Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Itching to Fight Another Muslim Enemy
If you read the major American newspapers or watch the propaganda on cable TV, it's pretty clear that the U.S. foreign policy Establishment is again spoiling for a fight, this time in Iran.
Just as Iraq's Saddam Hussein was the designated target of American hate in 2002 and 2003, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is playing that role now. Back then, any event in Iraq was cast in the harshest possible light; today, the same is done with Iran.
Anyone who dares suggest that the situation on the ground might not be as black and white as the Washington Post's editors claim it is must be an "apologist" for the enemy regime. It's also not very smart for one's reputation to question the certainty of the reporting in the New York Times, whether about Iraq's "aluminum tubes" for nuclear centrifuges in 2002 or regarding Iran's "rigged" election in 2009.
It's much better for one's career to clamber onto the confrontation bandwagon. Nobody in the major U.S. media or in politics will ever be hurt by talking tough and flexing muscles regarding some Muslim "enemy." And, if the posturing leads to war, it will fall mostly to working-class kids to do the fighting and dying while the bills can be passed along to future generations.
Even groups that should know better - like Votevets.org representing veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars - have been piggybacking on the organized hate campaign against Ahmadinejad and Iran to advance other political agendas. In cable TV ads, Votevets.org uses Ahmadinejad's face and Iran's alleged manufacture of some IEDs to press the case for alternative energy.
Indeed, looking at this American propaganda campaign objectively, you would assume that the only acceptable outcome of U.S. differences with Iran is another Iraq-like ratcheting up of tensions, using Washington's influence within the UN Security Council to impose escalating sanctions, leading ultimately to another war, as if the lessons of Iraq have already been forgotten.
Fearing Negotiations
This warmongering attitude was on display again Monday, when a possible breakthrough regarding Iran's refining of nuclear material - its agreement to ship a substantial amount to Turkey in exchange for nuclear rods for medical research - was treated more as a negative than a positive.
The New York Times promptly framed the agreement reached by Iran, Turkey and Brazil as "complicating sanctions talk," while the Washington Post rushed out an analysis with the headline, "Iran creates illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations."
The Post's analysis followed a Saturday editorial denouncing Brazil's President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva for even trying "yet another effort to ‘engage' the extremist clique of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "
The Post's neocon editorial writers reprised the usual anti-Iran propaganda themes with all the arrogance that they once showed in declaring as flat fact that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMD. After the U.S. invaded Iraq and found no WMD caches, the Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt acknowledged to CJR that if there indeed were no WMD, "it would have been better not to say it."
(More than 4,300 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, in part, because of Hiatt's mistake.)
On Saturday, an unchastened Hiatt and his crew were back again spouting more fictions, this time about Iran, like the oft-repeated claim that the Iranian election last June was "fraudulent," apparently because the Post's preferred candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, lost.
An analysis by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes earlier this year found that there was little evidence to support allegations of fraud or to conclude that most Iranians viewed Ahmadinejad's reelection as illegitimate.
Not a single Iranian poll analyzed by PIPA - whether before or after the June 12 election, whether conducted inside or outside Iran - showed Ahmadinejad with less than majority support. None showed the much-touted Green Movement's candidate Mousavi ahead or even close.
"These findings do not prove that there were no irregularities in the election process," said Steven Kull, director of PIPA. "But they do not support the belief that a majority rejected Ahmadinejad." [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Ahmadinejad Won, Get Over It!"]
So, while many in the West may agree that Ahmadinejad is an unpleasant politician who foolishly questions the historical accuracy of the Holocaust and makes other bombastic statements, it is nevertheless a propaganda fiction to continue asserting that he was not the choice of most Iranian voters.
The point is not insignificant, because the claim about Iran's "fraudulent" election has been cited repeatedly as fact by the Post, the Times and other major U.S. news outlets, feeding the rationale of Israel and U.S. neocons in demanding "regime change."
If Ahmadinejad was actually elected - even if the process had flaws - then the goal of "regime change" would involve ousting a popularly chosen leader, much like the CIA helped do in 1953 when another anti-Western Iranian leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, was removed from office and replaced by Washington's preferred choice, the Shah of Iran.
