Evaluating reporting and commentary about Iran could be reduced to one simple rule: There is no evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. Statements that suggest otherwise are misleading. Reports that fail to point this out are doing readers/viewers/listeners a disservice.
That sounds simple enough. But don’t tell that to the outlets that are being criticized over their Iran reporting.
Take NPR and PBS, both of which were singled out by the group Just Foreign Policy.
A few days ago (1/10/12), the FAIR Blog featured a post criticizing the PBS NewsHour for a deceptive report on Iran. The report introduced a quote from Pentagon chief Leon Panetta with this statement by PBS anchor Margaret Warner: “The Iranian government insists that its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes only, an assertion disputed by the U.S. and its allies.”
Panetta’s quote immediately followed: “We know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon.” My point in that blog post was that right before he said this, Panetta had made a very candid admission about Iran, one that would no doubt be surprising to most corporate news consumers: “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”
The fact that the NewsHour would clip this statement from his soundbite was troubling. PBS ombud Michael Getler responded (1/12/12) by agreeing that we had a point:
I think FAIR makes a good journalistic catch in calling attention to the fuller quote by Panetta on CBS. It was a very brief and clear statement by the Defense secretary on an important point about whether Iran is actually developing a nuclear weapon.
And NewsHour foreign affairs and defense editor Mike Mosettig editor agrees that “it would have been better had we not lopped off the first part of the Panetta quote.”
But Getler thinks it was unfair to to call the PBS edit “dishonest,” and he explains why:
The logical understanding that NewsHour viewers–and anyone who has been following this subject–would draw from the portion of the Panetta quote that was used is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon but that they are developing a “nuclear capability” and that the U.S. warning, as Panetta expressed it, is not to cross “our red line” and actually develop a weapon.
So viewers who are paying close attention to Iran coverage (and who are hopefully tuning out the rhetoric coming from many of the Republican presidential candidates) would know that when Panetta was saying, “We know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability,” he meant that they were not trying to develop a nuclear weapon–even though the program had edited out his very straightforward explanation of what is actually known about the state of Iran’s nuclear program.
This is a curious argument. One of the things that made Panetta’s comment so revealing was that it represented a break from the usual chatter about Iran–even within the Obama administration. That’s precisely what made it newsworthy. PBS seems to think its viewers should have to read between the lines in order to arrive at the accurate assessment about Iran’s nuclear program they left on the cutting room floor.
Now to NPR.
The criticism of Robert Naiman and Just Foreign Policy centered on NPR reporter Tom Gjelten’s statement that “the goal for the U.S. and its allies…[is] to convince Iran to give up a nuclear weapons program.” The suggestion, it would seem, is that Iran is indeed pursuing such weapons.
But NPR ombud Edward Schumacher-Matos (1/13/12) sees it exactly the other way around. He writes:
The story didn’t say or imply that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. As Bruce Auster, the senior editor for national security, notes, “The story was about how the sanctions are designed to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapons program, which automatically suggests it may not have one.”
Does NPR really think that the best way to inform its listeners is to assume that when people hear a report about forcing Iran to “give up a nuclear weapons program,” these listeners should fill in the blanks themselves so as to arrive at an entirely different meaning? That every time you hear something about Iran’s “nuclear weapons program,” that is really code for “the-nuclear-weapons-program-that-may not exist-since-there-is-no-evidence-that-it-exists”? That’d be an unusual burden to place on listeners.
For good measure, the ombud throws in another defense of the NPR report by pointing out that the “quote carefully refers to ‘a’ program–using the indefinite article–and not the definite ‘its’ or ‘the’ program.” Again, NPR listeners: If you hear one of the reporters use the word “a,” remember that could be a reference to something that doesn’t exist. Got it?
“It’s elementary, my dear Watson.
You cannot give up what you do not have.
A case in point:
Public broadcasting cannot abandon its commitment to honest reportage, as it has none to renounce.”
“Eminently logical, Holmes.”
These tortured apologistics sound like something a bright but devious 6th grader would try to sell you… And didn’t Bill Clinton come in for a lot of ridicule (some of it no-doubt justified) for his parsing of the word ‘is’ during his testimony during the Republican witch-hunt/impeachment proceedings? Now NPR is trying to school us on their VERY specific use of the indefinite article ‘a’ ? Is this why we need educational reform/NCLB/’race to the top’ & charter schools — to be able to understand these literate ‘subtleties’?
N P R: You can’t spell “R e P u b l i c a N” without it…
If PBS and NPR are trying to weasel out of their warmongering, imagine the FU attitude of Fox, ABC and Wall St. Journal…
I’m just hoping The West can economically strangle Iran before they succeed with their antimatter weapons program. Iran has often called for the entire destruction of planet Earth – and Mars and Venus – so imagine those planet-buster-bombs in the hands of the Ayatollahs ? What’s worse – killing 70 million Iranians now, or the entire destruction of the solar system ?
And the reason that Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon is because they practice Islam (nope Pakistan falls into that category), a third-world nation (nope India is there), opposes the state policies of a renegade nuclear-armed Israeli (BINGO!).
The issue is not whether PBS and NPR are distorting the truth, it’s whether they are framing the whole debate in the proper context. Until I see in-depth reporting on Israel’s nuclear program and how many laws and international agreements they have broken to instill such a program, will I ever trust either one of these organizations to present the truth.
The indefinite article ‘a’ reminds me of the vibrating luggage scene in Fight Club, haw haw.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/quotes?qt0479168
These people want wars because whether we like it or not….Wars are a money making machine for those on the hill and private contractors.
MY CONCERNS:
We left Iraq and soon will be leaving Afghanistan, but yet we are treating America Citizen like Sadaam Hussiem (sic) the ditactor treated the Iraqi citizens with this new Defense bill Obama signed.
There is a big difference between developing nuclear capability and developing a nuclear weapon. Panetta admits that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon; he further states that it’s Iranian development of nuclear weapons that marks the line that Iran must not cross. If Iran hasn’t “crossed the line”, then why are we sanctioning the Iranians by banning their exports, promoting wordwide embargoes, and promising to punish those nations who pay for Iranian oil through Iran’s central bank? Capability is like working out in the gym to get the muscles, but development is putting on the boxing gloves as you ready to use your new found strenghth in a fight. If Iran is such a threat, we should have been talking to them, restoring diplomatic relattions, and trying to reach an agreement, such as allowing third countries to do Iran’s uranium enrichment . The US has scuttled any talk of working this problem out, as the US seems bent on destroying the only major power in the region that does not rubberstamp our hegemony in the Middle East.
