Iran Deleted From the World's Banking Computers

dtjohnson writes "Iran is being deleted from the world banking system Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) computers as of Saturday at 1600 UTC. Once the SWIFT codes for Iranian banks are deleted, Iranian banks will no longer be able to transfer funds to and from other worldwide banks, turning Iranian international commerce into a barter operation. SWIFT is taking the action at the request of EU members to comply with international sanctions against Iran due to its program to develop nuclear weapons. The effect will be to drastically hinder Iran's ability to execute international business transactions."

Comments

The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003. When the largest military power in the world labels you as one of three "Axis of Evil" members, then proceeds to invade one of the other two, it tends to make you a bit twitchy. And, both Iran and NK know that the only way to really protect yourself from U.S. invasion is with nuclear weapons.

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel. But the fact is that Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense. And even despite the anti-U.S. rhetoric that followed the revolution that overthrew the U.S. puppet shah and the U.S. helping Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war, Iranians have been surprisingly open to U.S. diplomacy in the past. They were even one of the first countries to offer the U.S. condolences after the 9-11 attacks, and in the pre-Bush years maintained a stable, if sometimes tense, relationship with the U.S. They're a country that seems to want to be liked on the world stage. But they're also a country that wants to send a message to the U.S. that they're not going to stand by and be invaded on some U.S. oil grab.

So we cut off their banks and hit them with sanctions. Fine. A lot of Iranian people will suffer. And maybe this will lead them to negotiate, maybe not.

But you know what I bet would ABSOLUTELY lead them to negotiate and drop their nuke program?

1) Offer a few public goodwill gestures to make it clear that the U.S. is *not* going to invade them or attack them
2) Tell Mossad to stop assassinating their scientists, or face sanctions of their own.
3) Reign in Israel and make it clear to them that attacking Iran will NOT be tolerated, and will cost them the friendship of the U.S.
4) Normalizing relations with Iran.

You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

Oh sorry, what I meant to say was F1RST POST!!!!!!!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Troyusrex]

I guess you don't remember Jimmy Carter negotiating a treaty with North Korea back in 1994 almost exactly along the lines you state. Or them cheating on it by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and being called on it even before Bush was elected and well before the Axis of Evil speech.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think this is about much of anything but petroleum, and more specifically, petro-dollars. The US doesn't want Iran at the table, they want them at heel.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[gtvr]

Iran has been working on this since before that speech. Nice try to blame us, Mahmoud.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[hjf]

You're an american idiot.

"Terrible economic crisis". From everyone else in the world, and especially from those countries your constant wars completely destroy their economies: FUCK YOU, FUCK YOUR MOTHER, YOUR FUCKING UNCLE SAM, AND FUCK YOUR WHINY LITTLE ASS, FUCKING AMERICUNT.

Now mod me down motherfuckers, it's all you can do. Fuck every last one of you.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but the US doesn't appease to the masses... look at how it treats us....

They only answer to the interests of corporations that want to pillage resources and keep people uneducated and in control... China and Russia want the same thing, of course... not just the US.

Same shit, different masks.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[iceperson]

Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[andyteleco]

You f***n biggot. What do you think, that their government was ELECTED?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

If the people allow their government to do evil things, they deserve to suffer.

You do realise that's exactly the same rationale that the Islamic extremist groups use to justify their attacks on civilian targets, right?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[hjf]

You know what's the worst part about it? Israel is constantly taunting Iran with their bullshit. They go and say they will do "whatever it takes" to "stop" Israel. Does that mean Israel is willing to nuke iran? To me it sounds like it. That, or they will use their henchmen, the americans, for that.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[gmuslera]

You are saying that Americans deserve to suffer? Because your government is doing definately evil things after all, in all fronts, and in a scale several orders above Iran.

At least now the slavery they are pushing aren't based specifically on skin color.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Theophany]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

It's "incredibly stupid" to think that a Bush speech in 2003 caused all this. The USA's relationship with Iran has been shitty since 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini's return from exile. To claim otherwise is in flagrant denial of reality and you only oust yourself as some anti-Zionist nutcase.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

North Korea is a different story. There is a whole different dynamic at work in that country. I'll deliver my thoughts on that when a NK story pops up.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

Your right. My apologies.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[sxpert]

it's actually the other way around... the Israelis REIGN in the USA

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

Ah yes. That must explain how Iran already had such facilities working before 2002, and all those hidden facilities back in the 90's. It also must explain why North Korea has been working on it since the 60's.

Anyway, simple point, you've got the order wrong. They were pursuing nuclear weapons before the speech.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[durrr]

The people of Iran once had a democratically elected leader. The CIA didn't like that and installed a puppet regime, everything went to hell after that.

Although, still Iran do have a quite high standard of living. They only lack several human rights(and the west is trying to catch up in reaching the same limitations) and no democratic elections, despite these flaws, it's a quite stable nation. People may be discontent, but starting a civil war to remove the powers that be requires a fair bit more than discontent. Thus, the people of iran don't really have much of a choice. And with the recent polarization of iran vs the west that is going on, this situation is damn sure to not improve in any progressive and positive manner.

And this is not just about iran and the US and israel. Russia and china are on the sidelines too.

A good recepie for shitstorm reads like this: Increasing geopolitical tensions in the middle of a economic fucking crisis. The more i see this shit play out, the more the picture looks like the US being a powertripping neoimperialistic Rome 2.0 in the decline stage.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just that the people will suffer, it's also that:

1. Sanctions have never worked to accomplish anything, ever.
2. Trade is good for everyone, and it's good for peace.

I could understand sanctions narrowly tailored to weapons and nuclear equipment/material. Of course, those would be impossible to enforce. Not that the current sanctions are any easier to enforce...

What have trade sanctions on Cuba accomplished? What have trade sanctions on North Korea accomplished? I hate how those countries treat their people, but I don't see how trade sanctions do anything but make the situations worse.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[atriusofbricia]

I guess you don't remember Jimmy Carter negotiating a treaty with North Korea back in 1994 almost exactly along the lines you state. Or them cheating on it by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and being called on it even before Bush was elected and well before the Axis of Evil speech.

Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist. I've never really supported the seeming "Israel First" politics of the US government over the last few decades, but to say that Iran only wants to get along with its neighbors and be good little world citizens is a bit off. Again, we can't mention any of that though as it conflicts with the central pillars of "GWB blame" and "USA blame".

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you made a typo in your first post. The first sentence starts with "The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because". I guess that "North Korea" should have read "Iran".

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on now, you can't lump us all in with this martian.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Hatta]

You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table.

It's not hard to get them at the table. Iran has been negotiating, and the Egyptians even got an agreement out of them, but Obama chose to go forward with sanctions instead of accepting a deal that would have accomplished what the sanctions were intended to accomplish. Check out the March 8th Daily Show with Trita Parsi for details.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's incredibly stupid to not realize that the US meddled with Iran before that and overthrew their democratically elected government because Iran nationalized their oil industry. Feel free to wake up to cause and effect!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[drinkypoo]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

Wasn't so stupid, then, was it, if the goal was eventually to have an excuse to invade those countries. Bush Jr. may well be nothing but an alcohol-soaked nitwit, I wouldn't know, but he certainly has intelligent friends, like his evil killer father.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

If that is a not-so-subtle attempt at Godwinning me, you should ask yourself what countries Iran has invaded in modern history, or what fascist or imperialist intentions they have shown. You might also want to think about how that argument could so easily be turned back on the U.S., and ask those same questions about the U.S. in the last ten years. The answers point to a truth you probably don't want to think about. So why not just sit down instead?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[hjf]

I was just playing the generalization game. Like he was with his "people allow government to do X" crap.

By his standards, the world is simple: it's your fault if your government does something evil, and you should suffer for it. By that simplification of the world we can also say that all americans are retards. And that every french is smelly, and every japanese is a rapist.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[gx240]

Yes, and that rational is regarded by the vast majority of the world as absolutely legitimate.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry I think you may have the chronological order of things messed up a bit here.
Iran and NK were pursuing nuclear weapons long before the "Axis of Evil" speech. I agree that the speech was ridiculous, but lets not make it seem like these countries actions is a direct reaction to it.
NK has been starving its people for decades. Maybe you should check out http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-1-of-3.
Iran is an Islamist republic with leaders that publicly deny that the Holocaust happened. They have also publicly refused to accept the right of Israel to exist as a country. Oh yeah they have also funded and armed the murderous Assad regime in Syriah. Maybe you also forgot how hard Iran put down the Green revolution a few years ago - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests. This country locks up any politician who has a perspective that deviates from the hardline Islamist Ayatollah.
I due not necessarily condone the United States track record of foreign policy, but it is never an excuse for a regime to murder its own people or to build weapons whose sole purpose is to murder others.
The only propaganda I see being spread is your position which was unfortunately the first post.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003. When the largest military power in the world labels you as one of three "Axis of Evil" members, then proceeds to invade one of the other two, it tends to make you a bit twitchy. And, both Iran and NK know that the only way to really protect yourself from U.S. invasion is with nuclear weapons.

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel. But the fact is that Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense. And even despite the anti-U.S. rhetoric that followed the revolution that overthrew the U.S. puppet shah and the U.S. helping Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war, Iranians have been surprisingly open to U.S. diplomacy in the past. They were even one of the first countries to offer the U.S. condolences after the 9-11 attacks, and in the pre-Bush years maintained a stable, if sometimes tense, relationship with the U.S. They're a country that seems to want to be liked on the world stage. But they're also a country that wants to send a message to the U.S. that they're not going to stand by and be invaded on some U.S. oil grab.

So we cut off their banks and hit them with sanctions. Fine. A lot of Iranian people will suffer. And maybe this will lead them to negotiate, maybe not.

But you know what I bet would ABSOLUTELY lead them to negotiate and drop their nuke program?

1) Offer a few public goodwill gestures to make it clear that the U.S. is *not* going to invade them or attack them
2) Tell Mossad to stop assassinating their scientists, or face sanctions of their own.
3) Reign in Israel and make it clear to them that attacking Iran will NOT be tolerated, and will cost them the friendship of the U.S.
4) Normalizing relations with Iran.

You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table.

Its comical the above comment was labled interesting...

In the example of North Korea pursuing Nuclear weapons is due to the mentality of the reigime in place. Its similar to a child persuing matches and lighters that they are told they are not mature enough to have. Further more NK having nuclear weapons honestly does destablize the region by an inbalance of power suddenly shifted to a dictatorship that feels its threatened by every neighbour except china. Cat backed into a corner comes to mind.

This has little to do with Dubbiya's speach in 2003.

Iran is a different kettle of fish as it truely does sponsor terroism, and harbours radical organisations who might try to steal nuclear arms which would be a more likely threat than the Iranian government actually trying to attack Israel.

Goodwill gestures, Israel issues, "normailizing relations" will have f... all squared to do with fixing the problem and will end up creating similar situations to North Korea as a couple of your points is US policy towards NK

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[lwriemen]

The USA's relationship with Iran has been shitty since 1979

Actually, even before that due to our support for the Shah.

As for Israel, Jello Biafra has some interesting comments here.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

No, I meant there is a whole different dynamic on how they pursue negotiations, and how they must be dealt with. Their recent breakneck pursuit of nuclear weapons did indeed begin after the "Axis of Evil" speech. They were even a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was only in 2003 that they withdrew and ratcheted up their nuke and missile program. Read up on it for yourself.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[drinkypoo]

There's a third option, which is that Iran really does intend to turn Israel into a parking lot, AND that the US is an empire builder.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[ByOhTek]

The problem with the generalization game is like the problem with chemical/nuclear warfare - you hit a lot more than your designated targets.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[rhombic]

The USA's relationship with Iran has been shitty since 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini's return from exile. To claim otherwise is in flagrant denial of reality and you only oust yourself as some anti-Zionist nutcase.

1953 wasn't exactly a good year for the relationship between the US and the people of Iran. You know, when the US and Britain overthrew their democratically elected government and converted the Shah from a figurehead to a dictator. The population might have gotten a bit peeved at that.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[CohibaVancouver]

They only lack several human rights

Are you joking? Stoning? Torture? Widespread censorship? Get off Slashdot and go read Amnesty International.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[tmayes86]

North Korea started their nuclear program in 1999. Well before the axis of evil BS. Also, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad telling the UN that Iran is going to "Wipe out Israel with a burst of holy fire." may have not helped his case. This isn't propaganda, It's a real threat. I stand with Israel on this one.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[DarkOx]

The fact is though Iran's leaders both the Ayatollah and the president frequent label the Israelis as the infidel. I don't know about the Ayatollah but the president has said the same thing about the US AND threatened to wipe out Israel.

  So in terms of fiery rhetoric; I don't think calling us the Infidel vs us calling them the Axis of Evil is really different. As to making threats, we have never suggested we mean to wipe anyone off the earth, and we have followed thru on the threats we have made.

Lives are at stake and it really is potentially us vs them. I don't see why we should not expect leaders to be mature enough not to be making idle threats, I don't think I want to expose my family to the risk they prove to be something other than idle threats, when they come from someone with the ability to carry them out, that is the test.

If Iran becomes a Nuclear power we could lose a city to a suitcase type dirty bomb. They have labeled us the Infidel and treated to destroy that same infidel; once they have the capability to do that then WE MUST ASSUME THEY MEAN TO DO IT and either remove their capability to do it or destroy them. A better option is to deny them the capability in the first place.

From their perspective they can no doubt say the same thing, and from a purely ethical stand point they have right try. The fact is we are where we are, threats have been made. If they continue to arm there are no choices. Its not a question of who is right and who is wrong, at this stage is a practical matter of me and mine come before them and theirs; and we are the mightier.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[IamTheRealMike]

What evil things?

Look. The US and EU claim to believe in and promote democracy. There's a very democratic way to handle the decision of whether to apply sanctions on Iran or not - allow individual citizens and companies to decide whether they'll trade with Iran or not. If there is genuine moral outrage at the "evil" things Iran is doing, individuals will refuse to trade and will boycott or publically pressure firms who do.

This clearly has not happened, perhaps because 90% of the people don't give a shit about Iran. Faced with overwhelming democratically proven apathy the "powers that be" have decided to force their citizens hand with decisions that cannot be voted on, or overridden. This is the opposite of democracy, and the kind of blatant hypocrisy that makes people jaded and cynical.

You know what? When the war comes I'll be rooting for Iran. I don't sign on to this perpetual war bullshit but was never asked, won't BE asked, and thanks to our wonderfully centralized financial system won't be able to do anything about it independently either.

And please STFU about Iran being a religious theocracy. Last time I checked every remaining candidate for the Republican nomination is competing on how much they love Jesus and how much they'd oppress people who don't follow their own stone age religious views. American is going to end up in the same place soon enough.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Frangible]

... and, to top it all off, sanctions don't work. This has been clearly demonstrated before with India and Pakistan. Both had clandestine nuclear programs that produced full Teller-Ulam designs and we didn't know about either until it was too late. A few years after sanctions were started, we dropped them.

Fundamentally, nuclear weapons come down to digging rocks out of the ground. Theoretically you don't even need to enrich the uranium; you can use heavy water as a moderator if you have access to an ocean. Which Iran does. So they could produce plutonium entirely from natural uranium. And there is a great deal of natural uranium.

I also don't agree with the notion Iran is going to make weapons from uranium. India and Pakistan didn't. It's a complete waste of uranium. They are better off transmuting uranium into plutonium.

Then again, I never really agreed with the idea of dictating a sovereign nation-state's technological development in the first place. It always has failed, and always will, and just serves to piss a country off and unite its people against you. You reinforce every reason and argument to develop nuclear weapons in the first place, and remove any internal opposition to it.

Nuclear technology cannot be stopped -- it is just too abundant in nature. You might as well try to stop nature itself. We are delusional to think otherwise when we have always failed in the past.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Theophany]

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

I pointed out the fallacy of the FP, I didn't write an essay along the lines of "why diplomatic relations between the USA and Iran are less than ideal." If you actually had the testicular fortitude to back up such a stupid comment, you wouldn't have made it as an AC.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Coeurderoy]

Well the USA's relationship with Iran became shitty when they decided in the 50s to remove Dr Mosadegh because he had the weird idea that it was not a good idea to let the british go on stealing iranian oil.
The funny part is that from the british point of view it would probably have been much better to renegociate the deal with iran than to end up sharing the revenue with the US. (but of course they prefere kow towing to the "big brother" rather than giving "bad examples" to former "protectorates"...)

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault

No, the last three are Obama's fault. Clinton had plenty of screw-ups too (oh, how I can list them). But I would contend that the "Axis of Evil" speech stands out as a particularly epic diplomatic and strategic fuck-up. It served no positive purpose, and put two countries on the nuclear path who didn't need to be.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the USA/IRAN relationship went south after the CIA coup of their elected government and its replacement with the Shah. Countries tend to react negatively to outside meddling with their political system.

To claim otherwise is in flagrant denial of reality and you only oust yourself as Pro-Zionist Warmonger shill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Rakshasa-sensei]

Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist. I've never really supported the seeming "Israel First" politics of the US government over the last few decades, but to say that Iran only wants to get along with its neighbors and be good little world citizens is a bit off. Again, we can't mention any of that though as it conflicts with the central pillars of "GWB blame" and "USA blame".

Iran has elections, just like the US. (And both seem to be about selecting one of two equally bad choices)

Do you really want to base foreign policy on shit that politicians say to win elections? In that case the US looks like the 3rd Reich reborn.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

If NK is different, please don't begin by saying "The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003." in your original post.

That said, you're right. NK *is* different. NK doesn't have any significant reserves of valuable resources. Iran does.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes create a parallel of two completely different countries. That is completely logical and valid assumption.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[ledow]

Terrible economic crisis. Yeah, must be hard for you, in your country with free benefit payments, etc. when you lose the 4-bedroom house and have to cash in the SUV. How awful for you.

I'm English, and we had the same - if not worse - impact as you did. You know what? I'd be embarrassed to refer to it as a crisis. Petrol (gas) went up a few pence, a few tens of thousands lost their jobs (while job vacancies are now at an all-time high, and you get guaranteed minimum wage, guaranteed human rights, and the actual *PERCENTAGE* unemployed stayed the same all that time "Unemployment has not been higher since 1995" - so, like, 20 years ago, before all the "economic crisis") and we just had to throw 1/3rd off long-term disability benefits because they were actually able to work all along.

The US started their wars, we'd like to point out, and prolonged them about 10 years longer than necessary and STILL can't recognise basic human rights for non-Americans. Who did that? The guy you chose because he said he wouldn't do that. What are you more concerned with? Could he be non-American and how dare he try to get people into medical treatment if they have no money?

When you elect someone that actually stops your country obliterating citizens in other countries and denying them their basic human rights that almost every other country in the world has signed up to, then you can take the moral high ground. In the meantime, you've elected a warlord who you keep in power because he tries to keep petrol cheap.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[durrr]

Yes it's a lack of several human rights.
Sortof how iraq was under Saddam.

Now they have several human rights, but no one around to enforce them. So the place is a different flavour of hellhole.

The US is also lacking several human rights, but i'm not seeing you picking up any guns to change things. As for voting? They can do that in Iran too. Doesn't help much though, same as in the US, where the media could paint a rainbow picture of hitler and get him elected. Provided he have the money and friends in high places.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyYar]

you should ask yourself what countries Iran has invaded in modern history

Does Hezbollah count? Or are we only counting official military activity. Because if that's the case, the CIA's help to the Shah shouldn't count either.

Iran has done at least as much harm to stability in the mideast as the US, they just don't do it with "shock and awe". Israel is a major irritant to mideast stability, and Iran is one of the biggest reasons.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[JoshuaZ]

Er, there's a bit wrong with your statement here. Most obviously, the axis of evil speech occurred in January of 2002, not 2003. That helps your case a bit, because a lot of the more serious failures of cooperation by Iran and North Korea occurred towards the end of 2002.. However, in both cases, there were serious failures to cooperate with international inspections before the speech. The entire James Kelly visit to North Korea was over evidence of non-cooperation that had been building up since the late Clinton years. Similarly, in the case of Iran, Iran had likely begun building new nuclear sites since before the speech http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/517/exiles-and-iran-intel. You can make an argument that Iran and North Korea may have accelerated their programs due to the Axis of Evil speech, and that's a more nuanced and viable argument, but that's a much weaker statement.

Moving on from there, there are other factual problems with your remarks. You claimed that

Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense

Right, so funding Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad isn't at all evidence of a "particularly hostile" or "irrational" attitude. http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362. Iran doesn't even share a direct border with Israel but they are one of the largest supporters of attacks on Israel. That doesn't exactly scream peaceful to me.

There are enough factual problems as pointed out above, that your four point proposal simply doesn't make sense.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[DesScorp]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.>

That's a load of BS. They sought to acquire nukes so they could threaten their neighbors. The Norks in particular are running a kind of twisted extortion scheme: "Hey America, give us money and food or we nuke the South". And it works apparently, because we give in every time. Iran took notice and started their own program. When evil is rewarded, evil increases. We shouldn't be invading them, but at the same time, we shouldn't take a foolish attitude of "If we ignore them they'll just go away". They won't.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyYar]

Israel is constantly taunting Iran with their bullshit.

Yeah, the worst is the way that Israel keeps arming and supporting these armed insurgents on the Iranian border, just because they don't think that the Iranian state is legitimate. Pure evil.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[LordLimecat]

You are aware of the Iranian attacks on embassies in Iran, right?

You do realize that the Ahmadinejad is basically implying that 9/11 isnt all that it seems (where the heck are you finding these condolences)? And that he has declared that, quote, "Israel must be wiped off of the map"?

What part of the way Iran has been behaving and talking makes you think they will be "running to the table"?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyYar]

That's exactly Theophany's point. The axis of evil speech did not precipitate the ill relations with Iran, nor their desire for a nuclear program.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Opportunist]

Of all the people living in countries with "free" elections, as a US citizen you should know best what it's like to have only the choice between a giant douche and a turd sammich, and how electing either is as good as electing neither.

They have the same effin' choice there. Well, even worse, actually, because the only choice they have BY LAW is to vote for an Islamist government. With the only alternative to start a rebellion. Which is, again, something you should know best about. From BOTH, your own country AND the Iran, the rebellion of 1979 was quite intimately tied to the US. You might remember, or at least notice, that it takes a DAMN LOT to get enough people pissed enough to get anything like that off the ground.

Besides, you know what the real reason was for them to be kicked out of the international banking system? I mean, let's be honest, if it was for their actions, how about sanctions? Or how about trade embargos? Or maybe just parking an aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz? Allow me to let you in on a secret: Come 20th of March, Iran will sell its oil for any currency. Yep. No longer they will require you to pay in Dollars. Euros, Rubels, Rupies, it's all good. Does this very specific move make, i.e. to make trading with them more difficult, a lot more sense now? Hmm? Maybe?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's tell that President of theirs who wasn't elected back into office, that he needs to follow the rules of humanity, like he followed the democratic election rules a few years back, and as you said, kills his scientists. Let's do that. Goodwill gestures my ass.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Theophany]

Get out from behind you're AC and we'll talk, troll.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Malenx]

Blah blah blah, one country is an ally, so we should turn on them in exchange for trying to win another country that's attempting to manipulate us. Yeah, smart choice there.

Your response also has nothing to do with NK, who would rather starve their citizens and grow opium than improve things for their own people.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right. My apologies.

You're right. My apologies.

FTFY

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyYar]

2. Trade is good for everyone, and it's good for peace.

In general I agree with this, but oil is a different beast. Oil can be extracted by foreign contractors and nearly all the proceeds can be kept by the powers-that-be. It's one of those rare exceptions, probably because it generates huge revenue without involving any of the people who happen to live in the country. The leaders can build palaces and build huge armies - they don't need the people for anything, really. And even if they piss off the entire civilized world, the uncivilized world will still buy the oil. In short, there is no real incentive for peace.