But the American hostility toward Ahmadinejad - and the U.S. media's annoyance at any rapprochement between Washington and Tehran - present other dangers, particularly now that Iran has agreed to a previous Western demand that it transfer 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of low-enriched uranium out of the country, in this case to Turkey, where it would be stored.
The Iran-Turkey-Brazil agreement would then give Iran the right to receive about 265 pounds of more highly enriched uranium from Russia and France in a form that could not be used for a nuclear weapon, but could be put to use for peaceful purposes, such as medical research.
Even though this new deal parallels a plan that the Obama administration favored last October, U.S. officials have indicated that they might balk at the agreement now because the 2,640 pounds of low-enriched uranium represents a lower percentage of Iran's total supply than it did last fall, possibly more like half than two-thirds.
"The situation has changed," one diplomat told the New York Times.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs also indicated that the new agreement would not stop the United States from seeking harsher sanctions against Iran.
"The United States will continue to work with our international partners, and through the United Nations Security Council, to make it clear to the Iranian government that it must demonstrate through deeds - and not simply words - its willingness to live up to international obligations or face consequences, including sanctions," Gibbs said.
Victory/Defeat
The Washington Post's analysis by Glenn Kessler portrayed the new agreement as "a victory" for Iran that has allowed it to create "the illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations with the West, without offering any real compromise to the United States and its allies."
However, perhaps the bigger concern among American neocons is that the Iran-Turkey-Brazil accord might weaken the rationale for pressing ahead either with a military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities or with a "regime change" strategy that would use sanctions and covert political operations to turn the Iranian people against their government.
By reducing the prospects of Iran building a nuclear weapon - something that Iran has vowed that it has no intention of doing and that U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in 2007 that it wasn't doing - the new agreement could remove the scariest claim that Israel and its supporters have used in justifying a confrontation with Iran.
So, what might otherwise appear as good news - i.e. an agreement that at minimum delays the possibility of an Iranian bomb and could be a first step toward a fuller agreement - is presented as bad news.
"The Obama administration now faces the uncomfortable prospect of rejecting a proposal it offered in the first place -- or seeing months of effort to enact new sanctions derailed," Kessler explained.
As usual, too, the articles by the Washington Post and the New York Times left out the relevant fact that Israel, which has been aggressively pushing for greater transparency from Iran over its suspected interest in nukes, itself has one of the world's most sophisticated - and undeclared - nuclear arsenals.
Even as President Barack Obama has demanded more nuclear transparency from all countries, he himself continues the longstanding charade of U.S. presidents, dating back to Richard Nixon, pretending that they don't know that Israel has nuclear weapons.
In line with that history of double standards, Washington's neocon opinion leaders now are framing what could be a positive step toward peace - the Iran-Turkey-Brazil accord - as another failure.
But the larger truth may be that the neocons are simply chafing under the possibility that their hunger for a new conflict in the Middle East might be delayed indefinitely and that - heaven forbid - cooler heads might prevail.
- Posted in
39 Comments so far
Show AllArdent: "...this new war ... is simply part of the old one."
Agreed. The neocon agenda continues, carrying out the strategies pre-announced in the Ziocon manifestoes, "Clean Break: a strategy for securing the realm" for Israel and PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" for the U.S.
I have long said that these depredations will not stop until the murderous hoax used to kick-start this rampage--the 9/11 attacks--are exposed for the false-flag event that they were.
Many thanks, all the same, to Robert Parry for ripping the mask off of the MSM's staggeringly mendacious coverage of this latest development in the "Iran crisis."
One step at a time.
How do you think the Saudis got inside the highly secure WTC 7 to wire it for demolition?
Clovis
Bingo! Excellent point.
Votevets.org president Jon Soltz has been on Countdown in the past to spout his faux antiwar rhetoric with nary a protest from that alleged liberal, Keith Olbermann.
What the Middle East needs is an underground network that could funnel freedom fighters from one besieged country to the next in order to combat American imperialism.
Israel and the United States have always worked together to dominate the middle east and make the world safer for the wealthy. We also shouldn't underestimate the pure joy of killing foreigners that has never lost its appeal to a large segment of the American public. Olbermann has beome an echo chamber talking to himself and for the democratic party.