JFK was about to stop the Israeli nuclear bomb progam at Dimona, located in the Negev Desert. You can find JFK’s July 5, 1963 letter to the Israeli Prime Minister on the Internet. He was insistent that the Israelis allow US scientists to inspect the Dimona plant in order to receive their assurances that all its undertakings were for peaceful purposes. The Israelis continued to tell him so, but he didn’t believe them and insisted on inspections. Ike was worrried as well, with the CIA planting stories in the NY Times as early as December of 1960 about the Israelis’ attempting to develop a nuclear bomb.
After JFK’s assassination, LBJ began the presidential coddling of Israel (which has never ended) , even excusing them for sinking the Liberty in June of 1967. One admiral said that LBJ ordered our intelligence ship to be sunk so as to cover up the Israeli manslaughter. They used napalm against our sailors, and their jets even machine-gunned the lifeboaters. Johnson wanted the crew on the bottom of the ocean and forgave Israel forthwith. Every President since has truckled before Israel, a state of 7 Million in a world of 1 1/2 Billion Arabs, as if Israel were infalible. What a misdirected use of American power!
“Developing a nuclear weapon”: This year’s “weapons of mass destruction”
So let me get this straight. I believe it goes like this:
Panetta (who as Defense Secretary is a US official) says “”Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”
Then PBS’s anchor says the Iranian government’s assertion is “DISPUTED by the U.S. and its allies” (emphasis mine).
BUT WAIT: If Iran says it isn’t developing a nuclear weapon (but has only a peaceful nuclear program), and if Panetta says Iran isn’t developing a nuclear weapon, then the US (in the person of Panetta) has not disputed Iran’s claim, but has verified it. How come, then, does PBS report that the US DISPUTES Iran’s claim? How come, unless PBS likes to lie to its viewers about such matters?
Through the short time that the NPR Ombudsman has been at NPR he has shown that he is the ombudsman for NPR not the listeners. I seldom find anything critical of NPR though he writes often to defend them.
Good work, Addison. clearer and more concise than what Iwrote.
I lied by omission but it is your fault because you should have know what I was leaving out…
PBS and NPR, you can forget about my contributing to you during your next pledge drive(s). Stop misleading your listeners. This is dishonest and unacceptable behavior. And fire your Ombudsman and hire someone who isn’t just as apologist for management.
Have the warmongers gotten nuttier? We are trillions in debt, many jobless, wages stagnant, social services unaffordable but we can always afford another jolly war. The world economy is still very fragile but let’s have another war!
From where does our “international coalition” come this time? Europe has backed off (at least for now) from supporting draconian economic sanctions against Iran and some European countries are dead set against it. Russia and China could go ballistic if Iran is attacked.
How will more debt effect our position as the world’s reserve currency?
If any nation out there wants to spill more blood and treasure, let it be theirs.
Don’t sell yourself short, Mr. Wolfe. It’s impossible to conlude anything but that NPR and PBS are simply rattling the sabres. To omit and deliberately detroy the context of remarks is very bad. Why would these ostensibly public outfits do this? Someone needs to ask them about this in a blunt and straight-forward way, and not let them obfuscate or weasel out of their lies.
Funny thing, those HTML markers.
It’s worth visiting the NPR site to comment on misleading content
and to vote on comments you agree with, by clicking on the “recommend”
button. After reading Ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos’ report
on Tom Gjelten http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2012/01/13/145184485/is-npr-fomenting-a-war-with-iran-no I sent this comment to NPR’s website:
“I don’t have much sympathy for NPR trying to defend Gjelten’s false statement about Iran, for three reasons. One is its record as midwife to war on Iraq, now destroyed and struggling. Who could forget similar lies in Robert Siegel’s “group of experts” on Just War theory? He and his producer(s) found 3 people to pronounce an attack on a defenseless Iraq to be a “just war.” You’d have to work hard to falsify that technical analysis, even amid the drumbeat for war at the time, but they managed. Second, you will not hear on NPR an honest account of the US destruction of Iranian democracy in the 50’s (so we could have artificially cheap gas, without paying enough for the people of the country to benefit… just riches for a royal family installed as a puppet government.) Without this honest history repeated often enough for it to sink in, your listeners remain clueless as to why Iran would mistrust the US and its sidekick Israel. Imagine our leaders’ attitudes toward any country that had highjacked OUR government and kept control for decades through torture and assassinations. Third, NPR’s coverage has slid into habits of lazy journalism, delivering slack coverage like that of the commercial media, with a heavy mix of fluff.”
It’s very disappointing to see NPR and PBS exhibit pretzel logic on Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program. It would also be nice to see the Obama administration turn the heat down a little on the Iran rhetoric.
After decades of war in multiple nations, whatever happened to that ‘peace dividend’ I heard about when Obama was running for President?
Why is Iran placing its nuclear facilities with military strategy then? Hardened sites nearby mosques and holy cities and breaking it up into some 40-something plants. What have they said when we have demanded they stop?
I agree with all the peace dividend talk, but don’t the Iranians deserve one too? How much do you think this nuclear weapons program is going to cost the Iranian people â┚¬Ã‚¦ ultimately?
John: You ask why are we sanctioning the Iranians by banning their exports, promoting worldwide embargoes, and promising to embargo those nations who pay for Iranian oil through Iran’s central bank if they haven’t crossed the line?
My take is that one of the reasons is regime change. The screws are being put to Iran with the hopes that it will lead to regime change if enough economic pain is inflicted on the country. In response, Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz and prevent oil from flowing to The West and Asian allies. That’s Iran’s “red line” with the West should tough sanctions go into effect.
Iran is saying that if it goes down, it’s taking a few other countries with it.
> Iran is saying that if it goes down, it’s taking a few other countries with it.
Or maybe, Iran’s repressive government is saying it is willing to take down the Iranian people and a few other countries with it if they lose their jobs and bonuses?? Sounds familiar and not like anything good for Iran, or the US.
Where does it say the the USA can have nuclear weapons but Iran can’t?
I’d like convince u all to sign this petition to convince obama not to use military force to “convince Iran to give up a nuclear weapons program” which no one is convinced it has:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/161/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9208
Well the first paragraph in this article by Peter Hart states with a certainty that Iran is not trying to develop the bomb.Then he uses two seemingly different answers from mr Panetta to say “take your pick which to believe.”As people here know, I am no Obama fan BUT…….I will take his word on this one.He gets the daily intel that is for his eyes only.