What have trade sanctions on Cuba accomplished?

Well, nothing - but it should be noted that only the US is really sanctioning them. It's a pain, but not something that would suffocate the economy - Castro managed that all by himself.

What have trade sanctions on North Korea accomplished?

I'm not quite sure "nothing" is the right answer here, but I'm certain that this regime would have collapsed by now if not for the direct support of China - the sanctions don't mean much when the huge country just across your border isn't on board. It would be like putting sanctions on Canada but not getting the US on board.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is very important to clarify the motivations of Iran when dealing with Israel. I think many would assume it's antisemitism, but I would wager it is mostly predicated on self-defense and geopolitics. Remember that Iran has a Jewish population of around 30,000, which is the second largest in the Middle East aside from Israel. If Iran were really on a crusade of killing Jews(which I think many often mistakenly allege), would they not just start with their own people?

Iran views Israel as a projection of USA dominance. So to be honest, I think the most wise policy is to heed the suggestions of George Washington and drop our entangling alliances and stop meddling in the foreign affairs of nations. If Israel wants to nuke Iran, let them. Just don't expect us to be behind them.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[gral]

Thanks.

Too bad this kind of clear headed thinking will not get someone elected.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA relation to Iran has been shitty since 1979? You do know the Islamists didnt start the revolution there right? They rebelled againt the US backed King, who had replaced their duely elected government. The US earned its bad relations and created the situation that allowed these fwingnuts (who the peoplle of iran mostly dislike) to take over.

This move will serve to do little more than give thE people there more reason to hate the international community ate their own gov. Very counterproductive

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Scrameustache]

How is it that you think that you have contradicted the assertion "they only lack several human rights" by listing several examples of human rights being ignored? Are you joking? Get off slashdot and go learn about basic logic.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

Hardly. The terrorist groups believe that when a country does things against their wishes, it gives them the right to kills citizens of that country.

Morons like you are the problem.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[mrops]

This picture called, it says it disagrees with you

http://www.conspiracyuk.co.uk/iran-who-is-threatening-who/

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[digitig]

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech

The mistranslation of the speech that the person in (IIRC) 14th place in the chain of command made? I can't think why the OP didn't think that was worth mentioning.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[emilper]

the government of Iran kinda was elected ... they're one of the few to hold elections in the area, and relatively free ... they can't change the regime, but can choose who runs it

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

You can't argue with idiots like this guy.

And these people are all over Slashdot and inhabit most of the world.

He's part of the many, the 99% (the retard class of humanity, that is).

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[DigiShaman]

Well no shit! When nations sneak around covert programs that are by and large frowned upon by the international community, it only startles them to hasten the speed by which they develop them. Let me make it crystal clear. The "Axis of Evil" speech did *not* cause them to develop weapons. That's been going on longer than when Clinton was in office. No, it simply pointed out the level of BS going on by these two counties and others (NKorea and Iran). Publicly speaking out about it is equivalent to shining a spotlight on a thief at night. It causes them to either work faster or run away in fear.

GWB speech changed the dynamics. He thought maintaining the current status status quo was unacceptable. Their are arguments to be made that taking a divisive was either the right or wrong course of action.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[TubeSteak]

And, both Iran and NK know that the only way to really protect yourself from U.S. invasion is with nuclear weapons.

In one sense "yes" but mostly the response to that theory is "no".
North Korea and Iran both have the most effective non-nuclear deterence possible: daggers poised at the heart of US allies.

N. Korea has the largest artillery corps in the world.
The USA knows that if they try to invade N. Korea, that South Korea will be shelled into rubble.

Iran has special forces and terrorist friends spread throughout the middle east.
The USA knows that if they try to invade Iran, terror attacks will happen everywhere and destabilize the region.

Nuclear weapons are just icing on the cake for those two countries.
They have both had the ability to project force in a way that has held off the USA for decades.
It's why we've been slowly trying to choke Iran & N. Korea instead of invading like we did to Iraq & Afghanistan.

/Of course, attacking Afghanistan caused the terrorist problem there to metastisize throughout the Middle East and Africa, .
//So consider that a preview of an attack on Iran

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

In the very timeline you cited, you'll note how there is a break in eras right after the "Axis of Evil" speech. It was only a few months after that speech that Iran publicly announced the now-reknown Natanz facility and began upgrading it (from making fuel-grade uranium to the capacity to make weapons-grade uranium). I suppose you think that break was just a coincidence (just like it was a coincidence that North Korea suddenly withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at around the same time). But the fact is that Iran's nuclear program shifted from power generation to weapons production just after that speech. They got the message.

George Bush's ill-advised and poorly thought-out speech has cost us very dearly.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran has elections, just like the US. (And both seem to be about selecting one of two equally bad choices)

But in Iran, they put up billboards that say "Participate in the elections or the United States will bomb you." Our electioneering seems to have a bit of a different thrust.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Moryath]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

North Korea's been pursuing nuclear weapon technology and missile technology since the 1990s, remember the 1994 treaty where they "promised to stop"?

When the largest military power in the world labels you as one of three "Axis of Evil" members, then proceeds to invade one of the other two, it tends to make you a bit twitchy. And, both Iran and NK know that the only way to really protect yourself from U.S. invasion is with nuclear weapons.

Oh, I agree there. It certainly made Kim Jong Nutbag run screaming into even more isolationism, and I'd argue it was a larger factor in Iran's becoming more hostile to the world in general; it certainly scuppered an ongoing wave of westernization as the mullahs saw another chance to crack down by declaring a new round of "eliminate the influence of the great satan."

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda,

Seig something...

But the fact is that Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense.

Oh? They invaded Iraq. They've been weapons peddlers to rogue states for over 30 years. They do tend to operate by proxy, but their military actions from Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza are well, well documented. And both their crazy idiot president and the Mullahs are on record on what they would do to Israel if they "had the means," often including the words "wipe Israel off the face of the map."

So we cut off their banks and hit them with sanctions. Fine. A lot of Iranian people will suffer. And maybe this will lead them to negotiate, maybe not.

Well, the hope is that it will. It's what the UN decides on, and it's better than going to war.

But you know what I bet would ABSOLUTELY lead them to negotiate and drop their nuke program?

I bet you're going to tell us. And I bet you're going to miss out on the cultural issues of being seen as "weak" by coming into some form of negotiation unilaterally, especially the muslim/arab/persian tribalist dynamics involved. So let's move on.

1) Offer a few public goodwill gestures to make it clear that the U.S. is *not* going to invade them or attack them
Like what - sending a ton of earthquake aid? Whoops, we did that. Not attacking them for all this time? We did that too. Offering unilateral negotiotions? Obama did that, and then the crazy-ass Republicans shot it all down. You want to know who's causing the problems right now, making Iran think they're going to be attacked, you want to look at Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and my personal favorite, Rick "end times" Santorum.

2) Tell Mossad to stop assassinating their scientists, or face sanctions of their own.
Ah yes, Mossad, the eternal bogeyman of the muslim/arab/persian region. Anything happens? Blame "Mossad." Assassinated your brother in law to ascend to the throne? Don't worry, blame Mossad. Killed yourself from a life of excess while stealing the aid money intended for the poor (Arafat)? Don't worry, your followers will say "Mossad poisoned him." And on and on. The moment you get into stupid shit like this, you just reveal your own bias.

3) Reign [sic] in Israel and make it clear to them that attacking Iran will NOT be tolerated, and will cost them the friendship of the U.S.
Really? We should take over the Israeli government by force and set up a puppet state? Last time there was one there it was called the Mandate of Palestine and the British ran it... then they parceled off Transjordan and refused to allow Jews to move anywhere but "Palestine" because the Arabs were bitching about too many Jews spreading out... then it was split in half and the Arabs launched a genocidal war to wipe out the Jews anyways.

4) Normalizing relations with Iran.
Normalizing relations is a product of negotiations. W

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[nedlohs]

And that's different than believing that when a country does things against their wishes (aka "evil things") the people deserve to suffer how?

I guess killing is only a subset of causing suffering, but that's just details surely. It's still harming the civilians for the actions of the government.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Moryath]

They were even a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

As if the treaty was ever worth more than the paper on which Kim Jong Il wiped his ass...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

I'm assuming you aren't American, so you may not understand.

Sure, our choices for president aren't great. But the president is just one facet of our government. He doesn't have the ability to rule by decree like the raving durkas in Iran, so that comparison is ridiculous.

Of course now you'll respond with something stupid, like Obama opening up the national oil reserve as a counter example. Its what you people do.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[root_42]

The keys of your first and second post were so close together... Could have happened to anyone...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

I'm not anti republican (I am republican) but the "regime" we got rid of spent money like they didn't understand the value.

With George Bush being a rich child who never had to earn a thing, it's not surprising.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ignoring the internal/regional difficulties/aspirations the Iranian regime has. The current leadership has taken a fairly strong anti-west stand and their internal rhetoric has been based on that position. If they decide to get cozy with the west and stop developing nukes now, internally the opposition will use that as proof that they were right all along. And externally countries like Saudi Arabia will aggressively try to reduce Iranian regional influence. So, if the US offers a little the Iranian government is going to demand more. They might eventually be satisfied with what we offer, but probably only at the point where we tacitly agree that they can develop nuclear weapons if they want to.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the worst is the way that Israel is continuing its decades long ethnic cleansing program so they can reach their goal of "Eretz Yisrael." They want the land with as few filthy non-jews as possible.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[root_42]

What evil things?

Look. The US and EU claim to believe in and promote democracy. There's a very democratic way to handle the decision of whether to apply sanctions on Iran or not - allow individual citizens and companies to decide whether they'll trade with Iran or not. If there is genuine moral outrage at the "evil" things Iran is doing, individuals will refuse to trade and will boycott or publically pressure firms who do.

Democratic does not always equal morally or ethically correct. The society is made up of egoistic individuals. Most of us would buy products from Iran. Heck, I am buying stuff from Apple, produced at "the evil Foxconn". Because it's affordable and cool! But I am glad that there are institutions (many of them democratically elected) that serve as a moral / ethical watchdog. I am glad that they are applying sanctions. Our individual egotism is useful in day to day life, but hinders the greater society's values. So I think the system as we have it is already on a good track. It just needs some tweaking.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

If that's a joke, it way fall a bit flat, considering that both the U.S. and Israel have been funding and arming Iranian militants, as well as extremists in the Green Movement, in Iran for years.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[DigiShaman]

Throughout history, "peace" has been the exception rather then the rule. I really with that was the case. As a Christian, I hope and pray for peace for every man, women, and child on Earth. But I also cannot afford to remain ignorant man's nature and our history too. It's depressing to think about and it eats away at my faith in mankind's future, but I'm honestly surprised we've lasted this long without a full blown WW3. I suppose the atom bomb changed all that, but there's always a breaking point. Always.

The last 100 years in 10 minutes

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Hentes]

Although, still Iran do have a quite high standard of living.

Which will only last as long as their oil does, since they invest all their money into nukes. Do you know what will happen when their oil runs out? They will go around threatening everyone with their new nukes to pay them like North Korea does.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> It's "incredibly stupid" to think that a Bush speech in 2003 caused all this.

No, I think the parent post is correct. Bush's State of the Union speech on Jan 29, 2003, is exactly the reason that North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on January 10, 2003.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Sarten-X]

Hey, you're right! We (unwittingly) elected a Muslim to President!

...So?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[darkmeridian]

I am far from an apologist for Iran, but Ahmadinejad never said that he would wipe Israel off the map. He said that the Zionist government of Israel should be erased from history. In effect, he was calling for regime change just like we did. The story was based on a misreporting of the translation.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[DaneM]

There's a very democratic way to handle the decision of whether to apply sanctions on Iran or not - allow individual citizens and companies to decide whether they'll trade with Iran or not. If there is genuine moral outrage at the "evil" things Iran is doing, individuals will refuse to trade and will boycott or publically pressure firms who do.

Sorry to rain on your tirade, but I must point out that you have altogether too much faith in the ability of individuals to put global political concerns above personal ones.

The average person has much more pressing matters in life than global politics. Such examples of these are getting enough money to pay rent/mortgage; buying low (i.e. outside the U.S.) and selling high so their businesses get richer/stay afloat; etc. If they can accomplish these goals better by doing business with Iran, then by all means, they usually will--and typically for good (economic) reason. Also, certain high-demand, high-value products are produced almost exclusively in Iran--such as ~90% of the world's saffron--the most valuable spice in the world, and an important ingredient in many of the world's culinary traditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron

I would really like it if a "free market" approach to global politics would work as advertised (by you and certain others), but all the businesspeople I know happen to be extremely concerned with their own bottom lines, and not nearly as concerned with what's happening on the other side of the world, unless it's going to cost them something.

I wish I had more faith in the non-greediness (or lack of self-concern) of most people ("when push comes to shove"), but reality tends to contradict such faith violently.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Erp, typo. Bush's speech was 2002, a year BEFORE they withdrew, not a few weeks AFTER.

PS: Y'know slashdot, either let us edit or don't make us wait to reply to our own comments.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that funding hostile guerrillas/terrorists/freedom fighters for 40 years isn't a hostile action?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Tastecicles]

I'm sure the families of those sixteen Afghan civilians killed by an American soldier the other day will be very comforted by those words.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[TheMiddleRoad]

Don't forget Gaza and Iraq. There are supertankers full of Palestinian and Iraqi blood on Iranian hands.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[rainmouse]

You do realise that's exactly the same rationale that the Islamic extremist groups use to justify their attacks on civilian targets, right?

Perhaps you do not realise how naive you are being, but please understand that economic sanctions are a war against civilian targets that in the past have typically caused far more civilian casualties than the physical warfare does. It's just a measurable flaw in our evolved sense of morality that allows us to far more readily accept collateral death but call out direct violence as immeasurably more evil. Arguably our governments are massively more evil than the terrorist regimes who blow themselves up in crowded places as the death toll against civilians caused by sanctions alone is exponentially larger.

wiki article about Iraq sanctions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

paper on A Dissociation Between Moral Judgments and Justication: http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/Hauser_MindLang.pdf

.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[rainmouse]

I must stress that my post does not intentionally imply that suicide bombers are in any way acceptable, I just believe we need to have a long hard look at ourselves if we are so ready to judge the actions of others. Perhaps we should instead try to rationalise why they are doing this and what we have and continue to do to these people instead of just writing it off as evil and religious fanaticism.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyYar]

Of course they have - they are pretty much as close as one can get to sworn enemies. I'm just pointing out that Iran isn't a victim here - they are actively involved in hostilities with Israel, and have been for longer than I can remember.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Nadaka]

The elected leadership of Iran is a figurehead with no real power. and the last election was very clearly rigged the last time so that the Supreme Clerical Council would not have to invest effort in grooming a new pawn.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[medcalf]

You do realize that Iran has been waging a slow war on the US since 1979, right? Look up, for instance, Khobar Towers. Also, both the Iranian and N Korean programs predate Bush's speech. But other than getting the facts wrong, great post. The ideological position was clearly stated.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

If it speeds our withdrawal from that shit hole, it's a means to an end.

I don't know why we're still in Afghanistan anyway.

We should leave them be with the warning that the next attack will be the last thing they do as a people.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyYar]

They want the land with as few filthy non-jews as possible.

Well, then they are doing a pretty poor job:

According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the Arab population in 2010 was estimated at 1,573,000, representing 20.4% of the country's population.

and

Projections based on 2010 data, predicted that Arab Israelis will constitute 25% of Israel's population by 2025.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Tastecicles]

Mod up. In the words of Dele Ogun:

"I've been many places in the world. Libya [of 2009] has the highest standard of living anywhere. America has the highest prison population anywhere, and the highest murder rate anywhere. Iraq just had its first "free" elections in my lifetime. Yay democracy. Speaking of which, I stand here in the middle of London, which by the way has probably the worst air in the world, and need to say this as a representative of a country which is supposedly run under a dictatorship [Nigeria]: Britain is by far the least democratic country I have ever been in."

Well let's see: Eire had three referenda on Lisbon. Three. Now, that's democracy. England got none.
The rest of Europe voted and rejected the idea of blanket invasion of the Middle East. Now, that's democracy. England? Our Glorious Leaders decided they'd be America's lapdog and follow them in, without the rest of Europe. Without a vote on the issue.

Just because they got "voted in" (on a minority!) does NOT give them the automatic right to decide our long term future without consulting US FIRST.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[medcalf]

Actually, yes we do. We have been electing people from the stupid party and the evil party for decades without throwing them out or demanding real systemic fixes. We have the ability to turn them out or force the changes, but have not done so. Therefore we deserve the consequences of our leadership's policies. If those consequences include suffering, then we deserve the suffering.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[X0563511]

... and that makes it right?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Talderas]

I think it is very important to clarify the motivations of Iran when dealing with Israel. I think many would assume it's antisemitism, but I would wager it is mostly predicated on self-defense and geopolitics. Remember that Iran has a Jewish population of around 30,000, which is the second largest in the Middle East aside from Israel. If Iran were really on a crusade of killing Jews(which I think many often mistakenly allege), would they not just start with their own people?

Why would they? Wiping out the 30k local Jews after wiping out Israel makes more strategic sense since wiping out the 30k would likely illicit a response from Israel and other nations.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to the English? You used to oversee an empire that spread technology, prosperity, and peace over most of the world. Now you excoriate yourselves for once leading the world away from barbarism and you constantly denigrate the US and Australia for occasionally bitch slapping third world psychopaths. You get progressively weaker, sanctimonious, and more pathetic every decade now. Third world punks terrorize you in your home country with impunity. The only disability in the UK is a severe testosterone shortage.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[jadm]

Riiiiiiiiight. Someone insults them and suddenly they decide to pursue nukes ? I'm sure that before that speech they did not have a single project to develop nukes. 1. The past decade has been about trying to "win hearts and minds" with our enemies in general. 2 & 3. Yes, of course. Every one of the world's ills is due do Israel defending itself. It's well known that that evil country will just not keel over and accept a non-stop rain of rockets without whining about it. 4. Iran wants to destroy the West. It wants to spread the islamic revolution. Normalizing relations with Iran is not going to happen until we all turn *completely* suicidal. I can't decide if your naïveté is endearing or misguided. The USA and Israel are not evil incarnate.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[X0563511]

The only way to get these... special people... to stop electing assholes is to apply a cluebrick to their faces a few times. If I get whacked a few times myself, well... it's worth it.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[cpu6502]

Your steps 1-4 are basically the Ron Paul policy.

Which of course is why he was booed in South Carolina during the debates (and mocked on CNN, FOX, Microsoft NBC, and Lush Rimbaugh). Americans don't really want peace. They now view war like a football game... something to watch on TV and cheer-on the troops (while ignored the 1 million starving people or ~200,000 killed by bombs).

And the military-industrial complex wants war too. It makes them and their media channels rich. :-( When India and Pakistan developed a nuclear weapon we didn't go all apeshit & start bombing them. I don't understand why we're doing it now with Iran. Oh wait yes I do -- it's because John McCain and his neocons want to overthrow Iran, same way they overthrew Libya, and desire to overthrow Syria & Russia. (McCain's tweet: "Watch out Vlad... the arab spring is coming to Moscow.")

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.. Thank you. You are right, and I'm happy that at least someone is, and that it gets insightful as well. And you're funny!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[ravenshrike]

Yeah... the norks certainly weren't planning it since they demanded their light water reactors from Clinton prior to bush getting in office. Even though heavy water reactors would have been more subsidized from our end and more importantly are harder to produce nukes from. But no, their entire nuclear plan only came together after Bush made a speech.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[IcyHando'Death]

Look. The US and EU claim to believe in and promote democracy. There's a very democratic way to handle the decision of whether to apply sanctions on Iran or not - allow individual citizens and companies to decide whether they'll trade with Iran or not. If there is genuine moral outrage at the "evil" things Iran is doing, individuals will refuse to trade and will boycott or publically pressure firms who do.

Excuse me, no. The democratic way is to give everyone a say, including those with little or no economic power. What YOU are advocating is a system where the people with money are deciding the outcome. That's a plutocracy. Very much like what you have in the US.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

The dynamic at work is that every time the US has managed to make progress in negotiations with North Korea, the US has then prompty reneged on its side of the deal. Usually it's been the case that after the agreement was signed between the two countries, there has subsequently been a change in the US administration, and the new administration decides that they want to cancel all the treaties signed by the previous administration.

Generally, the agreements have been of the nature "The US agrees to build and supply modern large-scale nuclear power plants in North Korea, and North Korea agrees not to produce nuclear weapons." What North Korea really wants is huge amounts of electricity and agricultural aid (which is why it always signs such agreements, and is usually interested in negotiations).

Then, North Korea, seeing the actions of the US (such as building most of a nuclear power plant, then abandoning construction before completion because the new administration wants to be seen as "hard-line") as bad faith and breach of contract (and rightly so), resumes the activities that it had agreed to cease, because that seems to be the only way to get the US back to the negotiating table.

Repeat ad nauseum.

Incidentally, the issue regarding Iran is not that they are building nuclear weapons, or even trying to. The issue is that they are aiming to achieve complete mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle, and thus nuclear energy self-sufficiency. This would achieve several things: first, all of the oil currently going to domestic energy needs in Iran could then be exported. Secondly, Iran could massively improve and expand infrastructure and industry, given a vast and self-sufficient supply of nuclear energy. Third, they would be able to export low-enriched nuclear fuel assemblies to other countries who want to have nuclear energy.

It's that third point that is really irking countries such as the US; currently, there is an exclusive cartel which enriches nuclear fuel and sells nuclear fuel assemblies. Thus, prices are fixed, and very high. An independent vendor outside the cartel would upset that monopoly and its price structure, not to mention that it might consider selling nuclear fuel assemblies (or even complete reactors) to poor countries populated by brown people, thus enabling those countries to improve their infrastructure and standard of living in turn. Something the US (and France, and the energy corporations therein, etc.) very much do not want.

It's never been about nuclear weapons. Look at the wording of the official statements on both sides; the complaints against Iran are always taking issue with the fact that Iran is continuing "enrichment activities" and its "nuclear program". There has never been any mention of even "high enrichment" or a "nuclear weapons program" in official documents; the complaint is that Iran is enriching uranium at all, under a "nuclear energy program", however the wording "nuclear program" is used to allow ignorant people to unconsciously insert the word "weapons" in between by themselves, because that's what most people think of first when they hear "nuclear program" or even "nuclear". Wake up.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[khallow]

But you know what I bet would ABSOLUTELY lead them to negotiate and drop their nuke program?

Using nuclear weapons on their program. Anything less may well work, but it isn't "ABSOLUTE".

As I see it, appeasement, which is what this policy is, doesn't work. There's no actual incentive here for Iran to stop building nuclear weapons. It might delay them a little as they wring various profitable concessions out of the appeasers, but in the end, there's no reason for Iran to stop what it is currently doing.

If Israel effectively destroys their nuclear program with a bombing run (or a nuclear attack for that matter), then there's all of a sudden incentive to drop the program. Namely, that someone breaks it when it gets far along.

It's worth noting here that you don't give a reason for the US or particularly Israel to play along with your "negotiation". Iran gets plenty of give from your plan (they can still develop nuclear weapons), but nobody else does.

At least the European strategy has a chance of working and it applies pressure to the problems.

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel.

And you've missed an important problem here. It's likely that much of Israel and the US leadership believe that propaganda. Certainly, Saudi Arabia seems to believe that Iran is extremely dangerous right now and they're probably not alone.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Tastecicles]

But he's not. When you invade a country, you polarise its citizens against you. When you murder civilians, you polarise their relatives against YOUR citizens, you CREATE the problem you're supposedly preventing by murdering foreign civilians on their own soil. This is basic Human nature and that is something you cannot ever extinguish. People will kill for their freedom, and they will target those who attempt to stockade their freedom. If you speak with a long drawl or you wear the Star Spangled Banner on your sleeve, you are a target. Thank your President for that, but if you're one of those on foreign soil because you're following orders, I for one have no sympathy for you or your family. You are an idiot.

