascible warmonger like Bolton -someone who uses a hand grenade on his desk for a paperweight. I mean, really!
No doubt the grenade was a souvenir from the many years he spent bravely fighting for his country.
It must be frustrating to AIPAC and Israel that they cannot dictate Russia's foreign policy as they can with the USA and to a lesser extent NATO countries.
What is the current percentage of American politicians and business leaders who refer to themselves as being "Jewish" ? I wonder if that has anything to do with it ?
The American Jews who comprise AIPAC consider Israel's interests first, and then America's, even when the Israeli position will cause enormous damage to the US.
When will American politicians stand up to this malign fifth column notwithstanding its financial and political power?
the real malignant 5th column are the American oil companies. if it weren't for Arab oil, there would be no AIPAC (and probably no Israel)
Good point. Starting with the Balfour declaration, the British and Americans did not agree to the homeland out of love for Jews. On the contrary. The powerful in both countries despised Jews. They didn't let them into their country clubs or swimming pools or let their children marry Jews.
They agreed to that location as a way to put an indebted and cooperative power base in the area, so various Arabs could not so easily unite and reclaim THEIR homelands from the different imperialist countries and the oil companies.
If it had not been in oil company interests, the homeland could have been established in Uganda in 1917 or by appropriating a prosperous swath of Germany for that purpose in 1948.
And once oil runs out, let's see how much the US will protect Israel. It is in everyone's interest to figure out some sort of peaceful coexistence, which probably requires full rights for every human being in the region.
Attacking Iran would be moronic and criminal.
Joe
The Russians created a Jewish Homeland in Siberia under Stalin.
The Oblast was to be a Jewish Autonomous region and wa slocated near the Chinese Border in what was called Birobidzhan.
Stalin had tried to create a Jewish Homeland where Jews could escape persecution in areas of the Ukraine before that but failed due to local opposition. This agai out of no particular love for the Jews. He just wanted to be rid of them somehow.
How interesting that you mention the Balfour declaration. Let's have a poll among U.S. University Students which asks: "in which nation was the land promised by Mr. Balfour as a haven for Jews at the time Balfour made the declaration"? My prediction: between 1% and 5% correct answers. My experience with University students is that their knowledge of world history and world affairs is dismal, with a handful of exceptions always.
Perhaps it might be a good idea to read the actual words which are the essence of this A5 document, The Balfour Declaration. Anyone interested can see it posted on the wall of Waddesden Manor near Aylesbury Buckinghamshire, UK:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Nothing about stealing land, nothing about 8 metre high walls (the Berlin wall was 4 at its highest point) nothing about a soley Jewish state in Palestine there either!
Many thanks, Maximus Decimus, for providing us with this.
It's amazing to read "...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...," in light of the brutal ethnic cleansing, theft, murder and apartheid, that actually happened and are still happening there.
Perhaps it might be a good idea to read the actual words which are the essence of this A5 document, The Balfour Declaration. Anyone interested can see it posted on the wall of Waddesden Manor near Aylesbury Buckinghamshire, UK:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Nothing about stealing land, nothing about 8 metre high walls (the Berlin wall was 4 at its highest point) nothing about a soley Jewish state in Palestine there either!
Is there no end to the madness of the Mandarins in DC & Tel Aviv? Are three countries in flames in the ME NOT enough? Do we need a fourth? ...a fifth? When will this madness end?...when the Earth has been turned to ash? Will they be HAPPY then? - when there is finally peace, because all life has been extinguished.
These spiralling wars are all in a good righteous cause and must be welcomed and encouraged at every opportunity.
The Religious Right Evangelical Fundamentalists demand their Rightful Rapture and Israel is the catalyst for stirring it up.
Israelis will of course switch religions at the last moment -didn't you know that? How can anyone possibly not believe that?
once all the oil has been depleted, America's captains of industry will stop wreaking havoc in the Middle East
The Israeli Jews are hi-jacking the American military to carry out yet another bloody aggression for them. Will the War Crimes Commission have enough rope to hang all of our war criminals?
as long as Arab oil keeps providing gargantuan profits to American oil barons , the Israeli right-wingers are our tools, not the other way around
You might be right Whirled Peas, I'm not sure.
Skull and Bones books (The Tomb in the middle of Yale University) leaked to the public are full of loyalty to the plight of the Israelites and contain songs, chants and poems glorifying the Christian capture of both Babylon and Jerusalem. Religion, historically, has always been the most powerful war tool in mobilizing the masses to their own ruin and now that "the fortress has been built on top of Babylon" as prophesied by their unspoken cult by the bushnut (the Bagdad US embassy) I fear the next step by the Skulls (Judges, Congressmen and CEO's) is to have their promised holy war on the temple mount itself.
Oil, Golden Calves and self Glory; that's what this next war is really going to be about. It has nothing to do with our well-being as citizens of the former democracy we loved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_bones
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
This is yet another example of pro Israel sympathizers hijacking the American political machinery for their own selfish aims.
In some ways it's similiar to the way a virus hijacks the genetic material of a cell and takes control of it.
When are Americans going to wake up and take back control of their own foreign policy and get rid of this Israel influence once and for all ?
What does Israel actually *do* for America besides spend lots of our money ?
We give, and they cry, and we give, and they cry more, and what do we ever get in return besides inheriting their problems ?
Now they want us to fight and pay for their war.