There are two stupid and dangerous viewpoints on this blogosphere.One is that Iran has the same right as other countries to the bomb ,totally disregarding their insanity and threats.Number two is to believe one word they say, or to play the moral relativism game comparing them to The United States Of America.I think Obama is a good man doing a bad job as president.I do not think he wants anything but peace ,freedom,and justice in this world.I consider the Iranian leadership as insane theocrats,terrorists, and religious fanatics bent on enslaving the world under sharia law, on the way to igniting the destruction of the world- toward the coming of the 12th Imam and the annihilation of the Jewish race(big breath).Now I think you know where I stand.Pretty close to the leadership of this country.Sad day when a conservative stands with Obama while you libs deride him.
Does anybody know how many wars crazy Iran has fought in the last 150 years? How many wars has the U.S. fought in the last 150 years, all of them just of course.
> Does anybody know how many wars crazy Iran has fought in the last 150 years?
Does anyone know how to focus on facts that are relevant to the issue of a country supportive of terrorists building nuclear weapons and ICBM missiles capable of carrying them long distances?
Does anyone care to stick to the question of how many wars evil Iran fought in the past 150 years and how many wars the U.S. fought? I happen to believe past history is an important indicator of future behavior.
Does anyone care to stick to the fact that the U.S. is 15-17 trillion dollars in debt and that another war is unthinkable? Does anyone care to stick to the fact that the U.S. could lose its position as the world’s reserve currency and this will result in hyperinflation, the likes of which we’ve never seen? Does anyone care to stick to the fact that Americans are truly suffering and sick of war and that another war will wipe us off our feet economically as well as threaten the world’s economy?
Is Iran a threat to the U.S. with its thousands of nuclear weapons? Even Iran, I believe, understands the military power of the U.S. and that it will use it if attacked.
Terrorism is almost impossible to prevent, unless its root causes are addressed. Starting another war doesn’t address the root causes of terrorism. It increases it. It’s a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself.
Until independently verified information to the contrary, Iran isn’t building a nuclear weapon. The Supreme Ayatolla said so. And he is the ruler, not the president, who is a mouth piece. And an ugly mouth he has too.
I am disappointed but not surprised. FAIR has covered time an again how both of those organizations are Right wing at worst or just against any real Left wing balance as best. Either way it is wrong.
There are still those who don’t care if attacking Iran could start World War III. Too much money to be made, and so many Muslims for their weapons to kill. For them it would be “all good.”
> Does anyone care to stick to the fact that the U.S. is 15-17 trillion dollars
> in debt and that another war is unthinkable?
Money is secondary to human values and defense. I don’t think our debt
should be an excuse for getting rid of social programs, nor of not doing
what might be necessary with respect to Iran not getting nuclear weapons.
Financial advisors say past performance is no guarantee of future success,
and so is Iran’s supposedly pacifist history. While Iran itself is not fighting
a war it is supporting Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and has threatened Israel
with annihilation.
The glib thoughtless replies couched in pacificst humanist terms just seem
to disingenuous when they are in support of a regime like Ahmadinejad’s.
The US has a “sunk cost” of a lot of lives, money and effort to push back
radical Islam. Pakistan’s protection of Osama bin Laden and its terrorist
attacks on India are an indication of where things will go if we drop the
ball and ease up on Iran.
Attacking Germany in WWII would not have started WWII and might have
preventing it â┚¬Ã‚¦ so standing up to Iran is reasonable and necessary, the
question is, can we do it the right way.
I submit that the frustrtation most Americans are feeling is that our
government is so close to being utterly corrupt and non-representative
of the American people that we are getting so negative and cynical
that some of us want to react with a knee jerk and throw the baby out
with the bath water.
It’s important to keep our country and government in check, and we
Ameicans have not done a good job of that. Our conduct of the Iraq
and Afghanistan war has not been efficient of admirable, but we are
moving in the right direction because it was better than Viet Nam,
which was better than Korea. I look forward to a time when America
does not have to do this police stuff all by itself, and has a serious
expertise in it that is not so easily questioned.
On one level the planet is threatened by environmental degradation,
but if we do not figure out how to bring just and productive global
governance about on planet Earth it is just as big a threat, in fact
the one has to happen before the other can. People of this planet
deserve to live safe, free, productive happy lives, and domination of
a big segment of the world by radical Islamic terrorist political regimes
is not the way to see that happen, and defending them with backwards
arguments is not the same as defending peace or being liberal.
If you have a problem with the radical right, deal with that, I do too
and can coopeerate with that, but sympathizing with or siding with
Iran is not helpful in that regard.
I do not sympathize with Iran. What I believe is that it is not in the best interests of the U.S. to start yet another war in the Middle East, especially give how badly past wars/interventions have gone. We have been intervening in the Middle East for years and are deeply resented for it. If someone intervened in the affairs of the U.S. the way we have intervened in the Middle East, it wouldn’t be tolerated. BTW, Russia, China, and N. Korea have supplied Iran with missile technology. Do we bomb them, too?
War is not a human value and if you’re going to talk about human values, imagine how much good a trillion dollars could have done for our own people, instead of a useless, stupid war. Our enormous debt has already put us in a hole in many ways, including the reduction of many valuable services to schools, higher education, Medicaid, police/teachers/firefighters already laid off, Social Security/Medicare constantly threatened. Frankly, I don’t even know how a country can deal with a debt so high and yet you seek more debt. It is to the point where one has to wonder if the debt service can be paid for. We absolutely cannot sustain another “slam dunk.” The dollar falls. We fail.
It seems to be a rather peculiar moral position to tell Iran that it can’t have a nuclear weapon (which it doesn’t) when other countries do, even if they don’t admit to it and won’t allow nuclear inspectors in their own country which Iran has allowed.
Iran is not Iraq. It has a sizeable military and it can and will call its proxy armies to wreak havoc on our troops and other personnel in the Middle East. It has the potential to be a bloodbath. A single raid would not destroy any nuclear program. It would have to be widespread and lengthy, running the risk of an horrific backlash, not only a regional one but a worldwide one. The U.S. could quickly find itself isolated and bleeding as world economies suffer economically.
