I'm surprised Capo didn't post this.



http://rt.com/politics/war-iran-panarin-usa-989/

However, recently the dollar has been gaining strength against foreign currencies.

My ignorant uninformed guess is that unlike continental Europe, we're not tap dancing on the side of a cliff. (Except of course we'll probably be dragged over with them if they fall.)

Damned Europe. Germany and France flexing their political power, trying to bully us. Short memories these f--king people!!

A mob in Iran has sacked the British embassy in Tehran and attacked British run schools over there. Things are getting worse over there!!

My friend, I never have liked Iran thought they should have been wacked from the start, we have lost lives, and nothing is gonna change over there. And yes they are getting worse and will continue until destroyed.

To much PUSSY FOOTEN AROUND !

So ronnie what you think is gonna happen hare?

No goddamn idea.

Thanks, I don't think anybody has one. Let the idiots in Washington play with it and they will get us into something.

What I don't understand is this idea thrown around that going to "war" with Tehran is simply bombing the supposed testing sites.

If we're that anal (understandable that it is) about Iran obtaining a nuclear arsenal, simply blowing up site A and site Z won't end the problem. If anything, that regime will keep at it, if not escalating their efforts. We'll be going back a few years later to do the same thing.

Fact is, the only solution then if diplomacy and tomahawk launches fail to satisfy this threat are then the two words politician are purposely avoiding saying, same words the Pentagon dreads more than anything in policy regarding Iran: Regime Change

I have had about as much CHANGE as I can take !

Well remember that question I had regarding Iran that I was wondering outloud about?

Mitt Romney at the GOP Forum today said the magic words "Regime Change" regarding his approach to Iran.

Huntsman and Newt had their Lincoln/Douglas-stylized debate. Summary of their comments on Iran:



*drumbeat*

I can NOT believe people are even talking about this. Unbelievable. War, war and more war. Folks just need to stop. It's almost enough to make you vote for Ron Paul.

Now the Powers that be are talking about further sanctions on Iranian oil which would of course drive up prices for the West and strangle any economic recovery in the cradle. China would also ignore the sanctions and so another repressive country which is already a huge problem with regards to global warming and American jobs would get DISCOUNTED oil. Gee what does that mean. It would mean more of an incentive to move American production to China for cheaper oil.

And the US should not be seeking to "dissuade" Israel from attacking Iran. It should be a very clear NO. They take aid from us, not the other way around.

Something is really wrong with the American body politic. There's not an off switch on wars and rumors of war.

So, should Iran block the Straits of Hormuz or attempt its blockage, what should be the US response?

Blow them out of the fuckin' water.

I agree with Lilo on being against another unilaterally launched, unprovoked war Baghdad 2.0.

But in regards to shutting down the Straits, which is another matter completely and potential military scenario all together...I would suggest not to back down, not one bit. If they're really (stupidly) going through with it, its technically an illegal act of war to shut down global trade and commercial sea routes in International friendly waters. Nevermind the economical ramifications as Lilo already pointed out.

But that aside, push the limits of their resolve, see how willing they are to enforce it. Don't open fire, let those assholes make the first move. Let them hang themselves. I say "stupidly" on their part because if one Iranian ship fires at one American ship or plane or submarine, the inevitable anger that will arise from the American domestic front will indeed bring upon "regime change." (I'm pretty certain many Americans are wet-dreaming such a scenario as we're speaking.)

Tehran is banking on American public's apathy for another war, which they're right. Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate against war w/ Iran, yet he's got the most military campaign donors of all the candidates in the field.

But push comes to our naval shove, Tehran will pussy out because they don't want to step on Superman's cape. Talk is cheap, action is expensive.

Am I missing something here? If Iran were to finally become nuclear, Israel is target #1, whether directly or by one of Iran's terrorist clients getting it. Israel hardly needs - or should be required to ask - the approval of the U.S. to address the problem.

Furthermore, it should be obvious to anyone who isn't in denial that Iran is hellbent on becoming nuclear. When it will happen is debatable but it will happen sooner or later. And then the stability of the entire region is compromised. Regime change may ultimately be what is needed. And one shouldn't be too quick to try and draw parallels between Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Iran under Ali Khamenei as some sort of argument against a possible war.

Some elements in Israel or the US have been claiming for the past twenty years that Iran is a year or two away from going nuclear. These people should not be listened to since they are war hawks and far too eager to use war as the first instrument of American foreign policy. These are the same neo-cons that started the PNAC and are now in the Foreign Policy Initiative.

The latest report is anything but definitive and at the very least the fact that the drums for war are being beaten by the same people who lied us into Iraq should give reasonable people pause. Fool me once and all that.

Israel is a client state of the US. Before it embarks on a journey that could see oil prices triple and more war break out in the Mid East and have deleterious political and economic effects worldwide, yes it should check with what the boss wants. If it finds this onerous it is quite free to reject US aid and assistance. It should be pointed out that Israel has nuclear weapons of its own-at least 200-300 warheads by most accounts and is completely capable of taking care of itself.

Deterrence worked with the Soviet Union and the US. The US and China have burgeoning trade relations despite the fact that each side has nuclear weapons aimed at each other's cities. Although the hate is massive India and Pakistan have not attacked each other with nukes. I am unwilling to send American troops to die and to kill Iranian civilians so some fat cat in a Washington think tank can feel like a tough guy.