Your President is deliberately endangering you and your family, and he must be brought to task for that and for the murders that he is sanctioning on a daily basis.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are not people and there is nothing democratic about letting them decide no sanction somebody or not. Please stop spreading such a BS notion.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Baloroth]

"Publicly announced" does not equal "started working on". Again, from that same Wikipedia article, it is stated that intelligence agencies probably knew about the existence of the enrichment facilities before they announced them publicly. In other words, it is entirely possible Bush's speech (remember, he would have had access to those intelligence reports of Iran nuclear facilities) was a consequence of the Iranian nuclear program, not the other way around. Bush made plenty of mistakes, but I don't think you can blame him for the Iranian nuclear program which they had been aspiring to for years before he was ever elected.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[ledow]

We learned, after eventually getting our arses kicked several times and seeing defeat on the horizon, that imposing your culture on other countries by force doesn't work long-term. Sure, you can rule their country for a decade but they'll turn around and bite you the second there's no longer a perceived need for you.

Hence, the US.

And what's more, even after this, they are likely to use those same principles and technology back towards yourself. The US still hasn't learned this lesson despite emerging from it once themselves.

We never spread peace, or prosperity, for anyone except ourselves. And the US bitchslapped nobody. You're like the school bully who's steaming into the little geeky kid with punches and won't pull back and won't stop kicking him in the head even when he's down and dead and everyone is looking on and going "Did that really just happen?". You walked into foreign countries and tried to impose your rule (and dragged us into it, I'd like to add).

But the worst US trait is, of course, expecting to always be the best and thinking you are. It's ironic, because you are so far from it, it's laughable. At least the English have a grasp of modern reality.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a tick...you mean that the reason Iran started it's peaceful nuclear power and medical isotopes programs is because of a speech that George Bush made which scared them into doing it? Oh.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Mikey Kristopeit? Is that you? Man, haven't seen you around in ages!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

Our current president hasn't invaded anyone that I know of. Libya we did help but it was more with logistics.

The last president did invade a country with no reason (Iraq) but he was promptly removed from office. I mentioned that in my original post but I don't blame you, you probably have the attention span of a gnat.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to point out that in Iran, the elections can be superseded by the Supreme Leader who has absolute power and can only be removed from office by Council of Experts.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[tnk1]

The problem is, you're not going to be able to affect their government unless you affect their people somehow as well.

Ultimately, short of an all-out war and occupation, there's no way to remove a government that represents a danger to other countries other than forcing their people to face up to it and do the work to change things. And right now, people are trying to avoid a war.

On an individual basis, most Iranians are not at fault. However, if the theocracy is really a minority commanding a dissenting majority, the majority should be able to affect things. If they cannot, or will not, there's no other option but to affect them. The only other option (when negotiation fails) is military action.

It's bad enough that North Korea has those weapons, but the thing with NK is that they mostly want to be left alone. Occasionally, they get all threatening to extort some supplies out of the rest of the world, but at this point, NK isn't looking to invade anyone.

Iran is different. They are actively working to destabilize Israel and Iraq, and all of this is happening in the powderkeg of the Middle East. If Iran was like Israel and just sort of could be trusted to keep its nukes on the down low and not threaten the existence of other countries, that might be different.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

Did I not make that clear in my post?

America does do evil things but we can control it when things get out of control. That's because we're a multi tiered democracy... we can and have changed over the course of history.

Comparing us to Iran is fucking retarded though. Good job on that one.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[NoSleepDemon]

woosh.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Raved Thrad]

The answer to "why" is generally "money." Somewhere, someone is making money off of American soldiers being in Afghanistan.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[khallow]

Last time I checked every remaining candidate for the Republican nomination is competing on how much they love Jesus and how much they'd oppress people who don't follow their own stone age religious views.

Please, the coming political circus in the US is silly enough without inventing imaginary crimes. Sure, there's a lot of trashtalk among Republicans concerning Islam, but that's mostly deserved (Islam after all was founded by a misogynistic "prophet" who among other things, allowed for slavery, subjugation and rape of women, and institutionalized those activities in his edicts).

It wasn't the Republicans who attempt to force religious groups to fund acts which they consider immoral. That honor goes to the other party.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

Believing in yourself is the first step in succeeding.

Being a jaded douche bag is priceless.

I really ought to start a line of brotivational posters.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

That's not really true.

It's true that the rich have the ability to sway the population through the media.

However, they don't actually have any additional direct power (i.e. the rich don't get additional votes based on their holdings).

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Rich0]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

While I agree with much of what you say, I can't say that the speech was stupid. He did get re-elected, and the job of any public official who can seek another term is to get elected for another term. Anything they really do while in office really should just be viewed as part of their campaign.

Talking tough on something might harm the country, but as long as it riles up the voters and gets them to pull the right lever, you'll see it time and time again.

Any time people scratch their heads at the behavior of CEOs or elected officials they usually make the mistake of assuming that they're honestly working for the betterment of whoever is paying them. If you simply assume they're out for themselves it all falls into place.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

We don't have to pickup guns to change things.

We only have to push a button.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran may have been one of the first to send their condolences after 9-11, but the facts are that Iran had helped train the terrorist who flew the planes into the buildings. They sent up flight simulators and a number of the terrorists involved were seen by intelligence coming in and out of the Iranian Airport multiple times before the attacks occurred. This was one of the many findings of the 9-11 commission that was not seen by Obama and his cabinet as not worth looking into even though many commission members say Iran as one of the loose ends that needed more attention, but instead they are ignored and not they need to be dealt with anyway.

As far as telling Israel that they will be sanctioned is just ridiculousness. Iran's defense minister and the President have both made the statement a number of times before that if they had a nuke that they would not hesitate to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth. I have never heard Israel make any such statement towards Iran so please spear us all your bogus propaganda. I read a lot and spend hours decimating the truth from the medias mirage because I care about what is going on in the world and the problem with people like you sir is that you choose to only see the world through a small window so maybe its time for you to steep out side and see what is really going on.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, I remember. "Wipe them from the pages of history" is much more diplomatic.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[IamTheRealMike]

Democratic does not always equal morally or ethically correct. The society is made up of egoistic individuals. Most of us would buy products from Iran. Heck, I am buying stuff from Apple, produced at "the evil Foxconn". Because it's affordable and cool!

Your argument is one I've often seen from people who claim to believe in freedom and democracy. Sometimes when you dig in, those people don't really, truly believe in self governance. As soon as it looks like a decision might not go their way, they start to say that people can't really rule themselves and need a benevolent dictator (or two). When you say "democratic does not always equal morally or ethically correct", you need to go through a reality check. What is "morally or ethically correct" is decided by society and society alone, not bureaucrats or politicians. The moment you stop believing that, you are simply arguing for religious dictatorship of the type you claim to oppose!

Perhaps you honestly believe everyone should be banned from buying Apple products because you read (somewhere) that Foxconn are bad. I think you'd find yourself on the losing end of that argument if it looked like it might actually happen. I don't think people would appreciate being forced to follow an "ethically correct" position according to root_42s view of the world.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

4++) give iran most favored nation status

if everyone is doing a lot of business and making money there is a lot less incentive to throw a war

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[msobkow]

I wish you were right, but I have a feeling that after all these years Iran would be extremely suspicious of such moves, think they're some sort of trap, and refuse to follow along. In fact, they'd probably start ranting about the "Lies of The Great Satan" of the west.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[sl4shd0rk]

Iranians have been surprisingly open to U.S. diplomacy in the past.

Could be, but Ahmadinejad is the one calling the shots here. He seems to be a bit of a douche; bullheaded on top of it. He's going to be tough to negotiate with (http://news.yahoo.com/irans-parliament-grills-embattled-president-115239861.html). Even Iran's parliament is trying to rein him in.

Reign in Israel and make it clear to them that attacking Iran will NOT be tolerated, and will cost them the friendship of the U.S.

Understand that a good portion of the Middle East is embroiled in a fundamental disagreement based on religious dogma which has historically been an insurmountable stumbling block in which all negotiations have failed. The strife over the Gaza strip has been going on since as long as I can remember and war is practically a hobby there. Negotiations are fine but just be prepared to go into it realizing your negotiating with a belief system where aid such as food, water, money, booze, blow or hookers will not get you anywhere. Furthermore, nobody in the Middle East is going to believe you if you are the US and say "We won't attack you". They are not idiots. Even citizens in the US don't believe that.

So we cut off their banks and hit them with sanctions. Fine. A lot of Iranian people will suffer. And maybe this will lead them to negotiate, maybe not.

Yeah, cutting off the banking to Iran and inciting sanctions is stupid. It never works. It's a typical US corporate power move which will mostly affect, wait for it..... the people. The ones in power will be just fine (example: sanctions on NK). I think negotiations are the only way but if the US tries, it will fail miserably because they are not trusted. Thanks to the former Bush administration and the current Reality TV drama known as the US presidential race. Someone besides the US needs to step up here.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

Saying that people deserve consequences for their actions is apparently a generalization in your view.

You're a fucking retard. -- Also generalization but seems to be apt in your case

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[msobkow]

Insightful my ass.

Bush's speech was made after North Korea began their moves.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[alva_edison]

That is a perfectly rational post. I wish that U.S. politics allowed for those type of actions. However, the U.S. is in bed with Israel. For a presidential election roughly 10% of the electoral votes require that the candidate support Israel, to not support Israel means an automatic write-off of those votes. Israel's current rhetoric seems to be that they would like to see Iran knocked back a couple of centuries.

Seriously, I like Israel, but it's like the girlfriend that picks fights with other men just to see you defend her honor.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[gelfling]

Iran began their atomic weapons program in the early 1980's, stopped in the late 80's and began again in earnest in 1994. Since then, their 'peaceful program' has absorbed billion of dollars they don't have to spend generating, by their own estimates, zero megawatts of electricity where they could have easily spent a fraction of that money and had nuclear power plants on line years and years ago by simply importing nuclear fuel from other nations under the regime that Iran currently claims to follow per the NPT of which they are signatory.

The DPRK (North Korea) has kept 5 or 6 different nuclear reactors on and off line intermittently since 1975. It attempted to threaten to withdraw from the NPT as early as 1993. During this era it created enough plutonium for about a dozen atomic weapons.

My recommendation would be to stop reading Howard Zinn and other Stalin adoring Marxist historians, stop attending "Nuke the Jews" rallies and either do more or less drugs, whichever you're not doing now.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[QuantumRiff]

You forgot about how we then later gave a guy named Saddam Hussein weapons, money, and training to then fight a war with Iran, after we decided that an enemy of our enemy is our friend.. He thought we were good friends, and told the US ambassador he was going to Invade Kuwait before he did so..

Totally different then how we trained a bunch of rebels (and gave them weapons) to fight those pesky Commies in Afghanistan, and are now fighting those same guys, who are using those same rebel tactics against us. Or pretty much anywhere we insert ourselves, wait 20 years and watch it bite us in the ass...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Xest]

Your posts are usually insightful, but this was really one of your worst to date.

"The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003."

Not true at all. North Korea was involved in nuclear weapons development before this, as was Iran. Iran actually originally stopped post 9/11 because of concerns of how a vengeful and angry post-9/11 US might react to this. It certainly didn't start then.

"Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel."

Well I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech about whiping Israel off the map was probably part of it too, some have suggested it was a mistranslation, but I think when they have also placed the slogan on a bunch of missiles it kind of clears up any misconceptions about whether it was a mistranslation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/iran

"But the fact is that Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense."

What military sense is that? when they tried to mine the strait of hormuz in 1988? or the war by proxy they've been committing in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan? If you mean Iran doesn't roll tanks across borders then yes you're right, if you're implying they carry out no hostile external military action then no, you're completely and utterly wrong. Iran plays things by the CIA rulebook - proxy wars and covert destabilisation.

"And even despite the anti-U.S. rhetoric that followed the revolution that overthrew the U.S. puppet shah and the U.S. helping Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war, Iranians have been surprisingly open to U.S. diplomacy in the past. They were even one of the first countries to offer the U.S. condolences after the 9-11 attacks, and in the pre-Bush years maintained a stable, if sometimes tense, relationship with the U.S."

I actually agree with this, a massive chance was indeed missed post-9/11. When Iraq still had Saddam in power and was a viable independent nation with a strong military it kept Iran in check, and Iran was, as a result willing to try and outdo Iraq via diplomacy. When America invaded Iraq they took away the best counterbalance going to Iran and Iran gained confidence as a nation that felt it could then go it alone to gain influence in the middle east without politics.

"They're a country that seems to want to be liked on the world stage. But they're also a country that wants to send a message to the U.S. that they're not going to stand by and be invaded on some U.S. oil grab."

This is where I begin to disagree. Without the counterbalance of Saddam they have become overconfident, they do not care what the rest of the world things and their leaders have become drunk with power. The poor and poorly educated masses are abused as a tool to suppress the intelligent and afluent people who have gained a thirst for greater freedoms, they're now willing to murder en-masse if necessary. This is no longer a rational leadership, this is no longer a leadership that wants to be liked.

"You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table."

No they will not, because they still sincerely believe Israel must cease to exist as it does now, they will still support Hezbollah, and Hamas, they will still take advantage of the weak political leadership the US has created in Iraq and Afghanistan to try and exert greater influence in these places, and they will still pursue their nuclear agenda because they believe it is a rallying point around which they can bolster their waning political support.

The only way you will defuse problems with Iran now is with a collapse of their government from the inside and THEN go down the route you suggest, of a charm offensive. The alternative is to hav

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Spritzer]

Right. North Korea announced plans to withdraw from the NPT and started reprocessing plutonium for weapon cores in 1993 because of a statement made by 'W' in 2003. Sure, that makes sense.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[orasio]

You are right about stoning. Capital punishment is unethical, and should not be tolerated anywhere.
The same about torture, governments should not torture their prisoners.
Censorship is always a bad thing.

But the problem here is that the ones who want to overthrow Irans government suffer from the same issues. How are they going to be able to help? By example?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[iluvcapra]

There's a very democratic way to handle the decision of whether to apply sanctions on Iran or not - allow individual citizens and companies to decide whether they'll trade with Iran or not.

That's not democratic -- democratic means we hold a vote and if a majority decides to sanction Iran, we pass a law forbidding everyone. It's majority rule, not majority rules the majority.

What you're proposing is the free market, which wouldn't work, because in the end there'd be people who would be willing to trade with Iran, they'd be able to collect higher profits from their transactions because of the smaller market and their liberty to set prices, and in the end the people who refuse to participate in the boycott are the ones who end up profiting.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Tastecicles]

He wasn't promptly removed from office - he finished his incumbent term then did another four!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Aryden]

It is not, nor has it been, anything to do with Jewish people existing. It has everything to do with A) having land taken away from what you consider "your people", B) The Qur'an requires that no lands under Muslim rule shall ever be given up, C) It also requires Muslims to conquer the Dar alHarb, all of non-islamic lands, D) If you had land or items taken away from you, you'd want them back too.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[arcite]

Iran are the bad guys. They directly support terrorism in dozens of countries and are actively targeting Americans (among other nationalities). The Iranian Regime also has no qualms about targeting their own civilians. Iran's day is coming, they will get their due. A new dawn of freedom and democracy awaits their oppressed masses.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Xest]

Agreed, I don't know why people are modding that shit up. Both the afformentioned countries had nuclear programmes well before Bush made that speech. The fact he's had that blatantly false statement modded up twice now shows how fucking ignorant most people are on Slashdot nowadays.

I'm beginning to think this place is becoming a graveyard for the terminally dumb.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Mr Z]

Ah, but that would require the US to distance itself from Israel, and that isn't going to happen any time soon. We seem all too ready to fall in line with whatever Israel wants, it seems. Sure, we make noises in other directions, but in the end...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Lehk228]

Immadinnerjacket has no power, he has as much power as joe biden, except he is something like 16th in line of succession instead of second

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Mr Z]

It's rather mesmerizing watching the head-game Fox plays with this. Buttering up one side were all the accusations that Obama is a Muslim. Then all the Obama supports complain that it's a false accusation. So Fox butters down the other side with "Why are you liberals so hypocritical? Why is being Muslim such a bad thing?" It's really quite amazing to watch.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[bill_mcgonigle]

Just to clarify:

2) Tell Mossad to stop assassinating their scientists, or face sanctions of their own.

Iran is also using this for cover on a few of their own problems. The guy who got hit with the motorcycle/magnetic bomb was a string theorist and a political dissident.

Of course the news focuses on Israel taking out their 'nuclear scientists'. Which they probably are, also. Which is troubling as Israeli intelligence doesn't even think that Iran is working on an actual nuclear bomb at this point.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Stopped reading when you said that North Korea started pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all: Wikipedia is not a source. But even if we say Wikipedia is correct, the only source that Operation TPAJAX/AJAX happened is from CIA. How trustworthy is CIA? How come you believe CIA on this matter, but not on other matters?

Secondly, there are many other articles that prove that Operation Ajax is a lie, and never happened.

Thirdly, the Shah appointed Mossadegh according to the Iranian constiution. Therefore he was not "democratically elected".

How did Shah rely on support from US? The Shah was against US in many points. The Shah sided with Russia on many points, which pissed US of. There are sadly, a lot of propaganda here against the Shah. There are people though who try to stop this.

On a side note, Mossadegh was a retard who destroyed the nation. He forced women to wear hijab again, he wanted 18 months of dictatorial powers from the parliament, and when they did not approve it he closed the parliament. Even his close friends took distance from him. The treasury became empty, and the sales of Iran's oil did not equal the revenues of 1949.

If CIA is a trustworthy source for you, surely you can see these as trustworthy too. Read the other side of the story too: http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm

It is also worth to notice that the Shah pardoned Mossadegh after all his play.

So all I am saying is: Look at the other side of the story too. Anything your wonderful nation USA tells you does not mean its correct.

USA did not do shit. Stop being so imperalistic and act as if you owned every country in this whole world. Stop reading american propaganda books. Read neutral books where you will find out how pissed USA was because of the way Shah acted, for example by raising the oil prices. Idiot.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[dAzED1]

people are modding it up because the coolest people they know were well indoctrinated. Hell, I'm an anarchist, but at least I'm not stupid enough to blame Iran and NK's nuclear ambitions on a man who wasn't even governor of Texas yet, much less even running for president, when Iran and NK were already well on the path to those goals (such as the afore-mentioned Carter convo).

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[iluvcapra]

"where the heck are you finding these condolences"

Remember, Khatami was in power until 2005.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

You did not support Shah. Stop talking bulllshit. If you had supported him he would not screw you americans over by raising the oil prices by 3x.

Typical americans, always want to act as if they are the world police and as if they have and are supporting everyone. Mind your own shitty country where milions of people are homeless, sick and poor instead.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[budgenator]

1) Offer a few public goodwill gestures to make it clear that the U.S. is *not* going to invade them or attack them

Personally I think signing the Algiers Accords

Among its chief provisions are:[2]
The US would not intervene politically or militarily in Iranian internal affairs
The US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran
Both countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran – United States Claims Tribunal.
The US would ensure that US court decisions regarding the transfer of any property of the former Shah would be independent from "sovereign immunity principles" and would be enforced
Iranian debts to US institutions would be paid

as a way to end the Iran hostage crisis instead of flattening Tehran was a huge good will gesture. It's not like they could have done anything about it, their Air Defenses were a complete farce, I know because I went to school with the Iranians at Redstone; they were selected based solely on nepotism and were never failed as it would lead to there beheading when they got back home, that was the Shah's regime so I'm no fan of him either. Once Raytheon pulled their tech support the Iranian air defenses would fall flat in a matter of days. The equipment of the days had a MTBF that was very short 43 hours as it was built out of electron tubes, and 1 transistor.

2) Tell Mossad to stop assassinating their scientists, or face sanctions of their own.

Why, would you rather have Iran develop a nuclear bomb, see above; Iranian nepotism is still strong enough that it make targeting a few effective Scientists a very effective tool to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

3) Reign in Israel and make it clear to them that attacking Iran will NOT be tolerated, and will cost them the friendship of the U.S.

That'll be a hard-sell both to the New York Liberals and the ultra-conservative religious fundies.

4) Normalizing relations with Iran.

Didn't Obama try that all ready?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Hezbollah is a proxy of the iranian regime in Lebanon. They recieve lots of cash and weapons from Iran. It all goes through Syria.

The political assassinations done in Lebanon are mostly done by Hezbollah and Syrian thugs/regime.

If Al Assad falls, Iran and Hezbollah will be surrounded.Hezbollah would not last without Syria. Iran will be surrounded. 2 birds with 1 stone.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[oldmac31310]

The 'wipe Israel off the map' quote was mistranslated and taken out of context if memory serves me correctly.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

... and, to top it all off, sanctions don't work. This has been clearly demonstrated before with India and Pakistan. Both had clandestine nuclear programs that produced full Teller-Ulam designs and we didn't know about either until it was too late. A few years after sanctions were started, we dropped them. .

Sanctions often do work. They worked on Iraq. Iraq halted its chemical and nuclear programs well before the U.S. invaded them.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[wonkey_monkey]

the phrase was translated as "wiped off the map" by Ahmadinejad's official website and Iranian state run media.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

You pathetic mutt. It is Iran that constantly attacks or threatens to attack Israel.
The first ones to offer conlences? Yeah I bet about 5 minutes before it even happend... Considering how they are of the same blood and religion of those who committed the torrorist acts.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[StikyPad]

You might as well try to stop nature itself.

I believe "stopping nature" is one of the GOP's planks.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[gambino21]

Our current president hasn't invaded anyone that I know of.

Maybe you didn't hear of Yemen? He also stepped up military operations in Pakistan, and increased CIA involvement in Somalia

Libya we did help but it was more with logistics.

From wikipedia

The United States has deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney. Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, B-2 stealth bombers, AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18 electronic warfare aircraft, and both F-15 and F-16 fighters have been involved in action over Libya. U-2 reconnaissance aircraft are stationed on Cyprus. On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft. On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicates an increase of ground attacks. An undisclosed number of CIA operatives are said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels. The US also began using MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.

A bit more than just logistics.

The last president did invade a country with no reason (Iraq) but he was promptly removed from office

You do remember that we invaded Iraq before Bush's second term right?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is very important to clarify the motivations of the US when dealing with Iran. I think many would assume it's for resources or islamophobia, but I would wager it is mostly predicated on self-defense (the specter of Hezbollah and other groups obtaining nuclear material) and geopolitics (containing Russian and Chinese geopolitical influence). As an aside, remember that the US has a Iranian population of more than 1 million, which is the largest Iranian diaspora group in the entire world. If the US were really on a mission to destroy Iran or to rape it for its resources (which I think many often mistakenly allege), would they not just start an invasion 5 years ago, before Iran even had their centrifuges, and dispensing with silly sanctions that merely slow the inevitable?

US views Iran as a projection of the Eastern sphere of dominance, a direct adversary economically, politically, militarily, and ideologically. So to be honest, I think the suggestion of George Washington to drop alliances and stop meddling in the foreign affairs of nations is the view of a field general with no understanding of the important work done by Franklin and Jefferson, and one born of naivete. As a superpower, it is the US's responsibility to reign in both Israel and Iran.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

But I would contend that the "Axis of Evil" speech stands out as a particularly epic diplomatic and strategic fuck-up. It served no positive purpose, and put two countries on the nuclear path who didn't need to be.