Dismiss it if you will but this entire global economy is very fragile and another major war will destroy chances of a recovery. So you would throw the world into economic chaos to go after a country which doesn’t have a nuclear weapon. Some people won’t be happy until the U.S. is involved in an Islamic Holy War, with troops in 100 countries and five continents. Perpetual war. Pax Americana.
Here’s a novel idea. Let’s have direct talks with Iran, no pre-conditions.
Reported in my newspaper today:
“The state has cut 88,000 children from Medicaid since August…..”
“In May, the (welfare department) is set to cut thousands off food stamps, even though they meet the income threshold…..” and “……impose an obsolete assets test….” (so that people with meager assets can’t get food stamps).
Funding will also be cut for day care, even though it “helps working parents which ultimately saves the government money.”
Another school district might simply close because the state refuses to give it more money to operate.
State bills have been passed restricting basic health care services for women.
Every so often, the millionnaires in Congress treat us to a ferocious fight over whether we should extend unemployment benefits to people who can’t find jobs. People are still losing their homes.
But there’s always money for another war.
It comes down to this, we either support and/or engineer a military ‘coup’ or prepare for a messy surgical strike, which is why NYC now has body scanners on selected street corners aimed at the sidewalks, one presumes, to detect suicide bombers once the hostilities begin. There is a very large Pakistani community in NYC.
Oh!! I’m so sorry, I thought we were talking about Pakistan. Didn’t mean to distract from the REAL threat of an imagined nuclear capability threat.
“When do I get paid! and where’s my waitress!”- excerpt: “200 Motels”, F. Zappa
Brux said:
‘Why is Iran placing its nuclear facilities with military strategy then? Hardened sites nearby mosques and holy cities and breaking it up into some 40-something plants. What have they said when we have demanded they stop?’
The reason is simple: they’re responding to threats from Israel and the United States. If a country has its economic assets threatened, it’s perfectly within its rights to defend those assets with military force and to put them under the purview of its military strategy (the US does this as a matter of routine. In fact, it’s launched wars to counter the perceived threat to its economic position). Let me know if you disagree.
‘I agree with all the peace dividend talk, but don’t the Iranians deserve one too? How much do you think this nuclear weapons program is going to cost the Iranian people â┚¬Ã‚¦ ultimately?’
What nuclear weapons program? Surely not the one that Panetta said Iran doesn’t have? You mean another one we don’t know about?
‘Does anyone know how to focus on facts that are relevant to the issue of a country supportive of terrorists building nuclear weapons and ICBM missiles capable of carrying them long distances?’
The US already has thousands of nuclear weapons, and is well ahead of Iran in the international terrorism enterprise.
‘Money is secondary to human values and defense.
Well it should be, but if you pay the slightest bit of attention to US foreign policy and the forces that drive and shape it, you’ll come to the inescapable conclusion that human values and defence take a back seat to money.
‘I don’t think our debt
should be an excuse for getting rid of social programs, nor of not doing
what might be necessary with respect to Iran not getting nuclear weapons.’
Cool, so pump more money into war, aggravate the financial situation, and go on a path that could conflagrate into international confrontation and perpetual conflict.
‘Financial advisors say past performance is no guarantee of future success,
and so is Iran’s supposedly pacifist history. While Iran itself is not fighting
a war it is supporting Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and has threatened Israel
with annihilation.’
Who said anything about a pacifist history? Iran wasn’t pacifist when it was attacked by a US-back Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Also, your assertion that Iran has threatened Israel with annihilation is a thoroughly exposed lie. Iran might well be supporting Syria, but that places it in stead with the US, which supports Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
‘The glib thoughtless replies couched in pacificst humanist terms just seem
to disingenuous when they are in support of a regime like Ahmadinejad’s.’
‘In support’ is just a weasel phrase used by apologists for state violence to equivocate anyone who doesn’t support said violence as accomplices in the crimes of the targeted regime. What’s more, you know this. But if you don’t, let’s try this on for size: you’re a supporter of Wahabism. Why? Because you don’t call for the military overthrow of the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, and you air-brush, through omission, the considerable support that this regime receives from Washington. Saudi Arabia is to be buy 60 BILLION dollars worth of weapons from the US over the next 15 years. So your glib thoughtless replies couched in humanist and democratic terms just seem too disingenuous when they are in support of vicious tyrannies in the Middle East.
‘The US has a “sunk cost” of a lot of lives, money and effort to push back
radical Islam. Pakistan’s protection of Osama bin Laden and its terrorist
attacks on India are an indication of where things will go if we drop the
ball and ease up on Iran.’
Ummmm…you do know that Iran has nothing to do with al Qaeda, don’t you? Are you even remotely clued into events on this planet?
‘Attacking Germany in WWII would not have started WWII and might have
preventing it â┚¬Ã‚¦ so standing up to Iran is reasonable and necessary, the
question is, can we do it the right way.’
I hope you know that what you’ve written here makes no sense. Firstly, attacking Germany in WW2 would not have started WW2? Of course not, because the war would have been underway already. But perhaps you meant to say something like ‘attacking Germany preemptively’. But that wasn’t in the interests of the West (at least not the United States) because they were quite happy to do business with the Nazis; many in the West even admired the Nazis and the way they had resolved the labour problem. But never mind all that: attacking Germany would have been a good thing, ‘therefore’ attacking Iran is now a good thing? Sorry, I fail to see how one follows the other. Iran has an irritating and unpleasant regime. I don’t know why the people of the Middle East should once again be subjected to the horrors of war just because you want to flex your faux humanitarianism.
‘I submit that the frustrtation most Americans are feeling is that our
government is so close to being utterly corrupt and non-representative
of the American people that we are getting so negative and cynical
that some of us want to react with a knee jerk and throw the baby out
with the bath water.’
Well, after the lies and deception that led to the other ‘weapons of mass destruction’ war, perhaps the American people would do well to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s served no useful function other than to enrich a highly concentrated sector of power and wealth at home, while going on a rampage across the world. Of course, they’ll need to contend with folks like you, whose thirst for needless wars goes unabated despite every exposure of malfeasance and crime.
‘It’s important to keep our country and government in check, and we
Ameicans have not done a good job of that.’
No possibility of disagreement there. Reigning in the monstrous military budget and ceasing the US government’s aggression overseas would be a good place to start.
‘Our conduct of the Iraq
and Afghanistan war has not been efficient of admirable, but we are
moving in the right direction because it was better than Viet Nam,
which was better than Korea.’
