Iran about to get wiped from the pages of history

[Whomp]

Zen--I think you should check your sources before posting this propaganda. Do you know the background of this Walter Storch (aka Gregory Douglas aka Peter Stahl) guy?

If you do I have to wonder if you're conveying something that says you have ulterior motives and extreme bigotry.

Who is Walter Storch of TBR News

 

[zenspiderz]

Zen--I think you should check your sources before posting this propaganda. Do you know the background of this Walter Storch (aka Gregory Douglas aka Peter Stahl) guy?

If you do I have to wonder if you're conveying something that says you have ulterior motives and extreme bigotry.

Who is Walter Storch of TBR News

No I have no idea who Walter Storch beyond that he claims to be..

Contrary to the hysterical views of rabid trailer park Bush supporters, I was not suckled by a werewolf and I am not a member of the far left. In point of fact, I am a very disillusioned moderate Republican whose family were bankers, brokers and CEOs of various nice companies.

I posted that article out an impulsive sense of mischief nothing more. Actually I have for some reason not allowed myself take anything said in his 'Voice of the White House' column without a 'pinch of salt'. But then that goes for most things I read. BTW this character assasination piece you posted on this fellow, whoever he is, I find no more credible than the 'voice of the white house' perhaps less.

Ulterior motives? like what for example?

Extreme Bigotry? erm... because I do not support US imperialism as you do? And I suppose that means you are not an extreme bigot but some kind of saintly non-bigoted ultra-nice person, is that right?

 

[Whomp]

No I have no idea who Walter Storch beyond that he claims to be.

Fair enough he's a nazi apologist and JFK conspiracy theorist. The type of person I presume you would not want to align your views with.

I posted that article out an impulsive sense of mischief nothing more.

Fair enough but when you post an extremist blogs like that you'd want to explore the fraud he's trying to perpetuate.

Actually I have for some reason not allowed myself take anything said in his 'Voice of the White House' column without a 'pinch of salt'. But then that goes for most things I read. BTW this character assasination piece you posted on this fellow, whoever he is, I find no more credible than the 'voice of the white house' perhaps less.

Funny how Kos has no love for Bush and his cronies but links plenty of evidence exposing this man's past.

Ulterior motives? like what for example?

None if you're telling me this piece was simply for your amusement.

Extreme Bigotry? erm... because I do not support US imperialism as you do? And I suppose that means you are not an extreme bigot but some kind of saintly non-bigoted ultra-nice person, is that right?

I would say yes I am a very good person thank you very much. I am skepitcal of people like Walter Storch. His credibility is zilch in my book.

As I've said before I think Iran needs nuclear power. I'm not sure their economy, as we've seen recently, can afford not to have it. War and sanctions aren't necessary. History tells me there's no reason to continue giving their leaders any excuse to maintain power like their Iraq-Iran war did.

 

[Xenocrates]

Here we go - the bell has rung "round one and don't make it a clean fight"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6359971.stm

Eleven people have been killed in a bomb blast near a bus in city of Zahedan in south-eastern Iran, the official Irna news agency has reported.

Iranian officials have accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the Islamic republic's sensitive border areas.

So this is how it will be done - promise self-determination to a naive bunch of rebels and then use them to push the Iranians into retaliation, then cry human rights abuse and blitz them all.

 

[BasketCase]

Some other things to think about vis a vis the consistency (or lack of same) in U.S. foreign policy.

Who here remembers when the Cold War was on? The U.S. and the USSR both had huge arsenals of missiles pre-targetted on each other, and always ready to fire. We Americans lived every day of our lives wondering when the bombs would fall. A lot of us didn't wonder if it would happen. We wondered when.

Back then, everybody wanted the Cold War stopped. And I don't mean just people in the U.S. or USSR either. Just about everybody worldwide wanted it stopped, because a whole lot of nations stood squarely in the crossfire. Or downwind of the blast sites.....

Well, now it's stopped. The Cold War is long over. And look at how human opinion has changed. Suddenly people are longing for the old days again. Now that people worldwide have had a taste of a unipolar world, with the United States on top of the pile and nobody to challenge it, people want a new superpower to counterbalance America.

People want the Cold War back.

Now, I'm pretty sure somebody's going to cry foul at this point, so lemme just nip that in the bud. To counterbalace the United States, you're going to have to have a nuclear superpower. Another nation that has nukes, and can keep up with the United States. You want balance? Then you're going to have a Cold War. It's unavoidable.