Note, too, how the U.S. media's and government's "fear of negotiation" (to use Parry's term), and their turning of reality on its head, so closely resemble Israel's taking of every possible measure, political and rhetorical, to avoid negotiating with Palestinians.
The Asia Times journalist, Pepe Escobar, has a good account of the Brasil-Turkey negotiations with Iran. See: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE19Ak01.html The USA, under the influence of the Israel lobby, has not been negotiating in good faith. They want negotiations with Iran to fail, so that we can start another war. A big one. Maybe using nuclear weapons. Iran is a "threat" because it wants to be an independent nation. An independent Iran "threatens" Israel because it means Israel might have to keep its soldiers and settlers inside of its own borders. The "danger" is that Israel will be forced to become a normal nation, compliant with international law and with UN resolutions. The tragic irony in all of this is that the USA, Israel, and Iran are all theological nations, driven by extreme self-righteous confidence that they are fulfilling God's wishes. Each of these nations "knows" for certain that any wars its fights are just and moral. If Americans would think for a moment what a big war in the Persian Gulf will mean for the price of gasoline, the recovery of the economy, the ballooning national debt, then they would reject plans for more war, and might pray, "Heaven help us."
SeriousCitizen, "Israel might have to keep its soldiers and settlers inside of its own borders."
Might I point out one small detail of disagreement, Israel actually has no declared borders, so to say they might have to keep someone "inside of its borders," seems to have missed the point that Israel is a nation that doesn't know where stop, so to speak. This, among other things, has caused quite a bit of apprehension among its neighbors.
These developments make this article a must read:
http://www.truthout.org/us-hegemony-not-the-lobby-behind-complicity-with-israel59507
US Hegemony, Not "The Lobby,"
Behind Complicity With Israel
Tuesday 27 April 2010
by: Stephen Maher, The Electronic Intifada
-"The Obama administration now faces the uncomfortable prospect of rejecting a proposal it offered in the first place ..."
I think Obama is getting used to doing that, don't you?
Obama is for: Closing Gitmo, then is not, he's for universal healthcare, then he is not, he's for withdrawing from Iraq, then he is not, he's for fair trials, then he is not...
How is that "hopey changey thing" working out for you?
The left loves to excoriate the pistol packin mama from Alaska, but she is in some ways better than Obomba because this lady is sooooo stupid that she is not pandering and sincerely believes what she is saying is true! Obomba is much more dangerous because he is an intelligent con man who has fooled and contiues to fool a lot of people and apologist, pundits like Olbermann and Maddow. Obomba has no morals, but unlike Palin and Beck who are dumb and dumber he is very dangerous because he is just another Bush with a higher IQ.To quote his pastor for 20 years,the Rev. Wright: " Obama threw me under the bus".
Found this at Glenn Greenwald's comment section, not sure where it is from originally, "faftblog", or something, I think it belongs here:
We know that Barack Obama, in his heart of hearts, truly wants Real Change. We can tell this by examining the furrows of his brow as he squints meaningfully into the middle distance, by carefully measuring the sincerity-per-pixel count of his campaign posters, by reflecting on the inspirational Martin Luther King quotes he delicately intones before carpet-bombing an Afghan village. But we also know that despite his best efforts, Barack Obama can't achieve Real Change, confounded as he is by such institutional barriers as Congress and the Pentagon and Barack Obama....
And we know that although Barack Obama is an idealist, representing the very best and brightest of American Liberalism, he's also a hard-nosed pragmatist, willing to compromise between extremes of Left and Right, between black and white, between war and more war. That's why when the Left wanted to close Guantanamo and the Right wanted to double Guantanamo, Obama doubled Bagram instead....
And we know that as disappointed as we might be in Barack Obama - in his little failings, in his petty slights, in his odd betrayals, in his unseemly habit of dancing naked through the streets of Oslo smeared with the blood and entrails of Afghan children - we also know that the alternative would be far worse. Why, with a Republican president, we might be at war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and possibly Iran, or facing some hideously draconian corporatist scheme to compel poor people to buy private insurance they can't afford, with a government that not only excuses the torture regimes of the past but dramatically expands them while giving itself license to murder anyone it likes anywhere on the planet. With Barack Obama, on the other hand, we have all that plus a man who can sparkle wittily on late night television. Now, I think that has to be worth at least a couple thousand dead Muslims, don't you?