Right, but you still like to wage war on false pretenses. On that, you’ve also been going in the ‘right direction’ (i.e. doing the same thing).
‘I look forward to a time when America
does not have to do this police stuff all by itself,’
International aggression shouldn’t be confused with ‘police stuff’ (whatever the hell that means). Also, whatever on Earth do you mean by ‘all by itself’? Surely you’re not going to overlook the fact that Britain, Australia and several others have joined the US in its adventures?
‘On one level the planet is threatened by environmental degradation,
but if we do not figure out how to bring just and productive global
governance about on planet Earth it is just as big a threat, in fact
the one has to happen before the other can.’
Now you’re getting the hang of it. But then why continue to support the threats and posturing on Iran when it had already agreed to the Turkish-Brazilian deal to have its uranium enriched by a third party? Apparently this counts as ‘just and productive global governance’ to you. Methinks that what you care about is American propriety over peace. If peace is found through a route other than the American umbrella of threats and extortion, then it must be jettisoned, to serve the Higher Good of US power (which, after all, is only there to help find a peaceful outcome).
‘ People of this planet
deserve to live safe, free, productive happy lives, and domination of
a big segment of the world by radical Islamic terrorist political regimes
is not the way to see that happen,’
Cool, then stop supporting them with weapons and training, stop launching wars that smash up their countries and provide a boon to terrorists, and stop radicalising large segments of Muslim countries by flying drone attacks on their people. Those three things will do more to stop radical Islamist terrorism than the stupid wars you champion. Is this actually hard to understand, or do you just feign incomprehension?
‘ and defending them with backwards
arguments is not the same as defending peace or being liberal.’
Neither is ignoring reality and fueling the likelihood of war with demonstrable lies and distortions. That never seems to occur to you.
‘If you have a problem with the radical right, deal with that, I do too
and can coopeerate with that, but sympathizing with or siding with
Iran is not helpful in that regard.’
I neither sympathise with nor ‘side with’ Iran (which I take here to mean the government of Iran, which is emphatically not the same as the people of Iran), except in so far as I share with them a desire not to see war. I hope you also realise that you’ve insulted the democratic movement within Iran, who resolutely oppose war. They, apparently, also ‘sympathise’ and ‘side with’ the regime, by your logic.
michael says:
‘Well the first paragraph in this article by Peter Hart states with a certainty that Iran is not trying to develop the bomb.Then he uses two seemingly different answers from mr Panetta to say “take your pick which to believe.”As people here know, I am no Obama fan BUTâ┚¬Ã‚¦Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã‚¦.I will take his word on this one.He gets the daily intel that is for his eyes only.’
Oh yes, the fabled intel – which can always be blamed later on when the war it was ‘based on’ is found to be little more than fabrication. Or just ignore it, when it goes against the wishes of the executive. Now you want us to trust the executive in the roll-up to another bloodbath. No thanks.
‘There are two stupid and dangerous viewpoints on this blogosphere.One is that Iran has the same right as other countries to the bomb ,totally disregarding their insanity and threats.Number two is to believe one word they say, or to play the moral relativism game comparing them to The United States Of America.I think Obama is a good man doing a bad job as president.I do not think he wants anything but peace ,freedom,and justice in this world.I consider the Iranian leadership as insane theocrats,terrorists, and religious fanatics bent on enslaving the world under sharia law, on the way to igniting the destruction of the world- toward the coming of the 12th Imam and the annihilation of the Jewish race(big breath).Now I think you know where I stand.Pretty close to the leadership of this country.Sad day when a conservative stands with Obama while you libs deride him.’
No, it’s a sad day when someone is stupid enough to go along with another war based on paper-thin pretexts, in spite of the countless lessons that should have been learned the many other times these wars were fought.
First: N.P.R. = “Nice Polite Republicans”… and democracynow.org is where to send your contributions instead.
I’ll second what Luis Cayetano says above. Well put.
A few factoids of interest: Iran has an economy the size of Connecticut’s (and Greece has one the size of Miami Fl). It’s military budget is literally 1/100th of ours, and we’ve been far more aggressive in the region than Iran, up to and including replacing its democratically-elected government with a CIA coup in 1953. That’s when we installed the Shah. When the Ayatollahs came to power, they raided SAVAK’s safe houses (SAVAK was the Shah’s secret police) and, in the basements, found ovens to roast and torture people, and stacks of severed limbs. The U.S. has a lot to answer for.
But the oil industry requires Middle-Eastern tension to keep the price per barrel high, so we submit. And the oligarchs require some boogie man to scare the population in line. Reagan famously fought one of the poorest nations in the hemisphere — Nicaragua — claiming they were a threat too. He famously asked the president of Mexico to endorse the idea of Nicaragua as a threat to the U.S. The Mexican president replied he would be happy to go along with his friend Ronald if there were any way he could do so without being laughed out of office.
Maybe we’ll wake up to this, and maybe not…
I have watched with horror since the 80s when PBS was attacked by Reagan. Every chance the Republicans have had, they have reduced treasury support of Public media. Slowly, PBS was forced to take ‘sponsors’, then more reductions, then more time for sponsors. Bush !! tried unsuccessfully to eliminate the Corp for Public Broadcasting, which was set up as a firewall against government influence over PBS. That didn’t work, but they have somehow changed things within PBS. Ever since William Buckley’s show ended, the right consistently paints PBS as ‘left’. The left sees them as right (doesn’t that mean they were fair?).
I see 3 reasons we need to protect Public media: 1. Great Programs!!! Now, some have Discovery etc on cable channels, but PBS has consistently presented programs that were aimed at intelligent people with a decent span of attention. Nature and Nova and Bill Moyers (the Joseph Campbell interviews alone continue to be used and studied, and Moyers’ NOW was by far the best interview and comment show on TV), Frontline went out on a limb with Real investigative reporting -like the financial meltdown before the end of Bush admin., and Dana Priest’s Secret Government report was not a story the right wanted illuminated. It also carries BBC news (British public media). You didn’t have to tune in The Lawrence Welk Show, but I knew elders who waited all week for it! Personally I love the British mysteries and dramas; way too quaint or slow or complicated for commercial tv or illiterate people. It has a whole hour of relevant without Hollywood gossip or sports reports. It has great programming!
2. I know of no other station that is committed to entertaining And educating children. Without ads to turn them into little brainwashed consumers. They also have info packs for home schoolers. What commercial station protects and supports children like this?