Wake up people.
you are justified in your frustration with our foreign policy here, but don't assume Israel (or Zionism) wields some incomprehensible, magic control over the US government. it is foolish to blame Jews for something they have very little say in. world wars 1 & 2 wizened western industrialists to the need of controlling the Middle East's oil, thus the mobster approach characterized by atrocities such as the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 and later, the rogue inception of of the Israeli state, created against the wishes of most displaced European Jews by the way, for the sake of controlling oil. thus it is Americas corporate governance which grants Israel the right to menial corruption in DC - it is a small price to pay for the wealth and power reaped by Wall St, the most un-patriotic goons of our citizenry.
The effin NY Times and Wall Street Journal are once again printing statements by various official sources without making any attempt to verify their truth. This is such a repeat of the Vietnam era, only extended to several countries in the Mid East and in South America.
Is it a sign that people are becoming disenchanted with Israel and have to have their jingoism rekindled? Or that we need some extra justification to market more weapons? Or is it just that the press is a bunch of lazy, brain-dead scribblers who want to suck up to the powerful?
Joe
I can't even read this article.
My only thought is: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
You will read more reports of "Iranian Weapon Caches" found in Iran and Afghanistan from anonymous sources in the Government.
By the way there was much secrecy around this but recently Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Russia to hvae high level meetinsg with the Russian Government. He flew in on a private jet and the Russian Government at first refused to acknowledge that the meetinsg occurred.
The press now claims Mr Netanyahu pressed the Russians to stay out of Iran if Israel decided to attack. It also reported that Russia refused indicating they would come to the defense of iran.
If the Israelis and pro-Israeli Americans want to get rid of Iran's non-bomb why aren't they concerned about Pakistan's nuclear capability? And why don't the Israelis handle it themselves instead of knocking perpetually at our door? Oh, for the good old days of the cold war when both superpowers were forced to think twice before engaging in hostilities.
Not to mention that we just cut deals with India and Dubai to build them nuclear reactors. AND THEN THERE'S ISRAEL'S WMD's.
"And why don't the Israelis handle it themselves instead of knocking perpetually at our door? "
Israel is our employee, that's why. They're like a 51st state full of the Zionist equivalents to Blackwater employees. If we stop funding their wars, maybe they couldn't afford to have so many. If why didn't block every vote against them at the UN, then two thirds of the country would be "no fly zones", sanctions would kill a half a million Israeli children, and Hans Blix would be busy in Dimona.
Because Pakistan is in with the CIA and some funding for the hijackers on 9/11 came from Pakistani secret agents... and Israel thinks 9/11 was good for their cause... that is part of the reason.
The article says "Many analysts suggest that Iran's government is currently in no position to respond coherently to U.S. engagement."
Ridiculous statement, any aggression towards Iran will unite them.
Iran has the means to blowup Israel's Nuke power plants...these hawks like to talk tough but talk is all they got now.
Mark my words folks, if the U.S. and Israel attack Iran it will start WWIII,Russia will have no choice and Iran is no weak country like Iraq, not to mention the millions of Muslims this will enrage in countries like Pakistan ect.
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still struggling at home to overcome challenges to its legitimacy resulting from the disputed presidential election in June. Many analysts suggest that Iran's government is currently in no position to respond coherently to U.S. engagement." - this statement is indeed misleading, given the recent, well-documented US/CIA intervention in foreign elections: Russia, with Yeltsin, the Orange revolution in the Ukraine, eastern Europe and Africa in general. point in case, John McCain sits on the advisory board of Terror Free Tomorrow,which along with the New America Foundation (Henry Kissinger, Walmart and some libertarians) commissioned the "only credible poll" on the 2009 Iranian presidential elections, predicting a solid win for Ahmadinejad. Curious, the polling was conducted by phone, outside of Iran by and undisclosed call center. the "Green Revolution" affair reeks of CIA involvement. and lets not forget that the CIA staged the 1953 coup in Iran, overthrowing a democratically elected, legitimate prime minister - over oil.
and why no mention of all the IAEA assesments, the only credible reports on the Iranian nuclear program? they clearly state Iran has no nukes and wont for a very long time.
and for a while now, the GOP has been pushing for a December showdown on Iran, pushing AIPAC's bill in Congress,the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act:
Iran Hawks Push Obama on Deadline for Diplomacy
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46949
Only if Israel gives up their nukes should Iran not be allowed to possess them--could it be that maybe we are in Iraq and Afghanistan so as to position ourselves for a Zionist attack against Iran? With all these Nazis-trained neo-cons clambering their drums of war--I seriously wonder???
There's no doubt about it Jim,
It's the classic pincher move buttressed by Pakistan to the South (and the US Navy in the Indian Ocean) and NATO bases to the North. We've got them surrounded, and they've been hurting the Oil mafia's profits (exxon, bp, etc) by threatening to flood the world with cheap oil and to not take worthless US dollars for it.
I've been really surprised that we didn't hit them already. Cheney's Haliburton was reported years ago to have natural gas wells inside Iran in violation of the embargo (but it was laundered though the Caymen Islands so it didn't count.)
We're fully a war economy now from what I can guess, and we need to put GM back to work, so I'm guessing a WW III idea is being cooked up by Skull and Bones members and the Bilderberg Group. I'm not sure it can be stopped.
We need to change the constitution to read: "We the Lobbyists, in order to form a more perfect monopoly, hereby use war for profit....."
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
This article quotes a lot of hawks like John Bolton.
Even if Iran had a nuke, what makes people think they will start a nuclear war against THEMSELVES!
"For this reason, many suggest that the U.S. should either make preparations to attack Iran militarily itself, or step aside and allow Israel to do so."
The article also quotes "many". And you know THOSE PEOPLE are always right.
In flat contradiction to the detailed presentation in this article, what's relevant is the "many" in the USA are busy running the rat wheels which enables the "few" in the USA to plunder the earth. Please vote again next election to preserve the status quo. After all, running our rat wheels is all we know.