Iran Rhetoric
tags:
Stumble ThisIt appears the American Media is all for an Iranian war. It was the Media that helped the Bush Admin dupe the public into Iraq, will they do it again with Iran?
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
CNN,FOX,ABC,NBC,CBS Iran Rhetoric
Comments  playlists with this video Bombing Iran: The Real Cut and Run by marinara
who voted for this video Fedquip
- siftbot
x30who has this post bookmarked cheesemoo
Iran Rhetoric Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 8. lore_weaver
(221 votes) 15. Nonbrainwashed
(179 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Or we can follow the examples set by Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman and Reagan and break out the big stick.
The world isn't fearing crazy Americans like it should. Fear = respect = staying #1.
No doubt I'll get some BS for assuming this is an American website. Probably valid...I have no basis for making that assumption. Therefore, the "we" references could be totally ambiguous or incorrect.
That sounds like Nazi shit. Did the mushroom not teach you about karma ?
Except for Fox of course, who seem to really be trying to convince their viewers that a war with Iran is the best course of action for the US. God damn that bloody Rupert Murdoch.
I wonder what the Bush administration's new buzzword for this campaign will be (they will of course do what they want, regardless of condemnation). "Weapons Of Mass Destruction", "Global Terrorism", "Al Qaeida", "Axis Of Evil". Bush's supporters need phrases like these they can fling about. I really hope the new one will be better, those were rather cheesy and sounded like they came from an action movie.
Oil? Oil is not good enough anymore. They will never recoup their financial lost with oil, even if the war ends tomorrow. That's just bad business if you're in it for oil.
http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107
And too, with Iran, there is that whole thing about them turning on our puppet dictator, storming our embassy, taking people hostages, telling us to fuck off, etc etc... if there is one thing 'America' can't stand is a nation that won't comply with its agenda.
Looris, about Hitler, you're being too simplistic. The failure of appeasement does not prove the necessity of smashing up Iran. What it does prove is that if you piss a country off, one of their citizens will go mental and lead the rest on a clusterfuck mission for revenge. This is a vicious circle, the only way to stop the madness is to stop the madness.
i'll take the risk of peace over the guarantees of war any day.
Just like they are too afraid and lazy to stand up to the American administration today.
The only people I see on here or anywhere else supporting this administration are the people with absolutely no knowledge of world history.
http://waronterror.videosift.com/video/US-terrorism-on-a-grand-scale
Uhm, I didn't say that, Mink
I just point that important thing out, and let everyone consider also this very important fact before drawing any conclusion.
Namely, Pakistan, has never really posed a threat to Israel, either by denying its existence, or by funding Palestinian terrorist organizations in Lebanon... so therefore, the NeoCons and the Israel lobby are pretty much unconcerned with their activities. Also, as we've already been over in regards to Iran, the history of our relationship with Pakistan has been much less volatile and on the whole, we have been much less involved with Pakistan: never had a puppet regime in place there, nor had it overthrown, nor have the Pakistanis ever taken any of our diplomatic staff hostage or called us "The Great Satan"... and really, Pakistan is almost entirely removed from Middle Eastern ideological/historical conflict by virtue of its location, national identity and history... in fact, I believe the CIA has it grouped within its South Asian bureau. Also, unlike Iran, whenever we have asked something of Pakistan, be it the old regime, or the new one, they have almost always complied... they funneled money and arms to the mujahidin for us in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and later, in 2001, when we needed their airspace and access to bases on the ground to support operations in Afghanistan, Musharraf rolled over and complied, becoming a surprise ally in the Bush Administration's 'War on Terror'... clearly, Pakistan is a much more cooperative state than Iran.
Also, everyone knows that if the Pakistanis are going to nuke anyone, its going to be India, but, even though India is also our ally, they are no where near as dependent upon our support for mere existence as is Israel. Also, its pretty apparent that even though both India and Pakistan are now nuclear, its highly unlikely that they are going to start a war with one another because a) India is so much bigger and wealthier, and in a conventional war Pakistan would pretty much be screwed... and b) the minute a Pakistani nuke was launched (which, they have yet to prove they can actually do- they have detonated them, but as for firing one at something, that is left to be proven), India would launch five right back, and arguably, Pakistan would be less likely to recover from such an incident as it lacks the economical fortitude, population, infrastructure and resources of India. In the meantime, international pressures from most of the industrialized first world nations (ie, America and the EU) on which India depends for much of its commerce, keep it in check from attacking Pakistan on a whim. So, it would appear that, in this case, the possession of nuclear weapons has successfully kept these two rivals at sort of a standoff, and the region on the whole has been more peaceful.
There is, however, considerable apprehension right now in the States about the current situation in Pakistan, as no one likes to hear the words 'nuclear' and 'unstable government' in the same sentence. I do think though, that seeing as how all major parties involved in the power struggle in Pakistan: Musharraf, Bhutto, and Sharif, are in close contact and by all appearances, past and present, friendly to US and EU concerns for overall stability in the region, whomever it is that gains control will likely continue to the toe the line in regards to nuclear discretion.
That, in short, is why no one cares that Pakistan has nukes and there is such a furor over Iran possible getting them.
Was hardly "totally ignores the fact that Pakistan is a key ally of the US"
Aside from that, what "strategic triangle that exists between Russia, China and India" are you referring to. Genuine question.
This doesn't answer your question -- just use the search function here:http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8791