It might be more accurate to say, it pushed them further along the nuclear path than they would be otherwise. Because there's a lot of evidence they were heading down that path earlier.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

Iran has elections, just like the US.

Do you remember all the protests about the unfair elections last year? Do you also remember how the government started killing protestors? Do you also remember that you can be arrested for criticizing the government in Iran?

IF YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT, YOU DON'T HAVE DEMOCRACY. This is extremely important, and is why the US constitution specifically protects freedom of speech.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

You just put yourself on the JDL and Mossad hit list.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: he wanted Israel to go from becoming a Jewish state to becoming a Muslim state by taking in anybody who claimed to be 'Palestinian' (a historically non-existent entity prior to 1967, as about as contrived a nation as Pakistan or Kosovo). In other words, he wanted his minions to do in Israel what Hizbullah did in Lebanon. Once that happened, the Jews can either convert to islam, get driven into the sea or accept 2nd class status to Muslims as dhimmis. That's what that ape-faced doucebag wanted - and wants!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[khallow]

So to be honest, I think the suggestion of George Washington to drop alliances and stop meddling in the foreign affairs of nations is the view of a field general with no understanding of the important work done by Franklin and Jefferson, and one born of naivete.

At the time that George Washington made that statement against "foreign entanglements", he was retiring from eight years as US president, which is a much different and more global view than that of a field general (I might add here, a field general who worked hand in hand with the French and ran an effective spy network during the war). So no, I wouldn't consider that "born of naivete".

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Squiddie]

You do know Afghanistan is on our side, yes?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[eegad]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

This Axis of Evil term was one he used "describing governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction." I think the whole reason they began pursuing nuclear weapons is that they already pursued WMDs and nukes are just the shiniest of them all. Blaming something Bush said is incredibly naive.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[WindBourne]

I know you to be a decent guy, however, I will say that you are wrong about this.
Both Iran and North Korea has been at this for since early 90's. North Korea got loads of help from China, while Iran has gotten loads of help from Pakistan. The real problem is that both North Korea and Pakistan have proved that by holding a nuke, you can stave off any strong nation. W./neo-cons have delivered a number of foolish speeches. However, in each case, they backed it up with NOTHING. Heck, even reagan did the same. He went into lebanon and when we got a bloody nose, he show the yellow spine that he was composed of. Those actions have been disasters.
O is probably doing the right action. There is a lot of speak softly/carry a big stick from him. Smart move.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

... and, to top it all off, sanctions don't work. This has been clearly demonstrated before with India and Pakistan.

The sanctions against Iran go far, far deeper than anything that was tried against India and Pakistan.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyMartian]

The elected government of Iran (the President and the Parliament) govern essentially at the whim of the Supreme Leader (it's probably more complicated than that, the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard seem to have considerable influence). The Supreme Leader can strike anyone off the ballot, so what you largely end up with is somewhere between the Soviet pseudo-democracy and a full democracy; some independence except on key issues like foreign affairs.

I wouldn't exactly call it choosing a government when who can appear on a ballot is restricted by a guy who claims that he's doing what God wants.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree entirely...and I would add pulling a considerable amount of our forces out of the region would also be a friendly gesture.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel. But the fact is that Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense.

Ya, that's why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to destroy Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[steelfood]

Yeah, but here's the catch regarding U.S. foreign policy: it changes every 4-8 years. Hell, it changes period.

The U.S. backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq finds out that during the war, Kuwait is actually drilling across the border into their oil fields. So once their scuffle with Iran is over, Iraq demands restitution from Kuwait. When that didn't happen, they went to war thinking that 1) they're in the right and 2) they have U.S. backing. Guess what happened next?

U.S. foreign policy is unreliable. The U.S. has a solid reputation for not honoring its commitments when it doesn't suit them. Iran and NK knows this. In fact, the Iranian revolution itself was a result of U.S. (and U.K.) meddling, so these guys have had more than enough experience with U.S. foreign policy.

They know that the only real way of getting any measure of respect from the U.S. is with nukes. Look at Pakistan. They have nukes, and the U.S. can still trample all over what's supposd to be a sovereign government. If they didn't have nukes, they would've been invaded as soon as the military leaders suspected bin Laden was no longer in Afganistan.

Fortunately for NK, they really only need to make overtures, as China's not going to allow the U.S. to invade it. All the noise NK is making is posturing to get more foreign aid.

Iran is in a different boat. They have no allies. Israel is a ticking time bomb (literally, if you accept that they have U.S. nukes stored there). Iraq is a mess, and if it wasn't, it'd be a U.S.-backed government that isn't going to be very friendly to anyone else. Their only hope is Russia, which is no longer mired in the Cold War mentality anymore (while the U.S. still is), so Russian support is not a guarantee. They need something that can command respect, and that's nukes.

And all this just because the U.S. and other major western powers won't give other countries respect if it doesn't have nukes. All of these countries talk about non-proliferation and decommissioning, but their attitude when treating others countries is that of a schoolyard bully.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

As for voting? They can do that in Iran too.

Any place that does not have freedom of speech can not be called a democracy, no matter how much they vote. The USSR had voting, too. Voting alone does not make a democracy.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

They did that to get aid. They like to be pirates. When they negotiate for aid they threaten with the nuclear thing and the int' community lets them "get away" with the cake.

Israel constantly does the same threatening this or that. And now currently the news you are discussing are because of threats by Israel to invade Iran. To stop Israel from this suicide mission, they decided to implement even harsher sanctions. Just seeing what type of sanctions one can see it is directly from the "israeli masterminds" where collective punishment against the civilian population is the goal, as to make the people rise up against the government. Every time Israel does that, it has never succeeded even when they bombed Gaza to smithereens after starving them for years, and now continuing with the starvation and threats the government is still in place, and in OVERTIME since Israel refuses to let them have a vote about who the new ones should be.
 

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[digitig]

Yes, which was a blunder -- but it was still a mistranslation.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

to suggest that Bush's speech referring to these two as the "axis of evil" as the main cause for their nuclear program is just wrong. I'm not flaming you but you even mention the shah. In the instance of North Korea, the Korean War would be a much more influential event than that speech. Problems with these nations started way before Bush. You're probably too young to remember the Hostage crisis in 1979 or the inspection of nuclear facilities in North Korea during the Clinton Administration. North Korea was working on nuclear weapons in the early 1990s and they had signed multiple treaties saying they wouldn't. Iran had already started a weapons program well before 2003. They won't drop their nuclear program whatever you do. Countries that have refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty and develop nuclear weapons anyway have had remarkable success and almost no ramifications. India and Pakistan did it. So did ISRAEL. I have to pause to mention how hypocritical it is for Israel to rail against Iran for doing exactly the same thing they did. They want to sit at the big boys table and once you get nukes you can do that.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it Israel isn't attacking Iran due to politics they are attacking because every day modified scud missile are hitting border towns in Israel. If Israel really wanted to take down Iran they would have already.

As far as Iran is concerned they do what they want when they want you can't take the olive branch at face value they will make peach with you just to attack the next day this has been going on since WW2. I'm not saying we shouldn't peruse peace just I wont be surprise when they welch.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[fredrated]

"We should leave them be with the warning that the next attack will be the last thing they do as a people."

What 'next attack'? We were never attacked by the people of Afghanistan. I would wager that most of them don't even know why we are occupying their country.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

The same could be said for Clinton and GWB, both of whom have had 8 years as president, and been privy to the information obtained by US spy networks. Even Obama, who is continuing the work of those previous presidents, is poised to get 4 more years. Perhaps their decisions to continue so called "foreign entanglements" with respect to Iran and the Middle East in general were just as well-informed as Washington?

Arguments from authority are easy to make, even Einstein knew that.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[steelfood]

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech

A lot of things get lost in translation, and some things are misquoted and taken out of context. For Ahmadinejad, it happens quite often on purpose. You can't rally the troops at home if your "enemy" actually sounds reasonable. The English translations are just propoganda pieces. He may be an antisemite (or may not--not supporting Israel has nothing to do with being antisemetic despite what everybody wants you to think), but he's not crazy.

He didn't actually say "wipe Israel off the map." He said something closer to, "It'd be better if Israel didn't exist." To paraphrase, he meant there wouldn't be as many problems in the Middle East if Israel hadn't been created in the first place.

There are numerous other things that he supposedly said that paint a very negative picture of him. These are mostly untrue when taken in context and translated properly. In order to even understand the situation, you first have to recognize that when it comes to any information related to Israel, the propaganda machine is on full blast. Some of it is unintentional, but most of it is very intentional.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[bkaul01]

Yes, and while D) is perfectly reasonable, C) seems like quite a valid cause for concern for other nations: we're talking about a theocratic government whose religion requires that its adherents (eventually) conquer the world, which government appears to take a particularly fundamentalist, literal view of the "conquer" aspect of that, and which is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech was an observation of this, not the cause of it. Iran and N Korea were off the reservation for decades before he made that speech, and have continued to be "rogue nations" regardless of diplomacy. Saying we should normalize relations is all well and good, except that it neglects the fact that these nations are not approaching issues from a common worldview. It's not that they're irrational: it's that their philosophy, beliefs, and goals are so radically different from our own that we don't have a common premise from which to work.

That's not to say that I think invading them is the right course of action here (I don't), but in many ways, diplomacy is destined to fail, if it is based on the assumption that they just want to get along. "Diplomatic bribery" of a sort could still work: that is, don't assume they want what we want, but figure out something they actually do want, and use that carrot to convince them to give up the nuclear ambitions. The stick of economic isolation has the potential to be pretty effective if we pair it with the right carrot.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[gmuslera]

Changed like in previous election? Jumping from the frying pan to the fire? The bad trends on Bush administration continued and improved under Obama, from the other party. Checked how similar are the backers of both parties candidates? You are electing the same boss, just with a different public face.

And if well you can argue that Iran people could deserve the government they elected, what about the rest of the world regarding the government US elected? Because a lot of their latest laws are meant more for the rest of the world than for US (heck, the NDAA enables to kill or kidnap kidnap and send to guantanamo or similars those that put in danger "national security" with not even a trial, like the childrens tortured there for years, and the most that Obama did was a statement regarding rights of some us citizens). And a lot other of the other countries are straight pushes from US (i.e. Sinde law in Spain)

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Forty Two Tenfold]

You do realize that the Ahmadinejad is basically implying that 9/11 isnt all that it seems?

Duh.

And that he has declared that, quote, "Israel must be wiped off of the map"?

No.

Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – "wipe Israel off the map" – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[20][21][22]

What part of the way Iran has been behaving and talking makes you think they will be "running to the table"?

There is no table. You see this is called a false presupposition. As in "Have you stopped beating your wife?". You're presupposing there is a table.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[RoLi]

Maybe the Jews should have done in Israel what the Turks have done in Northern Cyprus?

I see no human rights organization complaining about Northern Cyprus...

So yeah, in a way they really are doing a bad job, just ask the Turks about how to do a good genocide. Oh, by the way, it's not just the Greeks, they did the same thing with the Armenians a couple of decades earlier. I don't see any of the bleeding-hearts complaining about that either.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[steelfood]

That's why the U.S. invaded Iraq the second time around. Messing with the status of the USD is a big taboo. It's because everybody knows that once the USD is no longer the de facto international currency, the U.S. will go to hell in a handbasket really quickly. The only reason why despite Obama printing so much money, there hasn't been any major repercussions is because the entire world is sharing the loss of value.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[khallow]

The same could be said for Clinton and GWB, both of whom have had 8 years as president, and been privy to the information obtained by US spy networks. Even Obama, who is continuing the work of those previous presidents, is poised to get 4 more years. Perhaps their decisions to continue so called "foreign entanglements" with respect to Iran and the Middle East in general were just as well-informed as Washington?

No, I don't think so. It's worth noting that Washington brings a lot of life experiences that these other people don't have. He fought in two wars and served in the Virginia state militia. He ran a very successful farm. And then there's his personal attitude and judgment. He had the wisdom to retire after eight years when nothing kept him from being president for life. I value his opinion on this subject in a way I wouldn't other presidents because I think he had a lot more experience and wisdom than these other presidents have had.

And perhaps you ought to read Washington's speech in question? What is an argument from authority? When the basis of the argument is the authority of the speaker. Washington doesn't say "avoid foreign entanglements because I said so". He gives reasons why. For example, he advocates not to feel unconditional enmity for certain countries or favoritism for others. To do so, in his words leads to a "variety of evils" such as getting involved in conflicts which aren't our business and unfair favoritism of one country over another.

Second, such entanglements allow for foreign powers to stir conflicts locally. Washington in particularly rails against the harm that foreign influence can do to "republican government".

I could go on, but I'm lazy here. Point is that Washington makes good points, points which are still valid today. That doesn't mean in themselves that we should follow his words. But to dismiss the argument as being from authority misses the point.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent post deserves upvote.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[quarterbuck]

B does not seem to apply very well.
India was under Persian rule for a long time. Now it is no longer Persian or Muslim, but secular (Hindu majority). Similarly, Afghanistan was taken over by Russia after a long Muslim-secular rule. Spain for a period was Islamic.
Even extremists in Iran does not seem to claim to wipe either of these countries out.
I think this is more related to local geo-political stresses and considering some people bad neighbors than an attempt at world conquest (Dar alHarb -as you call it)

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[khallow]

I also don't agree with the notion Iran is going to make weapons from uranium. India and Pakistan didn't.

While I can't prove otherwise, I gather each has a small number of usable nuclear warheads. They also remain IMHO one of the most likely spots for a nuclear war this century.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to disagree. If anything you are the troll saying whatever give credence to your opinion and avoiding anything that doesn't. You can talk to an AC, as it is the facts you are arguing not a persona. By the way, it is uptime to update your hasbara manual as much of it has been disproved over and over again with facts. Maybe write a manual without out of context statements.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

So when Iran says their objective is to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews, they're just kidding, right?
Fucking moron.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[superdave80]

Wow, people will blame ANYTHING on Bush:

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

Too bad that isn't even close to being true:

On March 12, 1993, North Korea said that it planned to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and refused to allow inspectors access to its nuclear sites. By 1994, the United States believed that North Korea had enough reprocessed plutonium to produce about 10 bombs with the amount of plutonium increasing.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Plutonium

Hmmm, now who was president in 93-94? Ah, yes, Bill Clinton, who thought he could simply talk everyone into getting along. North Korea saw what a wimp he was, and realized they could start developing nukes and Clinton wouldn't have the balls to do anything about it.

Isn't it fun to jump to conclusions based on nothing?

God, +5 insightfuls are handed out like candy if you bash the right person...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[morbingoodkid]

Sanctions will have exactly the opposite affect than what is indented. Trust me I lived through US sanctions.

1. Iran will build all the necessary infrastructure that is necessary to survive without any outside help. This means building industries around computers, weapons, food supply etc.

This has the affect that they become totaly independant of the rest of the worlds so actually using weapons on other countries will be less of a brain teaser as internally it will not affect the average person on the ground. Sanctions are only effective if it is relativelly small. Big ones like this will simply make Iran more resolute to go it their own

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

A part of the ruling government housed and aided an attack on the United States.

They helped train the attackers and provided material support.

Where do you revisionist fucktards come from?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Zionism isn’t just a regime, but rather stands for the very concept of a Jewish state. As such, what Ahmadinejad was saying is that he wanted to end the Zionist state (Israel), and give the land wholly to the Palestinians. There are a lot of Arabs who both reject the two state solution, and believe in the concept of pan-Arabism which is to say that they'd like to see all of the middle east Arab and Islamic.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Rasperin]

Stereotypes exist for a reason (because there is a truth to them, to an American a french mans cooking may cause him to be smelly, but not all Frenchmen are smelly, Japan has a high rate of rape, fondling on trains, etc but it's cause by a minority of the population (or so one hopes), and we Americans keep voting for the same two parties that only differ on a few candid social issues yet make us think they are completely different. I'd say that makes us kinda dumb, however, again, not all of us), but his point is a fucking joke. And his point has nothing to do with Stereotypes it has to do with people should do something about there government.

A better response would be look at Syria, people said something about there government and watched their family get raped and murdered along with innocent by-standards. On an unrelated topic, I believe in helping them they are literally begging us to, but they mustn't have much oil because we're not doing shit (unlike Libya, however that took forever to help to). Another good response would be "look at Egypt", they fought for democracy, the military instead of slaughtering them did a coup in the name of the people and now look at where they're at. Woohoo go people, Egypt just got 100x worst and it's now another anti-american state.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because calling the kettle black is clearly what made it black.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[afeeney]

Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist.

Except that there's valid controversy about whether he meant "wipe Israel off the map" or "see the Israeli government disappear." And even so, rhetoric to appeal to the base isn't necessarily the same as a direct statement of intent. Remember Reagan declaring the Soviet Union illegal and saying bombing would begin (as a sound test) or McCain singing "Bomb, bomb Iran?"

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Ihmhi]

1) Offer a few public goodwill gestures to make it clear that the U.S. is *not* going to invade them or attack them
2) Tell Mossad to stop assassinating their scientists, or face sanctions of their own.
3) Reign in Israel and make it clear to them that attacking Iran will NOT be tolerated, and will cost them the friendship of the U.S.
4) Normalizing relations with Iran.

You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table.

Okay, well. 1 and 4 have potential, but 2 and 3 will never happen. For some unknown reason, Israel is like America Junior. Maybe because it's the only strong ally we have in the Mideast that we can practically guarantee will never turn on us (although I'm sure conspiracy theorists will spout some nonsense about Zionists and the One World Government).

Honestly, Israel is a horrible place and they are just as bad as any of the other countries out there, yet we stand by them regardless. For all I care we should get the hell out of there and let them handle their own fucked up situations instead of getting involved in it.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

But the problem here is that the ones who want to overthrow Irans government suffer from the same issues. How are they going to be able to help? By example?

Well, as an American, I must admit we have our shortcomings... but I'm rather proud of the example we set by *not* hanging teenage girls in the town square for the 'crime' of getting raped.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[isorox]

You are right about stoning. Capital punishment is unethical, and should not be tolerated anywhere.

Nothing wrong with being stoned though

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[isorox]

Any place that does not have freedom of speech can not be called a democracy, no matter how much they vote.

What good is freedom of speech if you can't be heard? Unlike the 1780s, where it was reasonable to believe that a middle-class charistmatic person had a chance to influence a sizeable proportion of voters, nowadays you need access to big media, for a long time, and all levels, and the PR skills to use that access to further your goals.

Ranting on your blog to 2000 followers isn't going to help.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[selven]

Democratic does not always equal morally or ethically correct.

Of course not. And neither is any non-democratic institution. Ultimately, morality is subjective and the only final arbiter of what's moral for you is yourself. I, for example, don't find Foxconn evil at all as its pay is better than most of its competitors, its suicide rates are lower than the Chinese and US average and its safety nets make it no more evil or foreboding than the Eiffel tower. On the other hand, though, I do not buy Apple products because Apple infringes on my freedom more than its Android counterparts.

I think social opprobrium provides a perfectly reasonable amplifier for ethical considerations; would you really keep buying your Apple products if you were in a social environment that publicly despised them? Studies suggest no; peer pressure, for example, is even more effective at discouraging smoking than the health concerns that are the reason behind the peer pressure themselves. That's the true bottom-up democracy. All it takes is enlightenment and awareness, and the internet's slowly but surely bringing that to us already.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[DrBoumBoum]

Yes and you're probably part of the 1%, amiright?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

When nations sneak around covert programs...

Because no other country except Iran has covert programs.

...the international community...

I would hypothesize that you are... um... referring to "the only countries that count", right? Like as in they do what we tell them to do. Period.

Is that how community works? Or uh... would we be communists if we tried to be communal.

I bet you belong to the No Homers Club.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[chrb]

Libya [of 2009] has the highest standard of living anywhere.

Actually it ranks 70th. No doubt life was good for some people, but do you really think the average world citizen would have rather lived in Gadaffi's Libya than Switzerland or Norway?

London, which by the way has probably the worst air in the world

The worst in Europe, probably, but I doubt it comes close to the industrial cities of China. Which one would you rather live in?

Britain is by far the least democratic country I have ever been in.

UK is rated 18th.

Our Glorious Leaders decided they'd be America's lapdog and follow them in, without the rest of Europe. Without a vote on the issue.

At least two-thirds of the electorate supported the Iraq war. The figures for Afghanistan were much higher. A vote wouldn't have made any difference. "it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Chris Mattern]

Iran has elections, just like the US.

They do? Where in the Constitution must all candidates be officially approved by a panel of unelected religious overlords before they are legally allowed to run? I missed that part, somehow...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to point out that in the United Kingdom, the entire parliaments can be dissolved by the Queen who has absolute power and can't be removed from office.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[djdanlib]

It was pretty bad, I can agree with that.

Just maybe, though, those nations were already on that path, and someone in the media got the idea to explore the idea and found out that hey, there IS something going on there after all! And our president just called them evil! How perfect! That wouldn't be good for business, no sir! I exaggerate a little, but... maybe some of this was already going on.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[bhcompy]

I'm pretty sure you're the idiot. It is the duty of the people to ensure that their rulers are acting for the people.

Per John Locke, who is much smarter than you, on revolution:
THOUGH in a constituted commonwealth, standing upon its own basis, and acting according to its own nature, that is, acting for the preservation of the community, there can be but one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them: for all power given with trust for the attaining an end, being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected, or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security. And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject: for no man or society of men, having a power to deliver up their preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary dominion of another; when ever any one shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will always have a right to preserve, what they have not a power to part with; and to rid themselves of those, who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation, for which they entered into society. And thus the community may be said in this respect to be always the supreme power, but not as considered under any form of government, because this power of the people can never take place till the government be dissolved.

Per wiki on Islamic law regarding revolution(pertinent to Iran):
According to scholar Bernard Lewis, the Qur'an and Sunnah have several points to make on governance regarding the right of revolution in Islam.The Quran, for example, makes it clear that there is a duty of obedience: "Obey God, obey the Prophet, obey those who hold authority over you."

And this is elaborated in a number of sayings attributed to Muhammad. But there are also sayings that put strict limits on the duty of obedience. Two dicta attributed to the Prophet and universally accepted as authentic are indicative. One says, "there is no obedience in sin"; in other words, if the ruler orders something contrary to the divine law, not only is there no duty of obedience but there is a duty of disobedience. The other pronouncement, "do not obey a creature against his creator," again clearly limits the authority of the ruler, whatever form of ruler that may be.

You can verify the wiki sources, if you'd wish to argue. I'm pretty sure that killing your own people is sin and that you should revolt against the governments that do that(you know, like the government of Iran).

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

IF YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT, YOU DON'T HAVE DEMOCRACY. This is extremely important, and is why the US constitution specifically protects freedom of speech.

*offer not valid outside of designated free-speech zones.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Do you really want to base foreign policy on shit that politicians say to win elections?

Or you could quote the Iranian constitution:
"In accordance with the sacred verse of the Qur'an ...all Muslims form a single nation, and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran ... must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world."

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Chris Mattern]

India was under Persian rule for a long time. Now it is no longer Persian or Muslim, but secular (Hindu majority).

Talk to some Pakistanis some time. They want it back.

Similarly, Afghanistan was taken over by Russia after a long Muslim-secular rule.

And now it's in a war to see if it'll be run by the moderate (and corrupt) Muslims or the hard-line Muslims.

Spain for a period was Islamic.

And there are Muslims who haven't forgotten that, either. al-Quaeda in particular has been vocal in calling for the reclaiming of al-Andalus. It's not happening, of course, but they still maintain the claim.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[atriusofbricia]

Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist.

Except that there's valid controversy about whether he meant "wipe Israel off the map" or "see the Israeli government disappear."

And even so, rhetoric to appeal to the base isn't necessarily the same as a direct statement of intent. Remember Reagan declaring the Soviet Union illegal and saying bombing would begin (as a sound test) or McCain singing "Bomb, bomb Iran?"