3. Without Public media, we will have only corporate media. We may someday wish we had media on this scale that is not beholding to any Corporation or government censorship.
I hate the interference and subsequent decline of PBS integrity. I wish we would fight for it, not end it.
Luis…Your talking bunk.I guess the question you have to ask yourself is what does Iran have to do before you would react at all?What is your “line in the sand”.You obviously consider them and their endless threats,and their nuclear program as nothing more than distractions for the political class and their military zombies.I just wonder.They have been pretty damn good at arming terrorist factions who have used those arms to attack us.Lets say they took their first bomb and handed it to one of those factions.Lets say that bomb was brought into New York on a ship and detonated.How bout it then Luis?Any reaction?Like the rest here I want these maniacs de-fanged as cheaply and quickly as possible.No one wants war or conflict of any kind.The message to Iran is clear enough for any moron to follow.Stop threatening other countries.We take you seriously.We give you that ultimate respect.To take you and your leadership seriously.Along those lines we consider you a danger to our national security and the worlds.If you continue to try to build ,or ever
acquire a nuclear weapon WE will take you and your endless threats seriously indeed.Your drive toward conflict has reached a dangerous crossroad.Choose peace.For you own good and for the good of the world.Wouldn’t it be a great day when Iran holds out their hands in friendship toward Israel and the US.I believe they have no thoughts to such a move.
‘Luisâ┚¬Ã‚¦Your talking bunk.’
Even though everything I said was perfectly accurate.
‘I guess the question you have to ask yourself is what does Iran have to do before you would react at all?’
By ‘react’, you mean ‘advocate war’, right? A nuclear energy program doesn’t cut it for me. When even the chief of the Pentagon acknowledges that Iran DOES NOT – get it? DOES NOT – have a nuclear weapons program, then I don’t see how pushing for war qualifies as anything other than retarded.
‘What is your “line in the sand”.’
If they start a war. So far, you’ve been the advocate for armed aggression, not Iran. Yet I’m supposed to think that you’re the one being reasonable. I think not, sir.
‘You obviously consider them and their endless threats’
Can you give any examples, or is this yet another part of the popular discourse that has been repeated so often that it’s not become ‘truth’ in the official canon? And for THIS you’re willing to carry out actions that will result in people being killed? Wow. As for me, I’d literally have to lose my mind to do that.
‘I just wonder.’
You should, but it’s odd that you direct that wonder at someone who speaks sense rather than in favour of yet another bloodbath in that unfortunate region of the world, especially after the lies that brought us the previous one. One ‘wonders’ when people like you will get it and stop acting like mindless servants of power.
‘They have been pretty damn good at arming terrorist factions who have used those arms to attack us.’
How does that make them different to you? And isn’t it odd that you always managed to find yourselves on their doorstep when they, apparently out of the blue if we’re to believe you, just decide to attack you? They’re not sponsoring terrorists in Mexico who are attacking you from there. It’s always when you’ve INVADED and OCCUPIED someone else’s country on the other side of the world – in the region they happen to live in, incidentally. Defending themselves from US subversion and terrorism probably counts as aggression to you.
‘Lets say they took their first bomb and handed it to one of those factions’
Let’s say you stopped indulging in stupid fantasies. That might be more useful.
‘Lets say that bomb was brought into New York on a ship and detonated.How bout it then Luis?Any reaction?’
Well in that (purely hypothetical and groundless) case, then obviously the US would be justified in taking armed action.
What’s your point?
‘Like the rest here I want these maniacs de-fanged as cheaply and quickly as possible.’
And you think a war is going to be cheap and quick. Man, you really are living on the far end of the funny farm.
‘No one wants war or conflict of any kind.’
The threats emanating from Israel and some sectors in the United States would seem to contradict that claim.
‘the message to Iran is clear enough for any moron to follow.’
Yes: acquiesce to US bullying and harassment. It has absolutely nothing to do with peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Otherwise the US would have accepted the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil, wherein Iran could get its enriched uranium from a third party. But the US rejected that (ie. they rejected a peaceful settlement to the hostilities), because there are obvious issues of propriety here. If a deal isn’t done at the end point of US threats, it can’t be allowed to go through. You obviously agree with the correctness of this, and are willing to risk war to see it enforced. That does, of course, have the effect of exposing you as a servant of power rather than as someone genuinely interested in averting war.
‘Stop threatening other countries.’
Examples, please. Of course, your call for Iran to stop threatening other countries doesn’t even rise to the level of a sick joke, because you know perfectly well that the US is the biggest aggressor in the region, having invading two countries in recent years. Maybe you could pay at least minimal attention to that.
‘We take you seriously.We give you that ultimate respect.’
Even though everything you say is itself couched with threats. In other words, you can threaten others with impunity, but if someone else resists, they’re ‘maniacs’. Typical imperialist logic, and totally laughable. Even more laughable is that you expect me to take it seriously.
‘Along those lines we consider you a danger to our national security and the worlds.’
A stupid assertion, given that Iran doesn’t carry out a thimble-full of the terrorism and subversion that the US routinely carries out. If you’re interested in making the world a safer place, there’s a simple way to help achieve that: stop destabilising and waging war on it. That by itself would take care of a lot of the violence that you moan about.
‘if you continue to try to build ,or ever
acquire a nuclear weapon WE will take you and your endless threats seriously indeed.’
Unwarranted assumptions about nuclear weapons were contained in that sentence. Could you please justify them, in the light of the chief of the Pentagon’s statement?
‘Your drive toward conflict has reached a dangerous crossroad.’
But when the US crosses over into actual conflict – ie. invading another country – that’s somehow not ‘dangerous’. Can you at least begin to see why I regard you as profoundly unimpressive?
‘Choose peace.’
Obama and the Israeli leadership would indeed do well to heed those words, and desist from their illegal and immoral threats against peace in the region.
‘For you own good and for the good of the world.’
True. The US shouldn’t sink its own economy just because it wants to stay relevant in the world.
‘Wouldn’t it be a great day when Iran holds out their hands in friendship toward Israel and the US.’
As they did several years ago when the US censured the Swiss diplomat who conveyed the Iranian leadership’s overtures for peace. When Israel ceases its apartheid oppression of the Palestinian people, they might then be greeted with an Iranian peace overture.
‘I believe they have no thoughts to such a move.’
Of course not. They’re a sovereign state with no obligation to accept dictates from the US.