You have misspelled the President's name. It is not "Obomba". The correct spelling is "Oh-bomb-em"
This is what our electoral choices have come down to: Fools or Knaves.
"Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes estimated that the long-term costs - taking into account the costs of taking care of wounded soldiers and rebuilding the military - of the war in Iraq will ultimately cost three trillion dollars." -Common Dreams
To the neo-cons who want to start another war I say "go ahead, make my day".
The US is already broke. Who's going to bankroll a war with Iran, Lloyd Blankfein?
A war with Iran will drive a stake into the heart of the US economy. Imagine thousands of abandoned shopping malls, empty suburbs, vacant freeways, and laid-off newspaper columnists eating out of trash cans.
Better yet, imagine that the US no longer has an extra 3 billion dollars to hand over to Israel every year and the Likud warmongers are left to the tender mercies of their closest neighbors.
When Israel wants a war, it stops at nothing. Those thugs that run the "Jewish" state have been threatening Muslim countries for decades. US politicians still gon't get it--Israeli Jews want all the land between Jordan and the sea, and they will resort to the most heinous and despicable acts to get it, including murdering Palestinian children, bombing civilians with white phosphorous, and assassinating anyone, anywhere. There is no humanity left in Israel.
I was looking at the stats to see what kind of trade goes on between the USA and Iran and how sanctions really work in practice.
The numbers really yo-yo up and down. Does anyone know why?
It's not oil as that transfer is banned (for now). But wait-
War for Oil Part II - soon to be a major motion export.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5070.html#2010
-It's not oil as that transfer is banned (for now).
Well, it seems to me, oil is a commodity, right? The US buys oil, whether the US buys a barrel from Iran, and China buys a barrel from Saudi Arabia, or China buys from Iran and the US buys from Saudi Arabia, it is just a shell game, correct? So sanctions or no sanctions, the US does buy oil, some of it from Iran.
(if you pour a glass of Iranian water into a pitcher of water, can an American drink a glass of it, without drinking Iranian water?)
At the stock market, they buy and sell oil. Nobody asks where it is from.
maybe Iran could put food colouring into its oil, to make life easier for Obama's sanctions regime???
"(if you pour a glass of Iranian water into a pitcher of water, can an American drink a glass of it, without drinking Iranian water?)"
Excellent analogy!! If Iranian oil was actually barred from the market, oil prices would be markedly higher, which is one of the main reasons why an attack on Iran is unlikely to occur.
The discovery that the USA sent weapons grade uranium to Israel in violation of the NPT ought to be enough for sanctions against the USA given the standards used against Iran, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25457.htm
It's almost comical that US Big Business is against sanctions on Iran because of the great money-making potential that exists in Iran, while Imperial planners continue to think the USA is all powerful when it is actually on the dividing line between recession and depression, with the Fed issuing virtual money to purchase virtual US T-bills to support an increasingly unrealistic and bankrupt federal government.
A war with Iran makes perfect sense for the US. The production needed for maintaining a war that will reach from Baghdad to Kabul will help maintain the economy, both here and in the countries in which there is (or will be) war. Think of the war profiteers who benefit from selling drones to us and material for IED's to them. We need to put our morals aside and recognize the good war does for business.
There is always the ultimate argument for another war, however, and a popular one in election season: War is how Americans learn geography, so a war with Iran would help Americans fit the missing piece in the puzzle on the board.
On top of those pieces we could then add the necessary pipelines that these (this) war(s) are (is) about.
Anyone care to notice that British Petroleum gave us the wrong side of history in Iran--and continues to do so? For it was Anglo-Persian Oil or some such shuck a bastid child of BP that caused us to throw in with our slimy cousins from across the pond when their panties got twisted into knots by another elected official--those pesky democracies always do give empires problems--Mohammed Mossadeq who nationalized oil when he was elected in 1953. What were "we" to do but take sides with the British Empire? Isn't that what the Tea Partiers would have done? Oh, P'Shah!