Yeah, I'm aware of the possibility it was mistranslated (intentionally or otherwise). However, that's still a long way from saying that all they want is to get along with everyone else. Also, the Reagan/McCain thing isn't even close to the same type of thing. Reagan was obviously a joke and though I'm not certain of the McCain reference I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say it was much the same.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

you should ask yourself what countries Iran has invaded in modern history

Does Hezbollah count? Or are we only counting official military activity. Because if that's the case, the CIA's help to the Shah shouldn't count either.

Iran has done at least as much harm to stability in the mideast as the US, they just don't do it with "shock and awe". Israel is a major irritant to mideast stability, and Iran is one of the biggest reasons.

Like the US has never backed up shady people... Like Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden? The list is actually quite long.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[tmarsh86]

Guess that went over your head.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[atriusofbricia]

I am far from an apologist for Iran, but Ahmadinejad never said that he would wipe Israel off the map. He said that the Zionist government of Israel should be erased from history. In effect, he was calling for regime change just like we did. The story was based on a misreporting of the translation.

Fair enough and I had heard such things before. Also, you're like the 20th person to point that out. :)

Either way, it is still a long long way from a mistranslation to "but they really only want to get along with everyone and have peace on earth!", no?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[atriusofbricia]

Yes, which was a blunder -- but it was still a mistranslation.

Was it corrected? If so, fair enough. If not, it would be hard to imagine it was left to stand unintentionally, no?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

'Palestinian' (a historically non-existent entity prior to 1967, as about as contrived a nation as Pakistan or Kosovo)

Or, gee I don't know, 'Israeli' prior to 1947?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

And he can have it, as far as I'm concerned. Why should I support a Jewish state? How many jews would support whites having an ethnically white state? We know the answer to that.

Fuck 'em all.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[k31bang]

Oh? They invaded Iraq.

I don't think Iraq was a particulaly innocent party in this matter. The term counter-offensive comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#1980:_Iraqi_invasion

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[chrb]

You do realise that's exactly the same rationale that the Islamic extremist groups use to justify their attacks on civilian targets, right?

Perhaps you do not realise how naive you are being

You are both correct, because your argument does not refute the original.

Original: Some Islamic terrorist groups claim that attacks on civilians are justified because they are responsible of the actions of their governments (and for democratic nations, they may have a point)

You: Economic warfare kills more people than physical warfare.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[atriusofbricia]

Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist. I've never really supported the seeming "Israel First" politics of the US government over the last few decades, but to say that Iran only wants to get along with its neighbors and be good little world citizens is a bit off. Again, we can't mention any of that though as it conflicts with the central pillars of "GWB blame" and "USA blame".

Iran has elections, just like the US. (And both seem to be about selecting one of two equally bad choices)

Do you really want to base foreign policy on shit that politicians say to win elections? In that case the US looks like the 3rd Reich reborn.

Iranian elections are the same as what is in the US much like a paper airplane is the same as an F-16. Yeah, they can both fly and they kinda sorta look the same.

If your opinion of the US can be reduced to the 3rd Reich, even using election rhetoric as a measure, then I'm not sure what else can be said. I'm not saying all is roses and I'm sure that was a bit of hyperbole, but still. That's a bit much, no?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[forkfail]

Amusing, maybe, but incredibly disingenuous.

Because to a lot of liberals, it wouldn't matter. But lying about it might well matter. Thus, what is being protested is the fact that Faux is accusing Obama of lying (as well as being a Muslim). They conflate the defense against the accusation of lying and the denial that he is a Muslim, when they are in fact two seperate issues.

So, I'd say that your amusement is probably the sort of mocking attitude that Faux loves to generate. Even if they can't sell you on all their BS, they've managed to change the discussion and argument from what matters to meta arguments about their tactics.

Oh, and for the record: I'm a liberal who doesn't think particularly highly of the Muslim religion. So, please, go easy on the sweeping generalizations.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyYar]

Or the Shah? Yeah, that was kind of my point. People constantly go on about the Shah and how he was installed by the CIA. I don't think anyone could deny that the CIA was involved. The US definitely has done some things that I am not proud of, so clandestine, some overt - and I don't think that one is any better or worse than the other.

All that said, Iran still is not an innocent victim. They are actively supporting a shadow war against Israel, so any Israeli (or their ally the US) strike at Iran doesn't exactly fill me with indignation. elrouse0 was trying to paint Iran in a better light than the US, and I was just pointing out that they were in fact screwing around in other countries' affairs, just as the US has done. I don't think Iran can claim moral high ground. Frankly, any argument based on moral high ground is going nowhere, so I'm not sure why I stuck my nose in.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[atriusofbricia]

Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault

No, the last three are Obama's fault. Clinton had plenty of screw-ups too (oh, how I can list them). But I would contend that the "Axis of Evil" speech stands out as a particularly epic diplomatic and strategic fuck-up. It served no positive purpose, and put two countries on the nuclear path who didn't need to be.

I thought the Axis of Evil speech was in 2002, not 1993 when North Korea gave the non-proliferation treaty the finger. Arguably their program started about that time if not before then.

Iran had also been at it for a good long while. Neither of them heard that speech and said "oh damn, the US might kick our ass sometime in the future so we better develop nukes!". Whether the speech was a good idea or not it absolutely didn't put anyone on a path to anywhere.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Zontar The Mindless]

Let me control the banks, and I don't care who makes the laws.

You were saying?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Mr Z]

I had originally wrote "amusing" but changed it to "mesmerizing", precisely because of the power Fox wields. That part certainly is not amusing. (The Daily Show send ups of it, though, are.) In any case, the sweeping generalizations came from Fox (the hypocritical bit in particular came from a Sean Hannity clip I saw), not me.

I too count myself as a liberal. I also personally tend to look down on societies that put religion ahead of people and reason, regardless of the religion. That's the kind of thing that leads to deadly riots as a response to someone burning a book. Sure, burning the Koran is a grave insult, but few would argue that that's a proportionate response.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[IamTheRealMike]

The average person has much more pressing matters in life than global politics. Such examples of these are getting enough money to pay rent/mortgage

You're completely right, which is why the fact that Iran comes up at all is so ridiculous. As I said, 90% of people don't give a crap about Iran or what it does. That's why in an actual democracy, which we don't have, they would be left alone.

I think you're looking at this backwards. You start with the assumption that there's a problem, and work backwards to "democracy would not address this, therefore democracy must be flawed". The actual flaw is in your own starting point. That's because this entire "problem" is artificially manufactured - to ensure the US continues to have an excuse for large amounts of protectionist military spending, to play the politics of power in Jerusalem and so on. Once you look at what people actually care about it becomes clear that Iran would go unaddressed because there isn't anything to address.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

India and Pakistan, just like Israel, were not members of the relevant UN treaties, Iran is. There is no legal basis for UN organized sanctions.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[chill]

Uh, the domination of India and land East by Persia predate Islam by centuries if not millennia.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped reading your post after the first paragraph because it's obvious to anyone who actually knows anything about North Korea and Iran that you are full of shit. Go read book, and come back with at least little bits of facts sprinkled into you gibberish.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Opportunist]

Nah, my stupid reply is simply that your choices for senators and congressmen isn't by any means better. Here, you're also usually facing the same choice, with the odd man out (i.e. a politician who can and does actually do his job) being drowned in the choir of the shills.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table.

Fixing banks with less regulation is like fixing Lindsay Lohan with more cocaine.

Fixing Iran with goodwill gestures is like fixing Lindsay Lohan with more cocaine.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, Chomsky's book title was "Hegemony *OR* Survival"... sounds like you vote for the short-term hegemony of the "Pax Americana" empire.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The ordinary people will suffer. This is both an act of war and a war-crime. Collective economic punishment as brutal as burning crops and poisoning reservoirs.

The real reason? Protecting the Imperial dollar as supreme instrument of International economic hegemony.

The nukes are a pantomime

Last week, the Tehran Times noted that the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in currencies other than the dollar from March 20. This long-planned move is part of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vision of economic war with the west.
"The dispute over Iran's nuclear programme is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the US to use threats to protect the 'reserve currency' status of the dollar," the newspaper, which calls itself the voice of the Islamic Revolution, said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/9077600/Iran-presses-ahead-with-dollar-attack.html

Beware the "Ahmadinejad" bullshit in the above post. The position of President in Iranian politics has even less power to establish or enforce policy than does that of a US President.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Opportunist]

That's pretty much the case. The US is in the rather unique position that they're able (and currently also very willing) to simply tax the world.

Yes, tax. Printing money would be nothing else if there was no inflation. The country creates money for itself, making the money you hold less valuable. The effect is the same as if they simply took it from you. The reason countries usually don't do that is simply that the first thing that usually happens when they print money is inflation because the goods they want to buy abroad for foreign currency get more expensive. This is not the case, though, if the currency used IS that money that they print. Essentially, that way they can get goods for free. Kinda like tax. Or tithe if you prefer.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[dryeo]

I want to point out that in the United Kingdom, the entire parliaments can be dissolved by the Queen who has absolute power and can't be removed from office.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

While the Queen can dissolve parliament and perhaps should more often, it just means an election for a new parliament and if she abuses that power then Parliament will exercise its supremacy and kick her, and perhaps her family, out. They did this in 1688 to James II and his descendents.
A better example would be the USA where the collage of electors can elect anyone they want to President while staying within the constitution.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[dryeo]

So what you are saying is that there are no Democracies on Earth? Every country has limits on freedom of speech and some even use speech to take away the right to vote, though I think America and perhaps Nigeria are the only one that takes it to that extreme.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Savantissimo]

I'm going to assume that was snark. There are people crazy enough to believe that though, so maybe you could add a tag next time to make it clear?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Pieroxy]

Obviously, he has a higher UID than you... He's then logically superior (bigger is better, right?)

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly certain Israel would never attack Iran unless provoked... Why would they?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Aryden]

The history of the Indian sub-continent is incredible and as action packed as most hollywood movies these days. Between the 13th and 18th centuries, the areas that we now know as Pakistan, Afghanistan, portions of China, Myanmar, Bangladesh and others, were invaded, conquered and ruled by many different empires. Some Islamic and others not. It's really quite interesting to see how many different people claimed ownership to those areas. However, one thing can be said, the areas that were conquered and held by the Islamic empires are in essence still held by islamic powers. To this I refer to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There is a slight difference with the way the idea of this works, some see it as land held as traditionally Islamic, while others consider it any land ever held by muslims. Thankfully, the extremists holding the latter beliefs can either really only focus on a few targets at one time or do not necessarily care due to the resources available in certain areas. Also, I think that trade routes and shipping lanes have an effect on what they do and do not want. Iran has no ports on the Mediterranean sea. Israel of course does as well as Lebanon and Syria. Now if Iran were to go after Lebanon and/or Syria, they would not have the backing of the other Islamic nations, however, Israel would be a target they all get behind.

Regardless, there are numerous reasons, whether political, economic, social or religious, that Iran would benefit from with the annihilation of the Israeli state. It's really whether they actually go through with the attempt or not and whether they are successful if they do.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Reservoir Penguin]

The same thing can be applied to representative branch, Some great system you have there,a R or D president and and R or D congress/senate. Why do you have a two party system, where are the Greens, Social Democrats, Socialists, Communists?. What, not even 3% of US population support the Greens to have their views represented in federal parliament? You system and so flawed and undemocratic that it denies representation to millions of your fellow citizens. Your President is elected by the media on the basis who performs more "knock out punches" in scripted TV debates.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[NeoMorphy]

Iran has elections, just like the US. (And both seem to be about selecting one of two equally bad choices)

I also heard that they know the results before the last voter is done!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[TheMiddleRoad]

It was the truth. I forgot to add Lebanese Christians and Muslims to the list, the innocents slaughtered and country ruined by Iran's Hezbollah. Exportation of evil: successful. Iran's decades of violence have killed far too many. What? You didn't know? When truth looks like snark, you should be worried about your own sanity, not everyone else's.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shutdown -p now]

We should leave them be with the warning that the next attack will be the last thing they do as a people.

"Next attack"? What was the last attack carried out on the U.S. by Afghani people?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shutdown -p now]

Unlike NK, these guys actually have a solid industry. I would suggest reading the article on "Economy of Iran" on Wikipedia for a star before writing BS.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shutdown -p now]

Sure, our choices for president aren't great. But the president is just one facet of our government. He doesn't have the ability to rule by decree

Iran has a parliament as well, and president is not all that powerful, actually. Of course, the parliament is also elected from candidates vetted by Islamic clergy, so that doesn't offer much room for dissent. But the seemingly popular notion that Ahmadinejad's word is law in Iran has no basis in reality.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shutdown -p now]

I was always thinking that, at the end of his second term (which he'll surely get with the kinds of candidates Reps are propping up), he should come up in front of the cameras and say that he's a Muslim - just for lulz.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier said than done. Also, "he whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003." This simply isn't the case (with Iran at least). Consider back in the late 80's when Israel bombed Iran's nuke plant they were making. George Bush was still an alcoholic then I think.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Savantissimo]

No, Iraq invaded Iran, not the other way around. Weapons peddlers? Compared to US, Russia, Israel (proven to have sold nuclear bomb technology to apartheid South Africa), or even Belgium? I think not. Assistance to Hezbollah is about the only thing that can legitimately be laid at Iran's feet, but given the result in fending off the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, it's hard to see why they would regret that.

"And both their crazy idiot president and the Mullahs are on record on what they would do to Israel if they 'had the means,' often including the words 'wipe Israel off the face of the map.'"
Oh, Jesus, not this old lie again. The phrase that was intentionally mistranslated by Israeli partisans, was in context approximately: "other great powers have decayed and slipped from their places, and I [Ahmadinejad, who isn't really in charge anyway] believe that one day, Israel too will be wiped from the page of history." Also the Ayatollah Khamenei - who really runs the country - has issued an iron-clad fatwa against nuclear weapons.

Mossad is not a figment of the imagination, they have been caught assassinating people several times, and given that Iran is the boogeyman du jour, it would be inconceivable that Mossad wasn't assassinating some Iranian scientists in addition to any sabotage operations they could arrange. The numbers of violent deaths of Iranian scientists bears out this suspicion. I hope they won't get as far as they did killing Iraq's scientists.

"We should take over the Israeli government by force and set up a puppet state?" Now that's just willfully stupid. The US is Israel's ally, the reverse has never been true. They are the little brother, constantly picking fights and expecting their big brother to back them up - if big brother says: "if you want to attack the biggest kid on the block again, you're on your own", that is just good sense, and better for little brother in the long run. The rest of your paragraph is just ignorant propaganda, and bears no resemblance to the actual history of Israeli terrorism, violence, bribery, blackmail, betrayals of its few allies and above all constant, shameless lies .

"the decadence and harems enjoyed by the Mullahs." see! there is another lie, right on schedule.

Given all the hateful idiocy your post contains, it should have been modded "troll" or "flamebait", certainly not "insightful".

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Hentes]

Well, that was an interesting read. According to Wikipedia, Iranian industrial production is smaller than their agriculture, which in a desert country is especially embarrasing.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[ffflala]

Both of those countries were already on the nuclear path by 2003. It's not as if North Korea went from no-nuclear-weapon-program to successful-nuke-test in the span of 3 years. And Iran has been building facilities, shopping for plans, and mining uranium since the early 1990's.

The axis of evil speech was certainly a catalyst for increased activity, but both of those countries had already been walking on the nuclear path for years before it.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Savantissimo]

Bullshit. Al Qaeda and Iran are about as likely to work together as the Amish and the Knights of Malta. Actually I can't think of two groups on earth that hate each other more than the Shia and the Wahabi. You certainly cite no evidence, and given that you are an AC and that you repeat the bogus "wiped off the map" line that has been refuted at least a dozen times on this page alone, anybody who finds you persuasive is a hopeless case anyway, so I'll leave it there.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[lewko]

Rein in Israel?

The Jews just want to be left the fuck alone. Hasn't changed in thousands of years.

Except you have some psychotic Muslims who think killing Jews, and "Death to America" is more important than building a successful society. And here you are saying the Jews are responsible for this? That's like saying a girl in a short skirt totally deserved to be raped. Funnily enough that's a similar view that's shared by a lot of Muslims.

Sorry. The problem never was Israel and if it were, that wouldn't explain global Muslim terrorism. You're looking for a scapegoat in all the wrong placed.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Savantissimo]

You do recall the last time the Iranians took that deal for enrichment abroad that their uranium was all stolen by France, right? It's understandable that the Iranians would want a little stronger guarantees than "trust us" this time. The Iranians have been consistently open to any scheme that was structured in some way other than an obvious setup for a ripoff, but the US isn't at all interested.

Wikipedia:

Following the 1979 Revolution, most of the international nuclear cooperation with Iran was cut off. Iran has later argued that these experiences indicate foreign facilities and foreign fuel supplies are an unreliable source of nuclear fuel supply.[49][50]

At the time of the revolution, Iran was a joint owner in the French Eurodif international enrichment facility, but the facility stopped supplying enriched uranium to Iran shortly afterwards.[49][51]

"Iran began their atomic weapons program in the early 1980's, stopped in the late 80's and began again in earnest in 1994. "
Bullshit. If you're going to make shit up, accept "evidence" that isn't evidence, and try to use that to start a war, then the blood of millions of innocents will be on your hands. Don't expect to be treated any better than those innocents you are recklessly threatening, you lying warmonger.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Sri Ramkrishna]

You're not a Republican. Today's conservatives have a mentality that conservatism cannot fail it can only be failed. If you have enough presence of mind to understand what is going on in how money is being spent then I would simply label you as an objective person.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Sri Ramkrishna]

I'm not sure I agree. Economic damage I would argue does not lead to the emotional scars that get passed from generation to generation. Muslims are still pissed about the Crusades, Indians are still pissed about the Mongols and so forth. Violence leaves a mark and leads to revenge and so forth. The memory the violence travels from generation to generation. It's hard to do that when it is an economic attack or possibly a cyber attack as it's not the same thing. It's not like an invading army coming in, raping and pillaging and leaving the place destitute. This is all about banks and what not, things that people don't quite understand.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Sri Ramkrishna]

We folks in Oregon, mail our ballots. No lines or anything. My wife and I discuss at hte breakfast table all the bills and people and then figure out the pros and cons and then mail our ballots. Democracy bitches!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

You revisionist assholes need to learn to read a fucking book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Al_Qaeda

FUCK YOU

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only did he say exactly what you pretend he didn't say, he said it a several number of times and so did his cronies: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/01/a-little-ahmadinejad-revisionism-for-you/69505/

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Xest]

"It's never been about nuclear weapons. Look at the wording of the official statements on both sides; the complaints against Iran are always taking issue with the fact that Iran is continuing "enrichment activities" and its "nuclear program". There has never been any mention of even "high enrichment" or a "nuclear weapons program" in official documents; the complaint is that Iran is enriching uranium at all, under a "nuclear energy program", however the wording "nuclear program" is used to allow ignorant people to unconsciously insert the word "weapons" in between by themselves, because that's what most people think of first when they hear "nuclear program" or even "nuclear". Wake up."

Why do you feel the need to outright lie?

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

Page 7, section G. Specifically:

43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:

- Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by
military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);

- Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex,
Section C.3);

- The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and

- Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of
components (Annex, Sections C.5â"C.12).

It really couldn't be more clear could it? I don't think there's anything "unconscious" (I think you mean subconscious) about reading the clear as day use of the word weapons in the official IAEA reports direct from the source.

I think you need to check the facts before forming an opinion and then telling everyone else to wake up. The IAEA has on numerous occasions stated there have definitely in the past, and still possibly are military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program and that they can't confirm that there's an innocent explanation for their more recent discovery of evidence that points to a military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme because Iran wont let them confirm that it's all innocent.

Hell, there's not even any evidence to back up your rant about the situation with North Korea regarding Americans signing agreements then pulling back, so I can only assume that's all completely made up too. I can't find anything about the US building half a nuclear reactor on North Korean soil then giving up half way through. Source?

Even your theory about a nuclear power cartel is completely nonsensical, I mean really? this cartel is global in reach and has manage to magically bridge partisan divides in tying together Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the US? That's a pretty awesome cartel tying countries together that have such varied and often opposing political landscapes. Who runs the cartel? The Illuminati maybe? Why would countries with decades of nuclear export experience be scared of a country that isn't providing tried and tested reactors? who wants a dodgy untested Iranian reactor on their soil?

Still, I'm sorry that the facts don't match up with your made up conspiracy theory. Perhaps you'd like to retire from the conspiracy theory market and consider writing thriller novels? Tom Clancy is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Christ it's becoming more and more obvious Slashdot is one of the worst sites on the net for political discussion, +5 interesting for a completely made up conspiracy theory with some pretty wild and nonsensical arguments, backed up by not the slightest shred of evidence? really?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel doesn't have a right to exist. But hey if you Jews want to go steal land from Muslims in a Muslim neighborhood, just please stop complaining that no one likes you.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

You can't argue with these retards.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Xest]

So was it a mistranslation when it was printed on the side of long range missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads too, or?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/iran

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

Yeah stupid fuck, the real ruler can rule by decree and override anything the fake "elected government" comes up with.

He's the fucker wearing a turban, they don't call him supreme leader for nothing.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Savantissimo]

"But the president is just one facet of our government. He doesn't have the ability to rule by decree.."
You should really start paying attention to what is in those executive orders. Under several statutes the President has the unreviewable authority to declare emergencies and then do essentially anything he wants. We have, as far as can be determined, been living under a formally declared state of emergency at least since Roosevelt seized the nation's gold in the early 1930s. The President can institute martial law anytime he wants and to any degree or manner he wants, and can keep as much as he wants of the orders he gives secret, too. The widely known fact that he can designate any individual or group as "terrorist" with no evidence, and seize any assets and indefinitely imprison or kill anyone he wants is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the powers secretly claimed by the executive.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Xest]

"I am far from an apologist for Iran, but Ahmadinejad never said that he would wipe Israel off the map."

No, he just printed that on the side of long range missiles instead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/iran

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Savantissimo]

Yeah, because it was the Iranians killing people in Gaza, not the Israelis. And those Lebanese Christian Phalangists who, working directly with the IDF, massacred thousands of defenseless women and children at Sabra were really misunderstood heroes, standing up to islamofascism by castrating little boys and gutting them in front of their mothers. Got it. And when Israel invaded Lebanon again (lying their asses off every step of the way, too), Hezbollah's defense of their nation and homes from the invaders was really the most murderous sort of terrorism. And when the US killed something over a million people in Iraq, most of them small children who shit themselves to death because water treatment supplies were banned by sanctions, that was really the Iranians' fault somehow.

You disgust me. May God have mercy on you, for if justice were done, you yourself would suffer what you condone being done to others.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[coredog64]

The CIA didn't like that and installed a puppet regime, everything went to hell after that.
It wasn't that the CIA didn't like it. The British didn't like the idea of Mosaddegh nationalizing oil resources out from under BP. They convinced the Americans to help them overthrow the government and install a puppet. Without that particular bit of work, I doubt the American CIA would have ever jumped in.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Libya we did help but it was more with logistics.

Jet fighter bombing runs are logistics? That’s a euphemism I hadn’t heard before.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[grainofsand]

"Next attack"? Care to point me in the direction of a time since 1709 when Afghanistan has invaded or attacked another nation? Why threaten with annihilation a nation that has never harmed you or your country?

Afghanistan has been invaded by hostile forces repeatedly since 1709. The Afghanis have resisted those invasions as any nation rightly would.