By the way, michael, I remember your shenanigans when you were offering your platitudes in support of international aggression in Iraq. It didn’t wash then, and it won’t wash now. I was, however, struck by how quickly you gave up, as your ‘arguments’ crumbled in the face of facts. Sooner or later you’ll have to learn and accept that people in the Middle East don’t share your love of imperialist slaughter.
What about Luis’s talking bunk? I wanna know. It sounds awesome.
Luis what was that last bit about Iraq?That case is pretty well known in spite of Liberal spin attempts.Of course at times I have “given up”talking to the rock heads.Bush derangement syndrome yada yada yada.Pick and choose your historical reference points to re-write the history.Did you know the only reason war happened in Iraq was WMDs?And Bush getting even for his Daddy?And ALL the intel was skewed or falsified?And Bush and his VP and Rove are really war criminals?Gimme a break ok.
As far as Iran I never advocated war.Got that?As far as who to believe in understanding Irans drive toward a bomb……I choose to believe the president YOU elected over ANYONE else.He has the top spot in this.Understand that?As far as moral relativism being granted to Irans pot of nuts -save it.Your just being blind in that.As far as blowing off their terrorist past…nope not gonna happen.As far as proving their threats are you being blind on purpose?Check out farsi to English translations on an almost daily basis coming out of Iran.Nutty as a fruitcake.Dangerous as a viper.
Look you have an ax to grind toward this country.If you and I could get in a time machine and go back to Europe 1935 you would be writing the same bunk and I would be trying to warn you.It’s Americas fault is bouncing about your mind like a pin ball(or Israels)All thought is funneled through that.Strangely having a Dem president ,sec of state and all the rest does not change your opinion.And that really answers that.
@michael e: You keep bringing up these translated daily Iranian threats that you’re reading. What are you talking about exactly? Is there a link or something?
‘Luis what was that last bit about Iraq?’
You laid on a heap of mumbo-jumbo that for some reason you thought I wouldn’t see through: https://fair.org/blog/2011/02/16/wait-the-iraq-wmd-stuff-was-a-lie/
‘That case is pretty well known in spite of Liberal spin attempts.’
It is very well known, especially to anyone who pays attention to historical continuities rather than just rosy pronouncements about human rights and democracy (or non-existent weapons programs).
‘Of course at times I have “given up”talking to the rock heads’
You mean people interested in the truth. Yeah, giving up is a way of dealing with such people, especially when you don’t bring forth any facts.
‘Did you know the only reason war happened in Iraq was WMDs?’
No, because that’s a flat-out, utterly transparent LIE. But I certainly know that you want to believe it, and that you want to foist this belief onto others, even if it means engaging in bluster that would make Goebbel’s propagandists blush.
But never mind: did you know that there existed something called the Cheney Energy Task Force? Did you know that as early as the mid 1940s, US State Department documents cited the Middle East as a ‘stupendous source of material wealth and strategic power’? Did you know that since that time, the US government has sought, through a variety of means, to shape events in that region to accommodate the perceived needs of the US economy? I can go on like this, but it shouldn’t need saying that if it’s necessary for me to go on like this, your lack of comprehension has reached truly pathological levels.
‘As far as Iran I never advocated war.Got that?’
Well, you did. For starters, why is your threshold for using the ‘military option’ so pathetically low? Secondly, why did you ignore my point about the Turkish-Brazilian deal?
‘As far as who to believe in understanding Irans drive toward a bomb’
WHAT DRIVE? Can you cite evidence, or are you just going to keep using the Nazi tactic of repeating a lie a thousand times until it becomes truth?
‘I choose to believe the president YOU elected over ANYONE else.’
I’m not American. And why would you choose to believe the President who has broken so many of his own promises? THAT’S who you choose to believe over anyone else? Can you deploy even the slightest bit of skepticism to the pronouncements of state officials, or is that asking too much?
‘He has the top spot in this.Understand that?’
It’s a shame you don’t, since you stupidly equivocate ‘top spot’ in power with ‘top spot’ in truth-telling/assessment. You seem utterly incapable of separating these two things, which have absolutely no necessary connection to one another. Understand that?
‘As far as moral relativism being granted to Irans pot of nuts -save it.’
Moral relativism is just a term designed to shut down rational minds who question any nefarious activity on the part of adulated public officials. So save it, I can see through your subterfuge.
‘As far as blowing off their terrorist pastâ┚¬Ã‚¦nope not gonna happen.’
And yet not only do you allow the US to get a free past in spite of its terrorist past (and present), you also want to let it KEEP DOING IT, while citing the much, much less awful track record of an official enemy as a reason for giving a pass to further terrorism. Talk about ‘rewriting history’!
Can you see why it’s impossible to take you seriously?
‘Check out farsi to English translations on an almost daily basis coming out of Iran.Nutty as a fruitcake.Dangerous as a viper.’
Examples please.
‘Look you have an ax to grind toward this country.’
Nope, just with the power structure that robs and exploits the world for the benefit of a tiny minority, which you call ‘this country’.
‘If you and I could get in a time machine and go back to Europe 1935 you would be writing the same bunk and I would be trying to warn you.’
No you wouldn’t; you’d be accommodating the Nazis, just as you accommodate the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, the dictatorship in Bahrain, and all the other tyrannies and state terrorists you airbrush from your platitudes.
‘It’s Americas fault is bouncing about your mind like a pin ball(or Israels)’
So it’s not America’s fault that it rejected Iran’s overtures for peace and that it rejected Iran’s acceptance of a Turkish-Brazilian deal to have its uranium enriched by a third party? Tell me how that works. Until then, the thought ‘culprits are at fault for their wrong-doings’ will continue to bounce around in my mind.
‘All thought is funneled through that.’
While for you, all relevant facts are filtered out. ‘It’s someone else’s fault’ is the only formula you ever use to interpret events in the world.
‘Strangely having a Dem president ,sec of state and all the rest does not change your opinion.’
Why would it? And why is it ‘strange’?
So, once again, everything you said was a fabrication.
Luis you speak in a fashion that is interesting.To be honest I don’t quite follow your back a forth stylization or who it is you are quoting half the time but I think I get the gist of what it is you are saying.But I think I can shorten this whole discussion toot sweet.You believe Iran ,and have sympathy for her views(as you did with Iraq and possibly Afghanistan). I do not.If you think I am a stooge for Bush and his cabinet ,and Obama and his- so be it.I guess Im one of those dummies who believes what the preponderance of evidence has shown to be true to “our leaders” at this time.And I suppose you believe Iranian claims.I guess that makes you a smart guy.We shall see how Iran proves herself to you in the realm of a peaceful nation.Who knows maybe in a few years you can take the wife and kids there for vacation.I hear they are opening a Disney land .Of course no Jews allowed….Or gays
p.s…..Your not American?Well sir where do you come from?And what are your political affiliations?Inquiring minds want to know.It may explain a lot
‘Luis you speak in a fashion that is interesting.’