Sioux Rose
PAHART: If your logic was on target, then the already engaged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would demonstrate as economic improvements at home. Not so. Money disappears to the offshore banks where those who capitalize on destruction (a/k/a Disaster Capitalism) hide them. The nation is coming apart at the seams. Programs are being cut, property taxes are not being collected in a way that meets state expenses due to so many thrown out of their homes, unemployment is very high, etc.
And by the way, perhaps English is not your first language, but it is not bastid, it's bastard. The argument for war is made by the MIC and the weapons' producers, and the state representatives that see war as a job-builder. However, as I pointed out in the first paragraph, the wages of sin (from aggression) are NOT trickling down.
I did not say the wages of sin trickled down, merely that war is about the only thing (that and people getting brain cancer talking on their iphones--"i" being idiot) keeping the economy going. Does it go as fast as it could? No, but we haven't revved up for the world war, yet. Mebbe if we let the bastids go as far as they want to, we could build our war factories and put us all back to work making bombs like my grandma Rosie did when we bombed our way outta depression. By the way, I don't know if your first language is English or not, but it ain't disaster capitalism, it's capitalism. And capitalism is always a disaster, but Naomi Klein thinks she's got the new skinny. Attention, Naomi: if it's 'skinny', it ain't new; that would make it 'stinky'. Cf., John Sayles, 'Lone Star'.
PAHartnett--I love your subtle sarcasm: "War is how Americans learn geography".Many years ago when I was in Army Basic Training, they called us all together and anounced we were at war. I raised my hand and ask,"Who are we fighting", and when we were informed that it was Viet Nam, I knew that it was in Asia, but most of the others had no clue. Most of us would learn where it was within another six months. Yours is a very good antidote to some of the Israeli trolls who post here.
They did a poll of the American people in the 1980's, asking them where Nicaragua was. It became, like Vietnam, a country on the map that Americans had become interested in when we began spending money on fighting a war there. According to that survey, a vast majority said Nicaragua was located in the South Pacific.
Does that mean that majority imagined Contras singing 'Bali Hi' with Bloody Mary after a tough day out fighting sandinistas? Quien sabe, senor?
Sioux Rose
"We've always been at war with Eurasia.
"We've never been at war with Eurasia."
Orwell sure had Western political moves nailed!
The MSM does the same hatchet job on Chavez that it did on Castro, and may end up aiming at Evo Morales of Bolivia or Lula soon enough.
Because no international body held the US & Brit leaders to account for fixing their case for war against Iraq, they see they can get away (so far) with murder.
I think the fall-out from the following 3 toxic conditions, will wake up enough minds to begin to generate some form of international counter-force to the sins of US empire.
Imagine the backlash from:
1. Derivatives & swaps, those financial weapons of mass destruction beginning to bring down the economies of European nations.
2. Gulf Stream blowback: the Gulf waters churning in deadly toxic agents will likely eventually head towards Europe to contaminate their tourist beaches.
3. War escalation: With the US leading the way to sell weapons 'round the world, sooner or later some of these are going to attack Western cities, including our own, with tragic consequences.
Karmic blowback is INEVITABLE.
Every one of these approaches is anathema to peace, ecological sustainability, and basic sanity. SOMETHING must stop the beast (fed on MIC steroids)!
My guess is that the hate-Iran campaign will go on for quite a while, without moving to any direct military action by the US or Israel. The myth of an Iranian threat is essential to the Likud bloc in Israel, whose power depends on keeping the fears of the Israeli electorate at a high level, and to actually end the supposed threat of a new holocaust would alleviate that fear. And the US requires justification for its enormous military, and Iran's current leadership is happy to provide that justification with their endless rants and nuclear posturing. On its face, the Brazil-Turkey initiative looks very promising, and Obama might even be willing to accept it as an alternative to severe sanctions - but chances are that Iran will continue to stall and delay even that deal. Why? Tehran really does want nuclear weapons,mostly because the Mullahs are obsessed with enhancing their own power in every possible way. And their desire to keep this whole sinister game going just happens to serve the needs of US and Israeli leaders. Of course, the game is a dangerous one and could spill over into war through a miscalculation of any of the three whose needs it serves. The only real hope for permanent peace is the overthrow of the Mullahs, which almost seemed possible a few months ago.