   

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[dryeo]

The rich, especially in the States, have the ability to decide who the candidates are and the people get to decide basically on Pepsi vs Coke when people would actually like some water. Also when an election campaign needs millions of dollars to succeed, the rich have a lot of pull.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shutdown -p now]

You do realize that Taliban != Afghans, right? It's a movement that, on one hand, goes across ethnic and country lines (it's also strong in Pakistan, and branches exist elsewhere); and, on the other hand, is largely confined to Pashtuns in Afghanistan?

For that matter, even in your own link, it clearly states that any evidence for "alliance" is rather disputed. At best you can blame Taliban for not extraditing Osama, but then there was no regular extradition process followed, either - US has simply demanded that he be handed over, with no evidence given that he is the one behind the bombings (and at that point he was still publicly disclaiming responsibility). Taliban did not refuse to hand him over outright, they asked for basic evidence that he is indeed the perpetrator. That was refused.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shutdown -p now]

Your posts would perhaps read a little bit more coherent if you stopped using "fuck" after every sentence.

Other than that, do you actually know what Supreme Leader of Iran does? He doesn't rule by decree. The only kinds of decrees he can issue are for elections and referendums, and also to dismiss the president. He can't write laws. He does have broad control over legislative by virtue of vetting candidates before they can stand for election, but that's not what your argument was.

(by the way, speaking of ruling by decree, what about American 'executive orders'?)

As well, Supreme Leader is also an elected position - it's elected by the Assembly of Experts, which in turn is elected by the citizens through direct vote. It's not fundamentally different from your electoral college.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Aaron B Lingwood]

Well, as an American, I must admit we have our shortcomings... but I'm rather proud of the example we set by hanging teenage girls in the town square for the 'crime' of being a witch .

FTFY

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[halltk1983]

They call them "primaries."

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

For a functioning democracy, you need to be able to criticize the government without repercussion. At that point, although there may be other limitations on speech, you can start to convince other people to change those limitations. Plenty of democracies meet that requirement.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

Is there a reason I should care that you are bad at communicating?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda,

Seig something...

Does the criticism of Israel = anti-semitism idiocy get any clearer?
Seeing as you want to scream anti-semitism anyway, I'll just come out and say it:
Jews are fucking evil. They have sought to control the media and to a large extent they do. Astroturfers like you supplement this with idiotic comments like the one you've just given.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Chris Mattern]

Yes, yes, very cynical, very hip. Not much truth to it, but hey, it reads well.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[murdocj]

Have you been living under a rock for the last 11 years? Try googling "9/11" and learn something.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[TheMiddleRoad]

Ah, I see you're a true Christian, or perhaps a Muslim. You are wishing suffering upon me, a Jew. Typical.

How many lies did you have to believe to plant the seed of hatred in your heart? Not many, I expect. It appears that you believe what you want to.

I wonder how long ago it was that you supported the Assad regime? My guess is that, if you don't still support them, you only stopped a year ago.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullcrap, we shoulda preemptively nuked the whole region from the U.A.E. to Pakistan into a sea of glass back when we got the hostages in Iran back and saved the world the headache of a violent religion taking the world and forcing female circumcision and wiping butt with your left hand on the world.( not to mention worldwide bombings and spreading Islam through "killing the infidel where they find them. Yes, I am out of breath. We could just pay the national debt.to China with the radioactive remains. When the geiger counter settles down years later , they will re-tap the wells and open a vacation resort. Everybody happy, the Chinese mellow out, Oil is put in reserve for years, no one dies from Islam anymore and we are out of debt and can run up another tab.

            WINNING!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Another scholar of the Koran on slashie? Oh how we are blessed by your candre's deep insight into Islam, please teach wise and virtuous mullah..

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shutdown -p now]

According to Google (or rather, Wikipedia, since that's the first link) the perpetrators of 9/11 are:

Mohamed Atta (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian), Marwan al-Shehhi (United Arab Emirati), Fayez Banihammad (United Arab Emirati), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).

The planners are al-Qaeda, which is not a government entity and does not have ties to any specific government. That said, its leader at the time of the attack, Osama bin Laden, hails from Saudi Arabia. It's present leader is an Egyptian. The ideologist whose writings largely shaped the doctrine of the organization, Sayyid Qutb, is also Egyptian. Most members are Arabs, and predominantly from states which are supposedly U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc.

So, when are we going to see a warning given out to Saudi Arabia that "the next attack will be the last thing they do as a people"?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

What a weaksauce excuse. I'm sure you have one for Hitler too.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[halltk1983]

When was the last time a real muslim, or an athiest was selected by one of the parties that actually has a chance of winning?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[DaneM]

My point is not that Iran is necessarily the problem it's claimed to be; rather, my point is that any problem on the other side of the world--Iran or otherwise--will probably not get any serious attention from those who stand to lose money/profits by acting on that problem. If it's financially better to ignore it, then most business owners will do so.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[ancienthart]

The real reason? Protecting the Imperial dollar as supreme instrument of International economic hegemony.

The nukes are a pantomime

Doesn't this risk the Imperial dollar becoming less and less relevant and more powerless?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[sixtyeight]

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist. I've never really supported the seeming "Israel First" politics of the US government over the last few decades, but to say that Iran only wants to get along with its neighbors and be good little world citizens is a bit off.

It's not, but it certainly seems like that for those who aren't familiar with the Khazars.

Khazaria was a little kingdom just north of Baghdad. One day, their king decreed that the whole country adopt Judaism as a sort of national nom de plume. The Khazarian people took on that identity, adopting the blue star as their symbol (the actual symbol of Judaism is the menorah) and they dispersed throughout the world, getting into the banking, media, political and educational sectors of the various countries. A lot of the anti-Semitic things we hear from certain groups are actually about the Khazars, not the Jews. These are the people that gave Walt Disney trouble for the majority of his career. They follow the Elder Protocols of Zion, attempting to sabotage and take down the other countries by eroding the systems they emplace themselves into, undermining public education, moral sense of right and wrong, and using plenty of revisionist history. Simultaneously, they seek to displace the actual Jewish people collectively, and establish claim that identity for themselves. They're the ones who founded Israel, right on someone else's territory, and fight grievously to keep and expand it. Genuine Jewish people actually protest this sort of thing - the Torah forbids even having a Jewish state - but are unheard. Ask a Jewish person about this sometime. The Khazars don't even use fences, but prefer sentry guns instead - to make their neighbors have to guess where the boundary line is. As a result, their neighbors back off and they can just move the sentry guns further out. Check out "The Khazarian Conspiracy" on YouTube. It's fascinating stuff.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[dryeo]

OK, I agree with your definition of free speech, being free to criticize the powers that be, which is a larger set then government. What I don't agree with is the buggy whip manufactures being able to illegalize industries that compete against them and remove the vote from them that object in real way (not speech, but action). If the buggy whip manufactures can buy a law illegalizing owning a car and call it a felony therefore removing the right for the felon to vote to change the law that is not right and the opposite of a democracy in my opinion.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[ThatsMyNick]

Isreal disagrees with you. Their strategy has been to make Palestines leave the country on their own will. First they put you in a refugee camp. Then they allow you to move to certain neighbourhood in Isreal (limited to certain neighbourhoods for security reasons). And never give them any citizenship. Issue a passort with nationality field being empty. Use proganda to make Isrealites beilive that these people are forieigners. Finally, wait for palenstines to slowly leave the country and finally Profit!.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

Get other people to agree with you, and change the law. No one can stop you from speaking out. If you can get enough other people to care, then you can change the law.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel is still occupying territory in defiance of international law. Israel occupied Lebanon and sponsored Christian Arab militias that had been torturing people for years. I still remember when israel withdrew from S. Lebanon and all those militiamen Israeli collaborators came crying to the border asking to the then in.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it have to be right? There is so many wrongs in the world and in fact two(or more) wrongs can make a right.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Kalriath]

And this has sweet fuck all to do with the people of the country. This may come as a shock, but many countries (even so called democracies) are ruled by parties with diametrically opposite political views to the majority of the public. The public cannot be held responsible for the actions of a government they didn't elect. And before you pull out that "armed revolution" bullshit, in most every civilized country in the world there are these things called gun controls, which prevent such a thing from occurring.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely the funniest thing I have read in quite a while. Your assumption that 'they'I think and operate on the same level that we do is comical. Life is not a Pepsi or Coke commercial from the 70's..........get a firm grip on reality and come back and play again later, okay?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[rainmouse]

This is all about banks and what not, things that people don't quite understand.

Trust me, when the power goes out for good and access to food and medicine is taken away, people understand why their children are no longer alive. Children are the main source of casualties during sanctions. Unicef estimated the Iraq sanctions caused the death of around half a million children alone. Maybe you do not understand the effects of what sanctions actually do to people, which is understandable as the media never explain it and that is why they are currently socially acceptable methods of warfare but some would argue the very worst kind.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran doesn't want Israel 'wiped off the map' i the sense of nuking it into oblivion making it a dead-zone. They want a unified Palestinian state which is not a military outpost for the US.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Chris Mattern]

The difference is between selection by an unelected council and an open election (or caucus) in which all are free to vote. Just a minor difference, really. Scarcely worth mentioning.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction, it war Iraq who invaded Iran first in 1980. Although it may be technically correct that Iran invaded Iraqi territory in the later years of the war from 1984 onwards your statement is misleading, much like saying Russia invaded Germany in world war 2.
And while I am sure that Persian based cultures have started wars and invaded Arab cultures based on the Euphrates river in history, this has not happened since they have been respectively known as Iran and Iraq.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ok..he's an American..and a republitard at that.

They are almost the definition of "mentally defective".

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[hjf]

No. I'm pretty sure you're a retard.

Tell me how it's going for the Syrians right now, trying to rise against their government right now. You can't expect governments to look out the window and see the people protesting and say "uh, it seems we aren't doing a good job here. Well, time to pack our stuff" and go out the window and say "fellow countrymen, you have been heard, we're really sorry for the inconvenience we caused you, so we decided to resign. We're going to show up in court now for trial and await our punishment for our wrongdoings".

Maybe Fox News is filtering stuff out for you. Start reading here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Revolution_of_2011

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Last and desparate measures.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shiftless]

By his standards, the world is simple: it's your fault if your government does something evil, and you should suffer for it.

"Should", and "fault", have nothing at all to do with it. The fact is if your government does something evil, someone (probably you) will suffer, either now or later. It's also a fact that they will do this unless YOU (citizen) do something about it, because nobody else is going to. Therefore, yes, it could be concluded that it's your "fault" if they do something evil, if you choose to not even speak your mind (thus broadcasting your opinion to others) to combat it.

But regardless of whose fault it is, the fact still remains that momentum applies to politics just as much as to an asteroid floating through space. If if you do nothing to help chip away at that momentum through whatever means at your disposal, then you have to simply be content with where gravity decides to take things.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shiftless]

The problem is, you're not going to be able to affect their government unless you affect their people somehow as well.>

No, that is not "the" problem. That is "a" problem, "if" you decide that it's necessary and justified to hurt their government. The actual problem is: it's not.

Ultimately, short of an all-out war and occupation, there's no way to remove a government that represents a danger to other countries other than forcing their people to face up to it and do the work to change things

And that government is......Iran? Care to justify that statement, based on something more than some vague reference made in a politically charged speech years ago about "wiping Israel off the map"? Or the "Death to Israel" phrase, which is common in Iran right alongside similar phrases "Death to traffic", "Death to long lines", and "Death to taxes"?

Are these really good enough reasons to justify deliberately working to ensure people starve to death? Especially considering the vast majority of evidence indicates Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon nor planning to invade anyone?

Wow, I am having such a deja vu right now of the months leading up to the Iraq invasion, when Saddam was pleading on national TV that he didn't have any chemical weapons and asking for inspectors to come verify it. Our government said he was just "stalling for time" but there was no time to wait cause an attack was imminent. Sound familiar?

And right now, people are trying to avoid a war.

Trying to avoid a war.....by ramping up war propaganda?

Trying to avoid a war.....by assassinating innocent scientists? People who had wives, kids, many years of education and experience, blown to pieces by a car bomb in the middle of traffic right next to a station wagon full of kids?

Trying to avoid war.....by dragging up the exact same tired old rhetoric and false propaganda that led us into the last foolish and costly war, not even 10 years ago?

Trying to avoid war by.....surrounding a nation by threatening military hardware on all sides? By spying via drone? By positioning aircraft carriers and attacks fleets all along their coast?

Trying to avoid war by......starving a nation full of innocent citizens, who are already miserable enough already?

Trying to avoid war by.....rallying said citizens behind the theocratic government we claim to WANT to get rid of, through the exact same imperialistic and arrogant policies said government has been telling them for years we engage in?

Yeah, I can totally see what you mean.

Iran is different. They are actively working to destabilize Israel and Iraq, and all of this is happening in the powderkeg of the Middle East. If Iran was like Israel and just sort of could be trusted to keep its nukes on the down low and not threaten the existence of other countries, that might be different.

No it's not. You sir are the sad victim of media propaganda.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[HArchH]

Get your head out Bush's rear end. Iran is developing nukes so that they can destroy Israel and force their religious doctrine on other states. It's that easy.

Iran IS a state sponsor of terrorism. So was Iraq. So is the DPRK.

It is not the place of the US or the UN to do the four things that you list. Iran is in control of its own destiny, and they will reap the rewards of their own actions. One way or the other. And most importantly, you have no evidence that doing those four things will have any desired affect on the behavior of the government of Iran.

In my opinion, the only action that will have a predictable affect on the government of Iran would be its ionization.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

The people of the country support and create the government. The government represents them.

I'm responsible for what my country does in the US, yet you shit bags all over the world seem to think there's a difference between the government and it's people.

FUCK YOU

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyYar]

Israel is still occupying territory in defiance of international law

And where is the use of armed insurgents authorized by the UN to remedy this?

Israel occupied Lebanon and sponsored Christian Arab militias that had been torturing people for years.

And this became Iran's problem why?

Notice I'm not saying that Israel is "right", nor does it represent all that is good in the region. But Iran is doing exactly what people accuse the US of doing - meddling in the affairs of other countries. Their low-grade warfare really does prevent any kind of peace in the region. You can't have peace in that region without security.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Iran publicly declared many times it is going to wipe out Israel off the map! What do you expect Israel to do exactly?

No other country is threatening of destroying another country nowadays but Iran, and as long as their crazy religious regim remains in control people will suffer, on both sides.

Your post shows very little understanding of who Iran really is and where Israel is coming from (hint: the holocost, which Iranian president says never happened).

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[bhcompy]

So bend over and take it, right?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel..

Iran says that's the reason why they're building nukes (referring to "the Zionist entity").

Or rather, that's what they say during the 1st and 3rd weeks of each month; during the 2nd and 4th weeks, they deny having any kind of nuclear program.

I'll bet that you are unaware that a state of war has existed between Iran and the US since 1979. Most but not all US presidents have known about this. The Iranian mullahs know.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopelessly naive...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

"we're talking about a theocratic government whose religion requires that its adherents (eventually) conquer the world, which government appears to take a particularly fundamentalist, literal view of the "conquer" aspect of that, and which is pursuing nuclear weapons."

Until I got to the part about "pursuing" I thought we were talking about Israel.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[lsatenstein]

Here are some facts.

Iran stated that they will drive destroy Israel and drive the Israelis into the sea. They will continue what Hitler tried to do. They threaten to use the bomb to destroy Israel, because this country is a true democracy.

Iran is a religious state, following an aged leader that is truly intolerant of other religions. Eliminating Iran from SWIFT, will increase their resolve to live without the USA and the European community. SWIFT will not stop the financial industry or Iran from selling oil. The most willing customers are China, India, Russia, and the diversion of oil to these countries will result in a stronger and more flourishing Iran.

Iran does want the bomb, and they do want nuclear reactors for electricity. So far the world believes that the number of countries with the bomb should be limited to the existing few. This is the major problem for the world. Tell Iran to recognize that the big powers do not want it to have the bomb and that they should respect other societies. Let Iranians travel and speak freely, and then and only then do I think that there will be strong efforts to normalize relationships.

   

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[lsatenstein]

There is something wrong with equating being muslim and being a bad person. The Christians and their crusadors did their share of harm in the world.

Extremists in every religion are dangerous. If you live outside the USA away from the US Media, you would have a much better appreciation of the good that Obama has done within the USA, and the good he is being blocked from doing by big (giant) business.

Americans, Big business runs the country, not the citizens or the congress. Big business has made you citizens into machines, like bees in a hive. Big business knows how to remove money from your wallet and you accept it.

Obama wants to move to the fulcrum from the 99% "have not" group to something like 20%superwealthy, 80% with good standard of living. It is not extreme socialism or communism (Big business propaganda). He is trying to create jobs, that Reagonomics tossed to outsourcing.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I also heard that they know the results before the first voter is done!

FTFY

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Kalriath]

Um... that article says the exact opposite of what you claim - it says the aggressors are the Greeks, not the Turks, since the Greeks tried to essentially strip all the constitutional rights from the Turks and when the Turks opposed it, disbanded the constitutional court, illegally passed the amendments anyway, and planned to unify with Greece - and if the Turks intervened then they would be violently subjugated before foreign intervention could occur.

So yeah, ask the Greeks how to go about a good genocide.

Actually don't, they might get ideas like Germany did (that started World War II). Which occurred because of... the same thing that's happening... in Greece.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Kalriath]

Cute. You actually believe the USA delivers freedom and democracy. It does not, it delivers war, death, bloodshed, and suffering.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are wrong about the axis of evil speech! It is the "evil" in the worldwide global commercial system that caused the axis of evil, and everyone else, to discover, in event after event, if your nation's commerce is not a wall street commodity, if the leadership of your nation is not yet
SENMACE puppetized, if your banking system has not yet been corrupted, if your government has not yet conformed its banking to SWITF, world bank, Federal Reserve, and UN silliness, if your nation is not a debtor nation, if your nation's currency is not yet value tagged to the single world standard, then the SENMACE may get some puppet government somewhere to make, by force, your nation conform.
However, even if your nation conforms to the above, but has failed, as yet, to deprived you, and the humanity of your nation, from using the inventive and creative genius produced by yourself, or those of your own nation; by method of "rule of law", then you are soon to be unpleasantly surprised. Making commercial rules into law is the method SENMACE use to capture and lock up, behind miles of costly keys and legal hurdles, your rights and the rights of those in your nation to use, knowledge to produce or compete in global commercial space [use of knowledge has been prohibited by copyright and patent monopolies, laws and treaties].
Your leaders, and you, must not violate the road from competition to greed, for Satan enjoys a monopoly on every useful road made of knowledge in the world.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shiftless]

To add to your point, this is Afghanistan we're talking about here. Ever bought some "Kush" off your dealer? Yeah, that name comes from the Hindu Kush mountains, a mountain range whose ruggedness makes just about every other mountain range look like a joke. Seriously, I have never seen so many god damn rocks in my entire life. Pebbles, stones, boulders, you name it--everywhere.

The vast majority of the people in this country live way the hell out in the sticks, I'm talking tiny villages stuck way up in the ass crack of some ridge, damn near only accessible by helicopter, with zero means of communications with anywhere else. They by and large don't know much of anything about the world or anything else other than their little tribe and village. They don't know how to read or write. They live in mud houses.

These people cannot be held responsible for the actions of their government.

U.S. citizens on the other hand, are a different story...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Kalriath]

No, you fucking retarded imbecile, you're not responsible for a government you didn't fucking elect. Take your fucked up logic and your irrational hostility and go fuck yourself with it, cocksucker.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[rainmouse]

A part of the ruling government housed and aided an attack on the United States.

They helped train the attackers and provided material support.

Consider that in 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were being given fed to a political group in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, who would later become the Taliban (fact) along with CIA training (unconfirmed). Should NATO now invade the CIA? Actually the more I think about it......

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Jmc23]

Source for C? Christianity also demands that the non-christian world be 'conquered'.

Don't be stupid.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Jmc23]

The USA does not like to correct misinformation from the past. Hell, they still call native americans Indians and it's been nearly 4 centuries that they've known they weren't in India!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

Yes, you are, you fuck up.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think they got the idea from bush? O rly.....

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you remember how both of the elections were rigged during Bush's runs? Do you remember the "Free Speech Zones" miles down the road in parking lots from the conventions? Do you remember all the talk and clashing of swords about WMDs when there were none.

OK we haven't started killing protesters yet, but that is around the corner.

You maybe to young to remember 4 Dead in Ohio. Google Kent State.

Yes it CAN happen here and has in the past.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Aryden]

I do not disagree, however, we aren't talking about christian states threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Jmc23]

Nor are we talking about Islamic states threatening to wipe Israel off the map... unless you've drunk the Kool-aid provided by the US government with their mistranslations.

Don't be stupid.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[hjf]

No. You can try, but sometimes no matter what you do, you just can't fight it - and figthing just 1 corrupt government of many isn't worth your life.

But one can't say people "deserve" to live that way because "they chose to do so". Our former president won in 2003 with 25% of the votes. He was the candidate with the most votes (there were other 5 or so candidates too), and still 75% of the population didn't vote for him. There have been projects to change that crap from the election system. But that party is majority in congress so... they all end up in nothing.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[bhcompy]

Depends on if you believe in the right to rebellion or the duty of rebellion. There are classical philosophers that believe in both. All you're saying is that it's not PC

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003. When the largest military power in the world labels you as one of three "Axis of Evil" members, then proceeds to invade one of the other two, it tends to make you a bit twitchy. And, both Iran and NK know that the only way to really protect yourself from U.S. invasion is with nuclear weapons.

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel. But the fact is that Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense. And even despite the anti-U.S. rhetoric that followed the revolution that overthrew the U.S. puppet shah and the U.S. helping Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war, Iranians have been surprisingly open to U.S. diplomacy in the past. They were even one of the first countries to offer the U.S. condolences after the 9-11 attacks, and in the pre-Bush years maintained a stable, if sometimes tense, relationship with the U.S. They're a country that seems to want to be liked on the world stage. But they're also a country that wants to send a message to the U.S. that they're not going to stand by and be invaded on some U.S. oil grab.

So we cut off their banks and hit them with sanctions. Fine. A lot of Iranian people will suffer. And maybe this will lead them to negotiate, maybe not.

But you know what I bet would ABSOLUTELY lead them to negotiate and drop their nuke program?

1) Offer a few public goodwill gestures to make it clear that the U.S. is *not* going to invade them or attack them
2) Tell Mossad to stop assassinating their scientists, or face sanctions of their own.
3) Reign in Israel and make it clear to them that attacking Iran will NOT be tolerated, and will cost them the friendship of the U.S.
4) Normalizing relations with Iran.

You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table.

well said! I cant imagine what it would be like to be branded 'axis of evil' by a superpower, but I imagine it would piss me off quite a bit. Add on top of that our stance toward NK who already has nukes, compared to how willing we were to invade a country that did not yet have WMDs, like Iraq. But we did not seem to have a problem with GIVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO ISRAEL, but Iran having the same capability is out of the question. Why the double standard? Americas relationship with Israel has far more negatives than positives.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[sixtyeight]

Ah, I see you're a true Christian, or perhaps a Muslim. You are wishing suffering upon me, a Jew.

Sure about that? Because you sound exactly like a Khazar posing as a Jew, much to the chagrin of the actual Jewish community.