But can you address what I actually SAY?
‘You believe Iran’
I believe the evidence. You don’t get to pick and choose your facts whenever they go counter to the wishes of your favoured state (and unlike you, I don’t have a favoured state. You misconstrue my distaste for war as ‘support’ for the Iranian regime – a typical tactic of the apologist for state violence and illegality – but I’ve never sung praises to the clerical dictatorship in that country. You, on the hand, routinely sing praises to the rightfulness of your favoured state’s threats and posturing, never showing even a hint of self-reflection in the process).
‘and have sympathy for her views’
Which ones? Once again, you use insinuation rather than example. But it’s true, I do have sympathy for her desire not to live at the pleasure of imperialists.
‘I guess Im one of those dummies who believes what the preponderance of evidence has shown to be true to “our leaders” at this time.’
Oft-repeated claims don’t count as a preponderance of evidence. Certainly you haven’t provided any, just more claims in support of the…claims. Let me know where I’m wrong.
‘And I suppose you believe Iranian claims.’
About them not having a nuclear weapons program? Sure, because no evidence to the contrary has ever been brought forth. Here’s a claim: the US has an ongoing biological weapons program. The US is known to have had one in the past, and to have cultured vast amounts of biological material as part of this program. The US should open up all its biological research facilities for inspections by the UN, including its military sites. Failure to do so should be met with stringent sanctions against US companies until the nation’s leaders come clean and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the international community that it isn’t harbouring any BW program. Right?
See how it works? Another country doesn’t become indebted to you just because you throw around unsubstantiated accusations and have the capacity to attack it militarily. Why is that hard to understand?
‘I guess that makes you a smart guy.’
It doesn’t make me anything. The points I’ve raised are elementary, easily accessible to anyone who can think at the level of basic logic and morality.
‘We shall see how Iran proves herself to you in the realm of a peaceful nation.’
I never claimed or implied that Iran is a ‘peaceful nation’, except insofar as she hasn’t launched aggression against her neighbours (let alone sent expeditionary forces to other continents to attack countries on the other side of the planet, something which, oddly, never seems to you to undermine the notion that your favoured state is peaceful). Iran’s regime certainly isn’t pacifist (it’s true that it does pose a threat, but primarily to its own people. Its threat to the other nations in the region is ideological, not military).
‘Who knows maybe in a few years you can take the wife and kids there for vacation.’
That’s assuming that the place hasn’t been torn to shreds thanks to the warmongering of people like you, who preferred to the risk the lives of innocent people just to make a point.
‘I hear they are opening a Disney land .Of course no Jews allowedâ┚¬Ã‚¦.Or gays’
Sorry, what’s this got to do with anything under discussion here? I thought the issue was nuclear weapons, not whether the regime in Tehran is awful (which no serious person denies). Your shifting back and forth between nukes and human rights is fishy, because it implies that you don’t have much conviction in your own case. If you’re really concerned about human rights, then perhaps you should pay more attention to the gems that the US associates with, who have a human rights record as bad as or worse than Iran’s.
‘p.sâ┚¬Ã‚¦..Your not American?Well sir where do you come from?’
Born in Uruguay, raised in Australia. So what?
‘And what are your political affiliations?Inquiring minds want to know.It may explain a lot’
Your inability to digest facts may well also be explained by your political affiliations, so I suggest you worry about that first.
>Luis Cayetano Says:
>>Brux said:
>>’Why is Iran placing its nuclear facilities with military strategy then? Hardened sites nearby >>mosques and holy cities and breaking it up into some 40-something plants. What have they >>said when we have demanded they stop?’
> The reason is simple: they’re responding to threats from Israel and the United States.
Well, first you are assuming that is reason, and second or maybe first â┚¬Ã‚¦ what is they say that in order to justify the first strike on Israel, the US or some other non-Islamic hated country?
But since you know what is in the mind of Ahmadinejad and have worked up all the excuses, I’m sure that will never happen, the US will just continue for all time to be the bad guy that is so comforting for some that they never bother just for the fun of it to wonder what might happen if they miscalculate or are just wrong.
‘Well, first you are assuming that is reason,’
Are Iran’s facilities under threat? Yes. Do they serve a key economic function? Yes. Would any other country respond in a similar way if its economic assets were being threatened? Yes.
So what makes Iran special? Apparently, though, you imagine that ‘our demands’ somehow in debt Iran to us, and even that attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and scientists shouldn’t factor into their considerations. That’s some odd logic you deploy there.
‘and second or maybe first â┚¬Ã‚¦ what is they say that in order to justify the first strike on Israel, the US or some other non-Islamic hated country?’
There’s no evidence that Iran is planning a first strike, or that it thinks such a strike would be anything other than a stupid idea. The only people talking about first strikes are Israel and the US, in case you haven’t noticed. Iran has only ever invoked war as a defensive measure.
‘But since you know what is in the mind of Ahmadinejad and have worked up all the excuses,’
No, just elementary points of logic, deriving from the following facts: the president of Iran doesn’t control its military or even its foreign policy, so the decision to make a nuclear weapon wouldn’t reside with Ahmadinejad anyway, and secondly, no evidence has ever been put forth that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. In fact we saw the secretary of defense say categorically that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Yet I’m supposed to take from that they do? Sorry, but you’ll need to do much better than that.
‘I’m sure that will never happen, the US will just continue for all time to be the bad guy that is so comforting for some that they never bother just for the fun of it to wonder what might happen if they miscalculate or are just wrong.’
But we’re not supposed to pay attention to the recent cases where war had disastrous consequences? After hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and their country torn to bits, and thousands of Allied service people killed and maimed, as well as a similar situation in Afghanistan and maybe soon Pakistan, you’d rather go down THAT path again?
Is there EVER a time when you people aren’t pathetic lap-dogs for the powerful?
Rule of the Internet #14: Don’t feed the trolls. It only encourages them.
I believe that over the long term inflation will ne a problem but over the short term it appears that deflation is a bigger issue.