I realize people will be quick bring up Iraq. But there is a religious zeal present in Iran's top leadership that wasn't present in the Hussein regime. And that could make them using a nuclear weapon more possible. Nobody is saying we need to race to war. But don't be surprised if it ultimately comes to that after all other options have been exhausted. And war weariness isn't an excuse to be in denial about the danger Iran poses.

Also, it should be pointed out that the U.S. aids Israel because it wants to. Not so much because Israel needs it. And that's due to the religious, sociological, and political similarities between the two nations. I realize this burns the ass of all the leftists with the heat of a thousands suns but oh well. You know, the ones who always bring up our aid to Israel but never mention the billions we give in aid to the Palestinians as well.

I seem to remember that some of the people who were howling for war with Iraq making insinuations that Hussein was linked to Al-Qaeda and this was why we had to move NOW. Now the very same people are running the very same production about Iran. Again people should remember what happened, not just with Iraq but with Iran. Iran has the form of government it has now in large part because the US and the UK thought it was a good idea to force a coup in 1953. Blowback can have unforeseen consequences. War is such an evil thing that the only moral reason for it is self-defense. This is clearly not the case with the increasing war talk around Iran.
And the US and Israel (and others) are already conducting campaigns of murder and disruption inside Iran as this former CIA officer explains.

Pakistan has nukes and their leadership and large parts of the population have more religious intensity (insanity) than Iran. They've fought three wars with India (another country with many religious nutters) and had countless military exchanges. Large swaths of their territory are currently being bombed by the US. And yet they've refrained from nuclear weapons use.

If we still have a Constitution, war can only be declared by Congress and can not be used against a country that has not attacked us. We haven't even discussed the cost in terms of blood and gold.



This is a separate issue (the Palestinians) but it's not the Palestinians who are building settlements and kicking out the Israelis. But Israel can take care of itself. If it feels threatened by an Iranian nuclear program it can certainly disobey US directives and start a war on its own. That would be, as some Israeli commentators have said, an incredibly stupid idea but whatever.

The thing about Israel is, its a liberal free democracy worth defending (even if their Orthodox conservatives are trying their darn best to turn it into a Jewish Tehran.) But that said, why is a nation the size of New Jersey calling the shots of our alliance?

Listen to the GOP debates. They want "no sunshine" in policy between D.C. and Tel Aviv, and Perry said in print that we should be on the same page with their leadership. America should mindlessly follow another country's foreign policy. They call the shots, we don't. I'm sorry, but fuck that concept in general.

And if you disagree with that GOP proposal, or even dare publicly mutter the idea that America should control American foreign policy, those Neocons will call you an Anti-Semite Nazi who wants a Holocaust sequel.

Don't believe me? Read this recent hit piece where Margaret fucking Thatcher is dismissed as a Jew-hater. Why? Because she at the time supported the land-for-peace concept. Which now apparently is also approved by Adolf.

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/87027/thatcher-and-the-jews/?all=1

It's bad when the Washington Times makes sense.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/tehrans-moment-of-truth/

Along with what Lilo had to say ! SC yer right fucken wack the bastards , and anyone standing around ! I gotta list of some we oughta send over so they can care and share

Find one thing we did recently that made sense.

But to look at it objectively, international coalition's threaten to stop buying oil from Iran. That's the only thing that's kept the country afloat. If that's taken out of the equation, they rather go as a suicide bomber than going peacefully.

Still it doesn't make much sense. Even for Iraq, there was oil for food program and it made Saddam pretty darn rich for years. I doubt they actually go through with it. Still you can't tell what a moron might do.

The latest report? Don't you think something like "antiwar.com" may have an agenda and not present all the facts objectively? Furthermore, while people can complain about the U.S. acting too swiftly on weak evidence - that most believed at the time despite the revisionist history - the tired accusations of lying is a stretch. But since we're talking false claims here, where is all that Iraqi oil we were supposedly fighting for. You know, the real reason we were there.



Exactly who is saying we need to move on Iran "now?"



Yet it seems you would have the U.S. attempt to deny that to the Israelis.



Hardly. The wider troubles in the Middle East have always been connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, directly or indirectly. Often at the insistence of the dictators in the Arab countries surrounding them. Israel has always been the perfect scapegoat. And there's the irony. You have a small, democratic, free nation in Israel surrounded by one basket-case, tyrant-led regime after another and it's Israel who is made out to be the bad guy and the bully.



No, it's the Palestinians who (via Arafat) turned their nose up at a plum deal in the Oslo Accords. It's the Palestinians who chose a terrorist group (Hamas) as their government. A group which is funded in part by Iran. A group with whom peace will never be possible because they will never recognize Israel.



The underlying tone in your posts makes it sound like Israel is just itching to attack Iran - as if they get any benefit whatsoever out of that. Yes, Israel can take care of itself. But, again, it sounds like you are more or less saying they should not do anything and just hope that sanity in Iran prevails. You're falling into that same spin where Israel is made out to be the bad guy and I-freaking-ran is the victim. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems you simply couldn't care less if Israel was wiped out by a nuclear attack tomorrow. Or maybe you're willing to offer Israel up in order to placate the jihad nutjobs?