Thread: The Empire continues without change: Obama accuses Iran of building nukes

Originally Posted by michaelr

And if a republican wanted to attack Iran you would be pissed.

If a Republican wanted to neutralise their nuclear programme I would commend them.

Originally Posted by michaelr

Right, even that everyone knows Iran can't build a nuke for years, even if they could, so the fuck what. Pakistan has them!! North Korea has them!!! Israel has them!!!! Russia has them!!!! and many many other countries have them, why not Iran partisan hack??

Iran has not demonstrated responsibility enough to merit the position of a nuclear power - even Pakistan and North Korea have demonstrated they are responsible with nuclear weaponry.

Originally Posted by michaelr

And if a republican wanted to attack Iran you would be pissed.

Thanks for saying that because I was thinking it. Bourne and Anisus were two of the ones who were upset that the Bush administration was concerned about this. Now that a leftist is in the white house, it is a measured and cautious response. That is duplicity and partisan BS if I ever saw it.

Originally Posted by Tick

Thanks for saying that because I was thinking it. Bourne and Anisus were two of the ones who were upset that the Bush administration was concerned about this. Now that a leftist is in the white house, it is a measured and cautious response. That is duplicity and partisan BS if I ever saw it.

I hear ya, some day give me a call and I will explain it, then if you wish we can discus it on the board.

Originally Posted by Tick

Thanks for saying that because I was thinking it. Bourne and Anisus were two of the ones who were upset that the Bush administration was concerned about this. Now that a leftist is in the white house, it is a measured and cautious response. That is duplicity and partisan BS if I ever saw it.

I was never upset about the Bush administration being concerned with Iran, fyi.

Originally Posted by Horhey

Yea, becouse US power centers want to overthrow a regime that toppled their former puppet - the Shah - and regain control over the 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserves in the world. If the Shah was in power the US would be subsidizing their neclear program like the Ford administration did. That program has been around since the 70's.

In reality. Jimmy Carter should have taken care of Iran in 79. But because he is a spinless coward, we have to do it now. Kudos to Obama for being willing to stand up to these Muslim terrorist thugs. I hope he follows through. I will be impressed if he does.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Nah. Nothing that simple.

The United States of America, needs continuing bank loans from countries like China.

Iran, supplies 22% of China's oil.

Our position relative to China, is that we have to give 'em just enough oil, so they'll keep loaning us money. No more, no less.

THAT is reality.

All the rest of this "puppet regime" crap, is... um.... not how these people think. They don't care about who is whose puppet. In politics, everyone is everyone's puppet.

Nah, the nature of this game, is "who's foolin' who". It's a very dangerous game. We depend on our intel to keep us on the side with the advantage.

You just elaborated on what I said. In 1953 the US installed the Shah to gain control over the 2nd or 3rd largest energy reserves. Controling this "stupendous source of strategic power" gives the US "critical leverage" over China's economy, and "veto power" over what they might do. US planners view China as a potential rival that could challange US dominance in the future.


Requires Adobe Acrobat

New York Times Special Report: The C.I.A. in Iran

Electronic Briefing Book: The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup

In 1979, the Shah was overthrown by an internal revolt lead by the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. Then US convinced their ally Saddam Hussein to try and overthrow their regime. The US has been trying to force regime change ever since with failed coup attempts, economic strangulation, and US sponsored terrorist organizations.

The US has never tolerated "successful defiance" becouse they see it as an "infection" that will spread and embolden others to go on an independant course.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

I was never upset about the Bush administration being concerned with Iran, fyi.

OK, maybe I miss understood.

Originally Posted by Tick

OK, maybe I miss understood.

Maybe you did Probably the one thing I agree with you guys is that action needs to be taken against Iran's nuclear programme for global security purposes.

Originally Posted by Horhey

You just elaborated on what I said. In 1953 the US installed the Shah to gain control over the 2nd or 3rd largest energy reserves. Controling this "stupendous source of strategic power" gives the US "critical leverage" over China's economy, and "veto power" over what they might do. US planners view China as a potential rival that could challange US dominance in the future.


Requires Adobe Acrobat

New York Times Special Report: The C.I.A. in Iran

Electronic Briefing Book: The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup

In 1979, the Shah was overthrown by an internal revolt lead by the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. Then US convinced their ally Saddam Hussein to try and overthrow their regime. The US has been trying to force regime change ever since with failed coup attempts, economic strangulation, and US sponsored terrorist organizations.

The US has never tolerated "successful defiance" becouse they see it as an "infection" that will spread and embolden others to go on an independant course.

And if Carter had a set of balls we would not have to do it now. But, that was not the case so now we have a real mess, in that Iran is partnered with Russia, who has their own designs on eastern europe. This known in some circles as a pickle.