Guilt trips and slick PR spin whenever someone challenges the countless Israeli atrocities. You're no Jew. Their Torah expressly forbids even having a Jewish state, let alone planting it smack dab on top of Palestinian territory and opting for gun turrets rather than fences, so the Palestinians have to guess where the boundary line is and back off even more.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Aryden]

And you can somehow magically provide unbiased translations of the very same speeches that are supposedly including anti-Israel speech?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shokk]

What do you take me for? We invaded them 35 minutes ago!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[shokk]

Someone's touchy about being born on the wrong side of the genetic lottery.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[andreiolaru]

Parent has a good point. I regret not having mod points. Sanctions will only escalate the situation, and killing international bank transfers will greatly harm the country.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Jmc23]

Wow, paranoid much? Let me guess, you have no Iranian friends right? No language abilities? No intelligence? The world is a scary place when you don't know how to investigate it yourself.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Aryden]

I speak 11 languages, have 2 masters degrees, friends in dozens of countries and experience translating Arabic and Farsi. I want you to show me these correct translations. I haven't come across any that aren't still considered propaganda.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Jmc23]

And your translation? What about context? Just because someone says something shouldn't exist doesn't mean that it's their mission to wipe it from the face of the earth. Have you ever heard the US government speaking about how these hostile regimes shouldn't be allowed to exist/continue... wait, bad example, because the US actually does go around invading other countries and wiping out their governments.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Aryden]

With the little Arabic and Farsi I speak, I would not deign to try to translate it. I do not know enough colloquialisms or culture contexts. This is why I have to trust more than one source just like everyone else. So unless you can provide those translations, with scholarly approval....

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Jmc23]

Scholarly approval? Sorry can't do that, I guess you'll just have to stick with your biased, unscholarly, unapproved, government propaganda.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[dcw3]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

You can blame a lot of shit on Bush, but this isn't one of them. While they didn't do their first test until 2006, it was in development long before that. North Korea had taken aggressive actions many times for many years prior to that. And while I could say "trust me, I lived there (South Korea) for six years in the 80s and 90s", I'd encourage you to do a bit of your own investigation before posting incorrect info again. As for Iran, there is no direct linkage to the Bush speech and conflicting information as to the precise start of their program as can be see on Wikipedia.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[dcw3]

We should leave them be with the warning that the next attack will be the last thing they do as a people.

Okay, and what exactly would you propose to do if they did attack us? Even at best (worst?), nuking the whole country would be difficult with all of those mountains, and that will never happen. There hasn't been a successful US war since WWII, and both Germany and Japan required many years of nation building after that. We're still in both of those...how many years of occupation was it before they really were our allies? No war is complete until the enemy is wiped out, or you've become friendly.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Stuarticus]

* In designated free speech zones.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran has elections, just like the US.

Do you remember all the protests about the unfair elections last year? Do you also remember how the government started killing protestors? Do you also remember that you can be arrested for criticizing the government in Iran?

IF YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT, YOU DON'T HAVE DEMOCRACY. This is extremely important, and is why the US constitution specifically protects freedom of speech.

Look in the news in the US about the journalists beindf arteated and the cop stating that their first amendment rights can be revoked at any time...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

It's ok, most people are just annoyed by protesters anyway. Protesting is an extremely weak form of communication.

hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the US of A is being sanctioned too since they have a really prolific nuclear program ?

I wonder what happens when..

[Severus Snape]

They become a full nuclear power. Do we sit down and talk, then play nice with them?

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Forty Two Tenfold]

You did it with the Jewish invaders of Palestine, why not with Persians?

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[TheKeyboardSlayer]

They become a full nuclear power. Do we sit down and talk, then play nice with them?

I don't think any country will allow it to get that far unfortunately :/

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got a serious chicken/egg issue there. Wouldn't the Jews have been the original occupants of that area until successive generations of occupiers pushed them out? Who is the real invader?

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Dog-Cow]

Palestine is the name of the formerly-sovereign state of Israel, given by the Romans after their conquest. So the Jews invaded their own country?

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Oswald McWeany]

A large number of them are European/American that moved back there in the last two or three generations. Both sides probably hate this- but the current Palestinians are probably more genetically related to the people that the Romans once ruled there. Nonetheless- you can't tell the people descended from those that moved there from Europe and America to "go-back" that is impractical.

What would make much more sense is if they all just got-along and learned to live nicely with each other. Yeah, I know- not going to happen.

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[DesScorp]

Palestine is the name of the formerly-sovereign state of Israel, given by the Romans after their conquest. So the Jews invaded their own country?

And the whole point the Romans were trying to accomplish in punishing the Jews for revolting was an attempt at literally making their country disappear, as if a Jewish country never existed. "Israel? Judea? No such places. Ceasar welcomes you to Palestine". And a lot of people are still trying to help them accomplish that today.

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah yeah .... and 50-60% of the population migrated after their own ppl returned to the homeland :D Get real dude , talk to some1 from there before saying shit like that... i've spoke with many ppl from there ... u dont even have a clue what happend there... to be thrown out of your own home ..to see takeover of cities ....or was that only a 'Got u a gift from my trip to US/Europe' kind of thing?. I'm from Europe....my county exists from 1200+ years.... my ancestors have fought for every part of the land we have ..... I can't except countries like Israel, not only 'cose of the funny way they ware created ....'cose of the politics they have for ppl with are 'not of their own' ...

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah; they become a full nuclear power and then they'll tell yer about what they want; there wont be no time to sit ; much less tallk; you'll be obligated to play nice. but yeah, this nuclear stuff was started by some countries that want to be superior than others and dictate terms to others; i dont really feel Iran is wrong at times; Every one wants to decide for themselves; though Iran could use them for wrong reasons which the US did too in Japan; the problem is with those that want power; power over others; and they lie lie and cheat in washington; America is no longer a nation of honest/true leaders; when calamities strike they come to their knees. terrorism is not at all a threat to the US. its drugs/guns/immoral acts/God.

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Anonymous Coward]

There was also the British Mandate for Palestine set up when the UK took the region away from Turkey in WW1. The Mandate was given by the League of Nations in 1922. That was what the Jewish settlers were invading. But it was a lot more complicated than a single-point-in-time military invasion - see the Wikipedia article, linked above.

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Anonymous Coward]

Go read up on entrysm

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[zero.kalvin]

I suppose he is referring to immigrants that came from around the world to Palestine. Aka non-arab jews.

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[elrous0]

Wish I could mod this up. A lot of people don't realize that the Palestinians are descendents of the Hebrews who once made up ancient Israel too. The average Palestinian has way more ancestors from ancient Israel than any modern european Jew.

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[marcosdumay]

Seems like the modus operant.

Once they have the bomb everybody just calm down. They stay saying bad things, but they don't act based on those. And that seems to be true for both sides.

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Issarlk]

It would probably be something similar to that:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110103184052/http://www.spunk.org/library/cartoons/wildcat/sp000583.gif

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonetheless- you can't tell the people descended from those that moved there from Europe and America to "go-back" that is impractical.

Why not? On a similar line, we here in the US tell all the Mexican's to go home all the time.

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Rakarra]

You've got a serious chicken/egg issue there. Wouldn't the Jews have been the original occupants of that area until successive generations of occupiers pushed them out? Who is the real invader?

When a certain number of years pass, a people who don't live in an area cease to have any claim whatsoever on it. It's not theirs, and it never was. That they had land hundreds or thousands of years should have absolutely no bearing. So yes, the taking of land in the 1940s to form the state of Israel was a travesty.

However, by the same rule, it's also too late. The Israelis have been there so long that it'd now be a crime to push them out. This doesn't touch the subject of the displacement of people today by, say, settlements. Lands captured in conflicts are a trickier subject too.

You might wonder "what is this time period then?" And I don't really have the answer. The span of a human lifetime? Not easy for me to say.

Reign in Israel?

[wiredog]

Right. Because invading a country with ICBMs will work out so much better.

Re:Reign in Israel?

[elrous0]

I meant "rein in" wiseguy.

Re:Reign in Israel?

[wiredog]

Heh. Well, that does change the meaning just a bit... Damn homonyms.

Great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

...Piss off the ones with the nukes...that WILL use them.

Re:Great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

...Piss off the ones with the nukes...that WILL use them.

I assume your talking about the US of A? They are the only ones so far to have used them....

Ugh. Swift MTs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try translating that jumbled mess into a readable format. It's a pain.

Sanctions against Iran ARE an act of war

[Anonymous Coward]

We cannot afford any more wars.

If you think going toe-to-toe with Iran is a good idea, then i suggest you commit to donate 2x the annual federal taxes you currently pay and sign up for the military.

Double standards AGAIN....

[macraig]

Doesn't it seem interesting that Israel hasn't been penalized with such punishments when it already has a fistful of nukes and not just a nascent program to make one? Isn't it curious that the international community lacks the theory of mind to comprehend how Iran might justify a need for nuclear weapons in the same way that Israel or the United States did?

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[gtvr]

Have you noticed that Israel HAS nukes but hasn't used them, whereas Iran regularly tells people about which nations that they want to wipe from the face of the Earth?

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, indeed, that interesting.

Furthermore; Iran hasn't threatend to attack Israel, whereas Israel is constantly threatening to attack Iran.

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if he has, but I'm a completely ignorant AC, so I haven't. So please, do tell: who does Iran said they want to wipe off the face of the Earth? You got links/citations?

I'm not saying this out of spite. I'm seriously interested. Again, I'll gladly admit to be an ignoramus (and lazy, as I'm not doing the search myself) if it'll get you to post some links

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA has nukes, declared war and took it one step further than any of them...

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[macraig]

Statement of intent != action

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[rnswebx]

try this

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the right order. The USA declared war, and then it had nukes.

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[macraig]

Aside from statements of intent not being synonymous with action, how do you place, within the context of your hypocritical delusion, the documented plans and statements of the United States to use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union, including documented plans for first strike scenarios? I doubt those plans and statements are unique amongst the nuclear powers, either.

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's not interesting in the slightest. Israel isn't punished because they didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty. Therefore, they are not in violation of international law, and also not subject to inspection. Neither have India or Pakistan. It's not that hard to look up.

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you noticed that Israel has threatened and is threatening ALL its neighbours, collectively, with nuclear annihilation?

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that's right Iran uses its non-existent nukes every day. Where's the outrage!

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[macraig]

Are you actually claiming that Iran HAS signed said treaty? No? Well then...? If neither Iran nor Israel have signed it, then how exactly do you use this to justify penalizing one and not the other? Do you think that quoting Wikipedia somehow magically makes your argument less of a non sequitur?

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not looking to get modded down myself by some Israeli hardliner, but where's the impartial even handed meta-mods when they're needed? I saw this guy get modded down a point just minutes after he posted his questions, and they're very reasonable questions.

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you actually claiming that Iran HAS signed said treaty?

Actually, yes.

I'm a little lost on how you could read "three states have not signed", and miss the implication that everyone else had.

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

There's some controversy about the translation, but the fact that the official Iranian government translation uses "wipe off" kind of settles it for me. Their translation can be considered as reflecting Ahmadinejad intent.

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's not interesting in the slightest. Israel isn't punished because they didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty. Therefore, they are not in violation of international law, and also not subject to inspection.

Assuming that the Iran is indeed currently pursing the creation of nuclear weapons, something that even US agencies doubt ... What you're saying is that the Iran should just leave the treaty - and it would be in the clear - no sanctions, no war threads, right?

Besides, the states that have nuclear weapons and have signed the treaty are "oblidged to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles and pursue complete disarmament" (Article VI). I don't see much happening on that front, so where are the sanctions against these countries?

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[chilvence]

Your own link questions the complete authenticity of that quote. Ironically, it was mistranslated by Iranian press itself.

"the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time."

If I say the Taliban should be history, it doesn't mean that I want to nuke Afghanistan. Because that would start WWIII and end us all. Which would be stupid. I am of course extending the Iranian regime the courtesy of assuming it is not stupid.

Just in time!

[lsolano]

I bought just two days ago a Persian relic on eBay and thanks God I could transfer the $7000 via SWIFT!

It's not about nukes.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about dollar-backed oil.

Re:It's not about nukes.

[Anonymous Coward]

An old story... which also is claimed to be the reason for both Persian Gulf Wars.

Too bad it simply is not true.

Re:It's not about nukes.

[Myopic]

Mmm, no, it's about nukes.

Re:It's not about nukes.

[argStyopa]

Oh, is that the oil being exported by the country that's so energy-starved it needs to develop nuclear power?

Seriously, though: It's not about dollar-backed oil, despite the lovely conspiracy theories that enables.

Traders - for all their sins - are perhaps the most nakedly utilitarian animals on the planet. They will use the currency that they feel is most likely to hold its value one day to the next. Hell, they'd short-trade their grandmothers' kidneys if they'd hold their value reliably.

Please let me know what currency world wide is more transparent and stable than the dollar?

As much as the US economy is going down the craphole thanks to 50+ years of self-interested and gutless politicians on both sides, it is STILL better off than the EU oligarchies. Britain, sadly, just doesn't have the throw-weight anymore to buttress a 'world currency' or I'm certain the Pound would hold that position. The EU? I think that's self-evidently a disaster. The Ruble? Hahahahah. The Yuan? Sure, traders are going to use the currency of a command-economy that unashamedly conceals statistics, manipulates their currency, statistics, and economy to their own advantage (to a degree that would even embarrass the worst such actors in the US or Europe).

Re:It's not about nukes.

[phantomfive]

Because selling oil in Euros has been so good for the Euro, and so bad for the dollar? Look, both currencies are in a race to the bottom, because of factors that have nothing to do with oil.

You have to understand, that when a company in Korea buys something from a company in Chile, they do it in dollars. Why? Not because of oil, but because the dollar has the largest, most liquid capital markets in the world. You can take those dollars, buy treasuries, make .01%, and sell them a month later. It's a good deal if you have a lot of cash to work with.

That is why the dollar is king, not because of what Saudi Arabia or Iran does with Euros.

Re:It's not about nukes.

[chrb]

Oh, is that the oil being exported by the country that's so energy-starved it needs to develop nuclear power?

Totally discredited argument, even the U.S. government has conceded that burning oil to generate electricity would be stupid. This has been known for decades.

Re:It's not about nukes.

[Beerdood]

I'm not sure whether you actually mean that, or whether your comment is a humor attempt based on your user name

Re:It's not about nukes.

[jafac]

No. It was about the dollar/oil in Libya. It was about the dollar/oil in Iraq. And it's about the dollar/oil in Iran. The nukes are about deterring the inevitable invasion. The transition to oil bourse from petro dollar is seen as Iran's only alternative to develop an independent modern economy. But they know that others have tried, and have been smacked-down. Everyone else who trades in dollars is a de-facto western-bloc client state. They know that with nuclear weapons, they will have the independence to pull off the currency transition, because it will deter invasion. (of course, they underestimate us. I believe that the western powers will invade anyway. Nukes or no nukes. We are objectively at war with Pakistan. And they have nukes. no biggie)

Re:It's not about nukes.

[FishTankX]

....the Yen?

Re:It's not about nukes.

[Myopic]

I still think it's about the nukes. Sure, oil is a huge issue, obviously, but the reason we are taking this action at this time is because of the status of the nuke issue.

If only Iran had nukes...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd think that what is happening to Iran can be considered for all practical purposes an act of war.
Seriously, try uplugging the UK or France or the US from the International Banking System. I'd guess that 2 seconds later you'll start seeing tomahwaks missiles flying straight to whoever is reponsable for such a despicable act.

I'd hope that Iran tells the west to fuck off and finishes their military nuclear program. Once it's done no more shenanigans from the US and other corrupt democracies.

Not surprising, a bit sensationalist

[Overzeetop]

It's more like "many" banks in Iran are being temporarily blocked from processing transactions with the EU. It's not all the banks in Iraq, and it doesn't appear to apply to transactions anywhere outside of the EU. It probably will hurt the people the most, but that's true of practically every sanction available. And it's cheaper, takes less time, and is easier to recover from sanctions than bombing raids that wipe out a country's infrastructure, which is the alternative.

New SWIFT

[Anonymous Coward]

Cutting iran off SWIFT may lead to development of new messaging system between Iran, Russia, China etc. This would make banks of those countries less dependent on western entities.

Re:New SWIFT

[Coeurderoy]

It will probably just prompt massive increase of the chinese investments in iran ...
they do not care that much about swift, barter is nice, more margins...

US wants SWIFT war on Iran (because of oil bourse)

[jbaach]

"...wait for March 20, when the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in other currencies apart from the US dollar..."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB17Ak04.html

(No, I haven't read the full article, it was linked on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse#Opening )

Who are SWIFT?

[Grindalf]

Who are SWIFT? I've never heard of them before ...

Re:Who are SWIFT?

[youn]

Banks definitely have... that is how most of electronic wired transactions go through

Re:Who are SWIFT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well most bank transactions aren't as swift as their name implies.

Re:Who are SWIFT?

[Kalriath]

Stands for Society for Worldwide Inter-bank Financial Telecommunications. Those dark-ages things called "Wire Transfers" all pass through them. Not those middle-ages things you call "ACH Debits" though.

Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that it was Ahmadinejad's calling for the destruction of Israel that cause concern on the israeli side. I mean sure, he might just be saying that, and he might just be developing nuclear power for electrical usage but some can be forgiven to mistrust.

You say "Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda..." while there is propaganda, no one has forced Iran to support a president that has stated Israel would be wiped off the map, as terrorist organizations have done previously.

People that do not support their dictators tend to revolt, I believe.

Re:Clarification

[andyteleco]

While I don't like Ahmadineyad because after all he is a ruthless dictator, he never really said that Israel should be destroyed:

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/24-media-misquotes-threat-from-irans-president/

It's just one more example of media manipulation for the generation of hatred to later justify an invasion and/or screw-up of a country.

Re:Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Without too much dissection; from your referenced source:

"So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”
Rezhim-e is the word “regime,” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the landmass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad did not even refer to Israel by name, he instead used the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem)."

So really, he just wants to wipe out the israeli regime, why didn't you say that earlier? so much better now. I'll go to speak with the israeli people and calm them with these soothing words. "Don't worry, he just want to wipe our the regime, nothing personal."

I believe Iran has no real intent to attack Israel & maintain that Israel's stance and statements, leading to an eventual attack would prove a catastrophic mistake. At the same time, let's not try to put a dress on a pig and call it Barbie.

Re:Clarification

[andyteleco]

Well I do believe there is a big difference between being againss the Zionist regime and saying it should be "wiped off" (there could be also many interpretations for this) and sayin the WHOLE COUNTRY should be erradicated.

I don't like Israel's rulers either, and probably they would deserve being "wiped off" for all the bloodshed they are causing in Palestine, but I don't wish anything bad for the people of the country or jews in general. Will I now get the same treatment as Ahmadineyad?

SWIFT is now a political tool

[Anonymous Coward]

It can and will be used against anyone who opposes the US.

Re:SWIFT is now a political tool

[Kalriath]

No, they're subject to the laws of the EU in general and Belgium in particular. Not the US.

Sad world...

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel on the other hand, with all the nukes they have, gets a free SWIFT pass.
Even if Iran owned a nuclear weapon, they wouldn't want to nuke Israel. The mosque in Jerusalem is the second holiest in the Muslim world, after Mecca. Nuking Israel would mean the destruction of a holy Muslim city.

Re:Sad world...

[Canazza]

so, they could easilly nuke Tel Aviv and not disturb Jerusalem. Israel has more than one population center, and Tel Aviv IS the major financial center.

Re:Sad world...

[Anonymous Coward]

The distance between TelAviv and Jerusalem is 60km. A nuclear blast would impact botch cities.

Re:Sad world...

[saveferrousoxide]

Actually, "easily" isn't quite right. A modern nuke at the center of Tel Aviv would likely damage the Dome of the Rock and would actually cause 1st degree burns on people attending the mosque at the time.

Scroll down to the summary of effects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions

And then just for comparison:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=m&vpsrc=6&msid=213315406666518218600.0004add52cad03b1fc1d9&ll=31.778654,35.234774&spn=0.004104,0.006738&z=17&iwloc=lyrftr:m,3530997153513861536,31.778052,35.235386&f=d&daddr=Temple+Mount,+Old+City,+Jerusalem,+Israel+(%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%92%D7%93+%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%AA+%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%A2)&geocode=%3BCQgVpcDxKFdRFf_k5AEdO6YZAiGg8Rv-M58AMQ

Re:Sad world...

[saveferrousoxide]

Sorry. I said "would" and should have said "could."

Re:Sad world...

[domatic]

If they pick a day when the wind is blowing right, they could do an airburst of a 1MT or less weapon. That would flatten most of Tel Aviv and burn the parts that don't flatten and any fallout can blow out into Mediterranean sea.

Of course, there would be massive retaliation from Israel's two Dolphin class subs (at least). But then you can't have everything.

Re:Sad world...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... all these nuclear wars between nations which possess nuclear weapons, like India and Pakistan. And the horrible barrage of nukes between USA and USSR during the whole of the Cold War. Oh dear...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_deterrence

Re:Sad world...

[chrb]

And what do you think would happen to Tehran after this "oh-so-plausible" nuclear attack on Israel?

Chirac said it well: "Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."

The idea that the Iranian government would start a nuclear war with Israel is ridiculous.

Re:Sad world...

[dwye]

The distance between TelAviv and Jerusalem is 60km. A nuclear blast would impact botch cities.

The Iranians are not going to be exploding another Tzar Bomba. The weapons used on Tel Aviv would not affect Jerusalem.

OTOH, why would the Iranians care if the Mosque in Jerusalem disappears? It could always be rebuilt after the radiation clears. It is not like it was there before the original Muslim armies took the city from the Roman Empire (that part called Byzantine, but always acknowledged as the continuation of Constantine's), or that it wasn't extensively rebuilt and re-purified after the city was recaptured from the Crusaders. Any holiness that the Sunni-controlled site has to the Iranian Shiites would only be improved by removing the nasty Arabs (Iranian view of Arabs being about what the 19th century English thought of the Catholic Irish).

Re:Sad world...

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel on the other hand, with all the nukes they have, gets a free SWIFT pass.
Even if Iran owned a nuclear weapon, they wouldn't want to nuke Israel. The mosque in Jerusalem is the second holiest in the Muslim world, after Mecca. Nuking Israel would mean the destruction of a holy Muslim city.

Jerusalem is the second holiest in the Muslim world since when ? In their holy book, it is written that the superhero flew to an unnamed city on his magic horse at night and came back a few hours later. Many years later, some "serious" readers of their holy book with long beards started pretending the city where their superhero had flown to for a few hours was the holy city of the Jews. Reminds me of psychotic bullies in school always perversely twisting words and situations. You expecting psychos to behave rationally is pathetic.

As for Israeli nukes, the Israelis have had them for decades, have not used them, have not threatened any of their neighbors with using them. Which they could have done if they were psychos. But they are not. They are not perfect, but they are mainly rational.

Re:Ugh. Swift MTs.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't play MMOs. I had to look up wtf you meant by that, but yeah.

Paypal

[Hyperhaplo]

The effect will be to drastically hinder Iran's ability to execute international business transactions."

So... just use Paypal?

Re:Paypal

[Rik Sweeney]

So... just use Paypal?

Next week on Slashdot: PayPal ships millions of PayPal Here dongles to Iran.

Re:Paypal

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up on Slashdot: Iran pissed after their funds are placed on 90 day PayPal review.

Re:Paypal

[JamesP]

I mean what swift is doing is easy

DELETE from country_codes; where country='IRAN';

enter

OH WAIT OH WAIT

Re:Paypal

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, Little Ahmie Tables we call him.

Re:Paypal

[Hentes]

No, they will switch to bitcoins.

Re:Paypal

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they will switch to bitcoins.

Maybe you are joking, but if they would use bitcoins nobody in the world could halt their economic transactions.

And that's not a little thing :)

Re:Paypal

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean what swift is doing is easy

DELETE from country_codes; where country='IRAN';

enter

OH WAIT OH WAIT

I wish my DBMS recognized "OH WAIT OH WAIT" as a synonym for "ROLLBACK."

Re:Paypal

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think how many AMD cards they can power with one reactor

Re:Paypal

[Kjellander]

Totally. To all Iranians doing business. Switch to bitcoins right now.