It all comes down to the old deal about the grass being greener on the other side of the fence. Before the Cold War ended, people looked around, saw everything that was wrong with the world, and wanted a change. After the Cold War ended, people looked around, saw everything that was wrong with the world, and wanted to change back.

And humans don't just do that with nuclear standoffs, either. We never seem truly happy on anything. Always, we're seeing what's wrong with the world. We vacillate endlessly from one policy to another, trying to fix everything at once, casting desperately about in search of a perfect world that simply does not exist.

But then, as that other old deal goes: bad news gets attention, doesn't it?

 

[zenspiderz]

Some other things to think about vis a vis the consistency (or lack of same) in U.S. foreign policy.

Who here remembers when the Cold War was on? The U.S. and the USSR both had huge arsenals of missiles pre-targetted on each other, and always ready to fire. We Americans lived every day of our lives wondering when the bombs would fall. A lot of us didn't wonder if it would happen. We wondered when.

Back then, everybody wanted the Cold War stopped. And I don't mean just people in the U.S. or USSR either. Just about everybody worldwide wanted it stopped, because a whole lot of nations stood squarely in the crossfire. Or downwind of the blast sites.....

Well, now it's stopped. The Cold War is long over. And look at how human opinion has changed. Suddenly people are longing for the old days again. Now that people worldwide have had a taste of a unipolar world, with the United States on top of the pile and nobody to challenge it, people want a new superpower to counterbalance America.

People want the Cold War back.

Now, I'm pretty sure somebody's going to cry foul at this point, so lemme just nip that in the bud. To counterbalace the United States, you're going to have to have a nuclear superpower. Another nation that has nukes, and can keep up with the United States. You want balance? Then you're going to have a Cold War. It's unavoidable.


It all comes down to the old deal about the grass being greener on the other side of the fence. Before the Cold War ended, people looked around, saw everything that was wrong with the world, and wanted a change. After the Cold War ended, people looked around, saw everything that was wrong with the world, and wanted to change back.

And humans don't just do that with nuclear standoffs, either. We never seem truly happy on anything. Always, we're seeing what's wrong with the world. We vacillate endlessly from one policy to another, trying to fix everything at once, casting desperately about in search of a perfect world that simply does not exist.

But then, as that other old deal goes: bad news gets attention, doesn't it?

Interesting post. I am not sure I want a cold war although you can count me in on the 'no to unipolar world' gang. Could we not have a 'multi-polar' world rather than a unipolar or bipolar world? A multi polar world that despite its political and economic diversity nonetheless subscribed to co-operation and mutual aid rather than co-ercion and exploitation? That is my wish.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Anyone who thinks this Iran posturing is anything more than posturing is off his rocker. No one in the United States supports the invasion of Iran (contrast that with about half the country supporting the invasion of Iraq) and the Democrats in Congress would never fund a new war when they just took office by being anti-Iraq-War. Every one of them would be voted out of office when they came up for re-election, as would the Republicans. Individual congressmen and congreswomen care a lot more about staying in power themselves than getting revenge for something that happened to Democrats in 1979!

Why do we have to have so many counterpunch.com inspired crackpot threads Xeno?

Enough said

 

[EdwardTking]

Suddenly people are longing for the old days again. Now that people worldwide have had a taste of a unipolar world, with the United States on top of the pile and nobody to challenge it, people want a new superpower to counterbalance America.

People want the Cold War back.

No we don't.

We were very happy with a sensible America and under a
sensible President. The rest of the world liked Bill Clinton.

 

[ravensfire]

We were very happy with a sensible America and under a sensible President. The rest of the world liked Bill Clinton.

Too bad those two sentances didn't apply to the same person.

-- Ravensfire

 

[StarWorms]

I'm getting annoyed at Bush wanting a war against Iran and fed up with him attempting to like Iran to terrorist groups around Iraq.

It started off with Afghanistan. Fine - to get Bin Laden.
Then Iraq - deliberately faked evidence so he can get Saddam
Now Iran - some more tatty evidence.

Someone needs to stop this psychopathic terrorist.

 

[Sidhe]

Too bad those two sentances didn't apply to the same person.

-- Ravensfire

Too bad they did and you didn't realise it, he wasn't the best, but he was a million times better than GWB.

 

[ravensfire]

Too bad they did and you didn't realise it, he wasn't the best, but he was a million times better than GWB.

No - they both represent some of the worst Presidents we've had in a long, long time.

Clinton was just better at lying.

-- Ravensfire

 

[monidique]

It sure is convenient that al-Quds as a word bears some resemblance to a certain terrorist group whose name I can't remember anymore...