What business is it of ours who the Persians vote for? America should not go abroad in search of monsters. Lord knows, Allah be praised, we have enough monsters right here at home. Oh my goodness, there are crackers in Muslim countries who are anti-semites. I'm shocked, there are gamblers in the casino. It's like people being shocked over Goldman Sachs. Anybody notice that we don't cover the Palestinian side of the story? Israeli: "Well, gee, no, we can't have a settlement of the settlement issue because, because...oh, that's right, Ahmadinejad wants the bomb. Holy cow, we can't let him have the bomb, even though we have the bomb, and that's the reason he wants a bomb so it will deter us."
But the pro-Israelis out there will spout that he (Iran's president) is a madman, an anti-semite, and etc.. I suggest that Mr Israel sit down and negotiate and stop blaming the Persian cat for his stripes, and hunker down and settle this hoo-hah instead of going after all the towel wearing ayatollahs when he has so many yarmulke wearing yahoos on his own turf hisself.
Bingo. In the event Iran even does want or win a nuke why is it US that's "the decider"? In a half sane country we would be light years away from even using terms like military strike or war.
Manufactured consent.
Military and Oil are in charge now.
Valatius-Where do you get the idea that the hi-ranking mullahs of Iran want to develop nuclear weapons? The Grand Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwah against the development of nukes and there is absolutely no evidence that the Iranians are working on nukes.
As to "moving strategically forward geopolitically against Russia, China, and all other powers in the Asian arena," I'd agree that was true of Cheney-Bush and the whole PNAC crowd, but Obama is much more committed to a stable balance of power in which the US remains the strongest power. This is similar to the approach of the British Empire prior to WWI. The Brits did not want war with Germany but would not tolerate any navy that was more than half the size of Britain's. When the Kaiser began to build up the German navy, Britain made an alliance with Russia to keep pressure on Germany. Through this miscalculation, Britain was dragged into war with Germany - altho this was the last thing British ruling classes wanted.
US elites have come to see the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran in the same light as Britain saw Germany's growing navy prior to 1914, and Obama may well make the kind of disastrous decisions the Brits did, and end up with a war he does not want. This is always the danger in playing the balance of power game when you really want the upper hand in such a balance, as the UK did.
And as to Tehran's desire for nukes - it is possible that the mullahs just want to play Saddam's game of pretending they have WMD, so as to deter the US and/or Israel from any attack. That would be a logical calculation, but it could backfire. Certainly, the mullahs do not want to be completely transparent about what they are up to in terms of enrichment capabilities.
The latest Sanctions proposed on Iran are too obviously
a pre-invasion continuation strategy for the US war for oil in the Middle East, lead by Israel.
To the extent they hold back Irans economic growth and the corresponding growth of trading partners, including China and the US itself they are a win.
Its just a pity that the Sanctions could not include Israel and the US, since they are the major nuclear proliferators and aggressors of this current world.
If sanctions are to prevent wars, they must work on both sides.
Is there any doubt that 21 criminals , that were allowed to attack the trade towers by Bush/Chenny / Rumsfeld, who were forewarned months before of looming attacks, that this has always been a war for money laundering the black eagle gold trust and the control for oil in the middle east.
So , you think the Rummuys announcement Sept 10 2001 that the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars is just another news story.
The trade buildings , Navel intelligence offices, and Federal offices holding files on investigations into money laundering all were destroyed in the attack is another conspiracy theory.
That we have been in a 400 billion dollar a year war for 9 years is just something that had to be done to keep America safe, all of this stuff is sane and explainable because of terrorism.
And , now , the greedy elite want us to attack Iran, and we are crazy for questioning these war mongering , fat sacks of shit, lieing , murdering , scum bags, who have stolen constitutional rights and continue to control all the money in the world.
Hell no, we are not crazy, we are being controlled by a bunch of greedy, super rich , murdering scum bags.
Our government and our military, as well as we the people, are being screwed by the super rich.
War with Iran will be the dagger in all our backs.....
NO WAR!!!!!
I see you have learned your lessons well, ardent. Why is it "delusional" to surmise, on the basis of a great deal of evidence (forensic, circumstantial, and eyewitness in the case of 9/11), that people sometimes conspire to do wicked things? I suggest you inform yourself a little better before impugning the character of people who disagree with you on certain matters.