Re:Paypal

[Hyperhaplo]

I can see the humour here.. but.. I am sure some bright business spark is currently contemplating just that.. image it.. buy a bank dongle like you can currently buy an internet dongle.. it'll work just about anywhere an internet dongle will work (requires net access)...

Sarcasm aside, this is an excellent idea. Security would need to be carefully controlled. Hmmm

Well this has always worked great in the past...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't it usually been these types of embargoes and sanctions that make these places go further downhill and drive them into even more an adversarial position? Turning a country into a poverty stricken wasteland isn't really the way to prevent it's citizens from wanting to strike back at you, but I suppose being on remotely good terms with others isn't what keeps the DHS funding coming.

Note: I don't support Iran or any nuclear weapons development they may be doing, just calling the most likely result ahead of time.

Seems like a lot of power

[Sez Zero]

Seems like a lot of power for a little NGO.

SWIFT is a co-operative society under Belgian law, which its shareholders own and control

Just in case you didn't think global capitalism and corporations were significant, here's a good reminder.

Re:Seems like a lot of power

[Marcika]

SWIFT is an interchange and netting network owned by the financial institutions that do the interchange and netting. If SWIFT (and similar networks) were not in place, they'd do the same transactions via 1-to-1 agreements.

The real abuses of power come not from SWIFT's shareholders but by the EU and US government putting pressure on it to use it for their goals. This would be not better but a lot worse if SWIFT were a government agency...

Re:Seems like a lot of power

[Anonymous Coward]

SWIFT is the company that the US use to spy on financial transactions of banks around the world: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/28/swift_us_privacy_violation/

Fiddling with the knobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder what this will do the OPEC relations? This may have the effect of "reducing" the available supply of crude, and may spike the oil price. This whole thing smells of market manipulation.

Do they change their name to SIFT now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing that they're no longer 'Worldwide'.

In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

BTC jumps 5000% as Iran desperately seeks to reconnect to the global economy.

War Propaganda

[MrJones]

I wonder what is the position of Slashdot Editors towards war, or towards a war against Iran.

Has this post anything to do about "news for nerds"?

Re:War Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a piece about what can happen when you rely on someone to manage a computer system for all of your international banking transactions. I get that there's an enormous political undercurrent to it, but at heart it's a "[group] is being deleted from the [computer system] at the request of [political entity] which will massively hinder their [online activity]. Insert Pirate Bay, political blogger, science blogger, etc.

Besides, the wording is pretty neutral. It's not like it said "The extremely dangerous and paranoid Iranian government is being cut off by the financial world in an attempt to prevent them from continuing to build high-yield nuclear weapons to destroy The World with."

Re:War Propaganda

[robinsonne]

Just because it's not technology related, doesn't mean it's not news.

Re:War Propaganda

[MrJones]

The problem is that his website is only about technology. I can go to CNN for other kind of news. You get the point?

Re:Ugh. Swift MTs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, not be confused with Swifty

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/darkspear/Swifty/simple

Who is threatning who?

[mrops]

Came across this the other day....

I would want Nukes if I saw this.

http://www.conspiracyuk.co.uk/iran-who-is-threatening-who/

Re:Who is threatning who?

[realityimpaired]

One of those black dots representing a military base is in the middle of the arabian sea.... While it is probably meant to represent the presence of a US carrier battlegroup or something, it's a bit disingenuous to call it a military base.

That's not to say that the US military presence in the middle east isn't excessive, nor that Iran doesn't have a right to be a bit twitchy, especially with idiots on the Republican primary trail saying that the first thing they'd do if they're elected president is invade Iran, but they shouldn't need to manufacture an american military base on the bottom of the ocean in order to convince people that Iran has a point....

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that is supposed to be the naval base on Diego Garcia, even though the dot is far too north, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

A US aircraft carrier can keep more planes in the air than most countries entire air force. If that doesn't count as a military base then I don't know what does.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Savage-Rabbit]

A US aircraft carrier can keep more planes in the air than most countries entire air force. If that doesn't count as a military base then I don't know what does.

That's not all, a US aircraft carrier group is bigger than most countries entire navies as well and if you thrown in a couple of marine divisions and some landing craft they'd probably give most standing armies on earth as a run for their money as well.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Compaqt]

Middle of the Arabian Sea?

I'm wondering if you're referring to the US base at the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[artemis67]

So, with that many US bases surrounding them, antagonizing the US by engaging in a highly controversial nuclear weapons program helps them how?

Re:Who is threatning who?

[mrxak]

This is especially funny considering people think Iran could possibly close the Strait of Hormuz while we have a carrier group in the area. I'm sure oil speculators will still cause a ruckus if Iran ever tries, though, even after we sink Iran's entire navy in the same day they make their attempt.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[realityimpaired]

That's a possibility, but the dot on the map is too far north, and too far west... it's off by thousands of miles. As it's depicted on the map that the GGP posted, it's in the middle of open water in the arabian sea, which is why I thought maybe it was representing a carrier battle group.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[mrxak]

Which is why it's so silly to think of Iran as a rational actor as some have unfortunately claimed. No rational nation would decide to build nuclear weapons in this day and age. Developing them just makes everyone nervous and want to build their own. Having them just increases your responsibilities. Using them just assures your own annihilation.

Yes, there's the theory that by having them you prevent anyone from ever wanting to invade you. But that's only a reason to already have them, not to get everyone's ire by trying to get them. If you want to join the nuclear club, you do it in absolute secrecy, then make a big announcement after you're already armed. But once the secret's already out about your development efforts, it's time to apologize, state your clear intentions not to keep going all the way, and quickly dismantle whatever you've done.

Okay, so they're worried about us maybe invading them someday, but why would we do that? Because we seem eager to get into wars in the region? Well, not really, not really. We went into Afghanistan because we got attacked. We went into Iraq because we thought they were making WMDs. The lesson here is not that we are jumping at the chance to invade countries all over the middle east, but that we will only do so if you attack us or threaten mushroom clouds. Granted the Iraqi WMD thing turned out to not be quite as big a deal as we may have once thought, but clearly the solution to not being next is not brazenly building nukes right next door.

Let's face it, Iran is already plenty powerful and influential in the region. We saw to that by bumping off their biggest rival, Iraq. They don't need a bomb, now, nor should they want a bomb. They seem to be trying to get one anyway. If they're this reckless about acquiring nuclear weapons, how reckless will they be once they have them? Scary stuff.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[JonathanX]

A couple of Marine divisions is pretty much 2/3rds of the USMC...so um, yeah...you're probably right.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[b5bartender]

Except there's a problem with your statement--there is zero evidence that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons. Even the US Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged this fact in his testimony before Congress. The "crazy" and "irrational" hyperbole that keeps creeping up in anti-Iran rhetoric only serves the interests of the hawks who want war.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

You went to Afghanistan and Iraq, and golf etc not because of being attacked (Al Qaeda Afghanistan) or for WMD (the whole world was fucking laughing at your poor excuse for war, remembering well the fake tanks used to justified the last one on Hussein) but to pressure those countries into playing nice with you on the oil market, and maybe placing a puppet or two here and there (what you call 'bringing liberal democracy to the world iirc'). Bush made a clear threat about invading Iran, and the only thing that would deter the US to invade and being all around dickheads is a nuke or ninety aimed at your fat asses.
Stupid stuff.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

While it wouldn't be exact according to that simplified map, that black dot could actually represent Diego Garcia where we do hold a naval base in the Indian Ocean and acts as a staging point for that entire region.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[MightyMartian]

Most of the estimates I've read suggest that any attempt by Iran to close the Strait would pretty much lead to the obliteration of their navy, airforce and anti-aircraft capabilities in about a week. Libya's airforce and anti-aircraft capabilities was quickly dispatched, and most of the campaign was spent offering air support to the rebels.

Yes, Iran has lots of theoretical soldiers, mainly poorly equipped Basij, but what good does a fanatic with a rifle do against a bomber or an aircraft carrier a hundred miles off the coast. If the objective is to limit or eliminate Iran's capability of projecting its force into the Strait or the Gulf in general, and not having to actually invade or support any kind of hostilities on the ground, it would be very easy.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. support Iraq's invasion of Iran. The U.S. also shot down an Iranian airliner with 280 civilians in it by accident. Israel is killing off their scientists.

And of course the U.S. overthrew their democratic government for a puppet dictator who would ensure BP could continue to steal their oil.

Iran as been constantly screwed over by the West, a nuclear weapon would provide them some protection.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[sjames]

I'm not so sure it's disingenuous, an aircraft carrier is MEANT to be like a mobile airbase.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't live in a country that *has* nukes already by any chance? Easy for you to say not having them is rational. You get rid of yours and we'll stop building ours...

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you guys all out of your minds? Do you know who Ahmadinejad is?

The guy wrote a manifesto on how he wants to cleanse the world by bringing about a nuclear apocalypse.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We went into Iraq because we thought they were making WMDs"

Who is this "we" you keep rationalizing all your babble with?

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, here's the thing. Iraq kept telling everyone very loudly that it didn't have WMDs. We invaded them, and it turned out they were right. So telling people that you don't have WMDs doesn't seem to be a particularly good way to stop the U.S. from trying to invade.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really believe those were the reasons for why you went into Irak, Afghanistan, Libya etc?

The american populace is even more stupid than I could imagine.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the US and Israeli intelligence communities Iran hasn't decided to build nuclear weapons ergo by your reasoning they are rational.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

We went into Iraq because we thought they were making WMDs

You maybe believe that, but as a european I can tell you hardly anyone here believes that.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Gavagai80]

According to American intelligence, Iran hasn't even decided yet if they're trying to build nukes. Given that they're being punished widely already for not yet building them, it makes far more sense to go ahead and build them and then use them to extract concessions for disarming in the same way North Korea continually does.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Developing them just makes everyone nervous and want to build their own. Having them just increases your responsibilities."

Yeah, because just having nukes makes no-one nervous and wanting to build their own.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

We went into Iraq because we thought they were making WMDs.

Is this satire, or do you actually believe that? Fox news much?

Re:Who is threatning who?

[ciggieposeur]

We went into Iraq because we thought they were making WMDs.

That was the excuse we gave. The actual reasons were 1) Cheney wanted Iraq's oil and 2) Bush was mental and wanted to prove he was tougher than his father.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[mattack2]

I was against the Iraq war (and it's a major reason I voted for Obama).. But didn't the UK government agree with the U.S. government at the time? Maybe they're part of your 'hardly anyone'.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is threatening whom, motherfucker.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that counts for nothing even in a country of bearded sheep-shepherd jihadists that the US just can't beat. Like the russians and the british before them. Vietnam didn't teach you the lesson, did it? Pity you need a few thousands of young men and women to get it. Again.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, by now even the general populace knows (and so should you) that Iraq was invaded simply because the government wanted to - they knew well enough that they weren't making WMD's and fabricated it all to please the voters.

    So it's quite obvious to every country that they should not rely that avoiding, by your words "attack us or threaten mushroom clouds" is irrelevant, behaving in a moral fashion doesn't matter and that only thing that counts in diplomacy against USA is actually having (or getting) something powerful.

Iraq: No WMD+oil -> "wmd threat" manufactured and leader hanged; North Korea: loudly screams about WMD+no oil = dictator gets assistance from USA and smiles until dies of heartattack.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Savantissimo]

Err... there is no credible evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite all the inspections. As signers of the non-proliferation treaty, Iran is entitled to the assistance of all other signatories in developing the full nuclear cycle, including enrichment and reactors. The US is not meeting its obligations under the treaty, to say the least. There is quite literally nothing Iran could do that would satisfy the US government, let alone Israel, so they might as well carry on.

The rest of your post is also wrong. If we invaded Afghanistan because "they attacked us", then how come Pakistan ans Saudi Arabia weren't given the same treatment, though they has as much or more to do with the attacks as the government of Afghanistan? How come we refused to give any evidence of OBL's crimes to the Afghans when they offered to put him on trial, prior to the invasion? How come the forces for the invasion were already in place on 9/11? Sure looks like a convenient excuse for what was already in the works. And is it really a coincidence that opium production went from near-zero to 90% of the world market immediately after the invasion, with our buds the Northern Alliance producing the lion's share?

As for Iraq, we know that the intelligence was deliberately falsified by those at the very top, who literally would not listen to anything that didn't confirm their preconceptions. They may have believed that there were WMDs, but they had no factual reason to believe that. More likely they were deliberately lying to the public for their own greedy, corrupt reasons.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

3) Saddam Hoessein was threatening to sell his oil for Euros rather than US$, threatening the end of the Petrodollar
</conspiracy_theory>

Oh wait, isn't that what Iran is also going to do next week.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

No rational nation would decide to build nuclear weapons in this day and age.

Here you are wrong. It is perfectly rational. Iran's democratically elected government was overthrown by a US coop in 1953, which installed a bloody dictator (as is the usual case with US "democracy" spreading efforts).

North Korea has not been invaded. Non-nuke countries have been invaded and destroyed by the US in its insatiable natural resources grab.

Iran would be perfectly rational to try to protect itself from US and Israeli aggression by pursuing a nuke.

Thing is, all evidence points that they are not. The US and Israel are just trying to stir the pot with propaganda to justify yet another war of aggression against Iran.

Both the US and Israel are the the the largest exporters of terror in the world today, and for the US, for the last half century.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[shutdown -p now]

No rational nation would decide to build nuclear weapons in this day and age. Developing them just makes everyone nervous and want to build their own. Having them just increases your responsibilities. Using them just assures your own annihilation.

If that's so, why don't the UNSC members voluntarily surrender theirs?

Yes, there's the theory that by having them you prevent anyone from ever wanting to invade you. But that's only a reason to already have them, not to get everyone's ire by trying to get them. If you want to join the nuclear club, you do it in absolute secrecy, then make a big announcement after you're already armed. But once the secret's already out about your development efforts, it's time to apologize, state your clear intentions not to keep going all the way, and quickly dismantle whatever you've done.

That would depend on where in your program you are, and how fast do you think you can complete it. It also depends on how you estimate your enemies - how willing they actually are to strike, how much indecisiveness and foot-dragging is involved, and how much misinformation can you feed them to make them think you're further behind than you actually are.

In this case, Iran is clearly gambling at getting nukes before U.S. is willing to join in, and they're not afraid of Israel alone. Sounds like a reasonable gamble to me.

Okay, so they're worried about us maybe invading them someday, but why would we do that? Because we seem eager to get into wars in the region? Well, not really, not really. We went into Afghanistan because we got attacked. We went into Iraq because we thought they were making WMDs. The lesson here is not that we are jumping at the chance to invade countries all over the middle east, but that we will only do so if you attack us or threaten mushroom clouds. Granted the Iraqi WMD thing turned out to not be quite as big a deal as we may have once thought, but clearly the solution to not being next is not brazenly building nukes right next door.

Let me rephrase that for you. What you're saying is that U.S. attacked Iraq under the premise that they already have, or are actively developing, WMDs (and it was not about some decades-old chem weapons stashed in reserve - I recall rhetoric about "mushroom clouds" and all that) - except that, in practice, there was no such thing, and UN has said so all along the way. So, pray tell, why wouldn't U.S. claim that Iran has WMDs - whether it does have them or not - and attack anyway?

U.S. (and, more broadly, NATO) has been shown time and again to be attacking countries based on its own urges that have nothing to do with their actions, potential threat level or pretty much anything else. So long as you guys think it's in your advantage, and so long as you think you can actually pull it off, you invent an excuse, and go in. There has been far more than Iraq and Afghanistan, by the way - need I remind about Kosovo, Yemen and Libya? Heck, Kosovo War could well be a role model - accuse Iran of repressing, say, separatist Kurds (which it undeniably does), keep up the heat for a few months, then finally invade in a "humanitarian operation".

Now, looking at it from Iran's perspective - they know that, so long as they are considered an enemy, they will be invaded, whether they have nukes or not. Furthermore, even if they don't have nukes, they will likely be blamed of having them to provide some basis for the invasion, just as Iraq was. It's no surprise, then, that they have pretty much decided to go all in and hope that they might actually get nukes before the shootout begins - because that might just prevent it from happening, and pretty much nothing else will.

Let's face it, Iran is already plenty powerful and influential in the region. We saw to that by bumping off their biggest rival, Iraq. They don't need a bomb, now, nor should they want a bomb. They seem to be trying to get one anyway. If they're thi

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why it's so silly to think of Iran as a rational actor as some have unfortunately claimed. No rational nation would decide to build nuclear weapons in this day and age. Developing them just makes everyone nervous and want to build their own. Having them just increases your responsibilities. Using them just assures your own annihilation.

You forgot to mention that developing nuclear weapons means you won't be invaded. Which, when you're near militaristic countries like Israel (who do have nuclear weapons) is a big deal. Also, using nuclear weapons only ensures your annihilation if the enemy country has a huge number of them (and manages to fire them). Otherwise, the US wouldn't exist since it used its nuclear weapons against the civil population of an already defeated enemy.

In the case of Iran, there is no proof that they have nuclear bombs. You can't make a working nuke without testing it, and tests are damn easy to detect. The leadership of Iran is by no means irrational, they just play the part - you know, the same way the politicians who rule over you know damn well what they're doing but do "stupid" things all the time (like bridges to nowhere, which make a good deal of money for the company that builds the bridge, or saying "stupid" things to make other people vote for them (you'll still vote for them despite this since they're still better than the other guy...)).

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

... we thought they were making WMDs

Who is this 'we'. Thirty million people got on the national news and called Bush/Blair/Howard lying little cunts, but we invaded Iraq anyway.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

We went into Iraq because we thought they were making WMDs.

It's 2012 and you still believe the bullshit of the Bush administration?

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, there is no proof that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. As a signtory of the non-proliferation treaty, Iran's nuclear program is monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Secondly, Iran has not attacked any other country in their history, while the US has attacked other countries on ~200 occassions.

If they were developing a nuclear weapon, they is no evidence that they intend to use it, and futhermore lacking ICBM or strategic bombers they have no way to deliver it.

And finally, there is well documented evidence that the US has started multiple wars based on lies. Iran is currently not at war with _ANYONE_, while the US has invaded two of Iran's neighbors (Iraq and Afganistan), is bombing another of its neighbors (Pakistan) and have/are bombing other nations in the region and elsewhere (Yemen, Somalia, Lybia, etc.)
So who is the threat?

Re:Who is threatning who?

[coredog64]

As signers of the non-proliferation treaty, Iran is entitled to the assistance of all other signatories in developing the full nuclear cycle, including enrichment and reactors.

You conveniently left out that the NPT also requires them to allow the IAEA unfettered access to their program to confirm that it's civilian in nature. That is not happening and is used as justification for the sanctions.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[coredog64]

International law holds that an embassy is essentially the sovereign territory of that country. It may be before your time, but there was a little dust up where some "students" invaded a US embassy and held ~ 50 US citizens hostage for more than a year. You might want to check Wikipedia or something...

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: The USA manufactured the lie about WMD to get other western nations to go into Iraq with them and help them plunder the country. The USA is constantly sticking its fingers into other peoples pies. With China getting involved in Africa more and more the USA will be back there fighting a war directly or indirectly through 'private military contractors' within the next decade.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Savantissimo]

Yet in fact they have given unfettered access to their nuclear sites. You also left out the fact that the Security Council has no right to override the NPT with demands that Iran cease enrichment, thus the legal basis for sanctions just isn't there. Not to mention the fact that we were willing to give the brutal Shah a plutonium reprocessing plant (uncompleted), but as soon as the popular revolution threw out the corrupt regime , we not only stole all the Iranians' foreign assets, including all of Iran's uranium which had been sent out to an Iranian joint venture company in France to be enriched.

Iran's oil is going to run out, and in the meantime, it's their only major foreign trade item. They need nuclear power, they have a right to nuclear power and any idea that the US or Israel or the UN Security Council has the right to deny the ancient and sovereign nation of Iran the rights allowed even some private corporations in the West is just pure chutzpah. If any part of the nuclear cycle is subject to foreign veto, Iran will never be independent, it will be unable to even keep the lights on without being a servile subject to foreign powers.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[sixtyeight]

Correct, and rather obvious.

Similar: Iran recently decided to quit selling its oil to Europe, probably due to a lot of the political corruption and strong-arming tactics. The press blatantly misreported it as: Europe decides to stop buying Iran's oil.

It's possible this /. story is describing some of the backlash from Iran's decision to do that.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Kalriath]

Actually, it's a common misconception that embassies are sovereign territory. They do enjoy something akin to diplomatic immunity, and by treaty the host nation may not enter one without permission of the represented country, but they are most assuredly as sovereign a a shop down the road from them.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[HArchH]

It's a ship. It is not a base.

Is a Trident submarine a base?

I a terrorist walking into a cafe with a bomb vest a base?

No to both.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[HArchH]

Iran's navy is not the main threat to Gulf shipping. I would be surprised if their navy (other than the suicide idiots in the speed boats) even leaves their docks during such a conflict. It is their missile system that would need to be destroyed to prevent their setting a tanker or two ablaze and to the bottom of the straight, blocking it to all other tankers. Keeping a country with a long and proximate shore from scoring any hits on slow moving ship traffic would be next to impossible without a serious land invasion and the destruction of all military equipment for more than 20 miles from the shipping lanes. They won't have to hit with every missile they launch to be effective. They only have to hit with one.

Maybe the Iranian navy sent their largest ships to the Mediterranean to keep them out of harm's way? Kind of like burying your air force in the dessert...

Re:Who is threatning who?

[ewok85]

And the US has how many carriers? And how many are within 3 days sailing distance of Iran?

Would keep me up at night too....

Re:Who is threatning who?

[phantomfive]

Your information is a bit out of date, check it out.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[b5bartender]

Citing older references isn't helping your case. The DNI's Congressional testimony regarding Iran was given January 31 this year. Furthermore, the link you cited doesn't support your implication anyway--it clearly says there hasn't been any supporting evidence of active development since 2003, only a suggestion that Iran MAY have continued a lower level of research since.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[phantomfive]

Ah, I see. You've heard a testimony that supports your preconceived opinion, and are unwilling to actually look for or consider evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, when someone presents evidence to you, drops it in your lap, you ignore all the parts that don't support your preconceived ideas. Worse, you have mischaracterized the testimony. What he actually said, "“They are certainly moving on that path, but we don’t believe they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon." What you said, "there is zero evidence that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons." You probably can't tell the difference between those two sentences, though, and why yours is wrong, because of your preconceived notions.

Forgive me, I won't try to use truth to pop your happy bubble again.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[lsatenstein]

All the eggs in one basket means great vulnerability elsewhere.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a blithering moron.

Nobody but a few cocksure drunks thought Iraq was seeking UnClear Weapons.

&orz

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't they have the plan to simply dump every naval mine they find in the narrowest place?

Should that to USA too

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you have your bombs or keep starting wars without UN approval.

Iran doesnt project military force

[voss]

It backs terrorist groups in Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey,etc,etc. Then again we made nice with Qaddafi before we starting shooting his own people and he blew up a US airliner and bombed a cafe full of US soldiers.

If you really want to get an idea of bizarre US policy look at Cuba. Cuba hasnt sponsored Terrorism in 40 years and is still embargoed while we did business with Qaddafi and Iran. Americans can visit North Korea a country we are still technically at war with but they cant visit Cuba a country we were never at war with and we are one of their largest trading partners.

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[ultranova]

If you really want to get an idea of bizarre US policy look at Cuba. Cuba hasnt sponsored Terrorism in 40 years and is still embargoed while we did business with Qaddafi and Iran.

How is that bizarre? Terrorism doesn't threaten the rich and the powerful - if anything, it works in their favour by presenting a fearsome but ultimately powerless boogeyman to act as an excuse for depriving everyone else of freedom in the name of "security" - while communism does.

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[gmack]

That is mainly because Castro likes the embargo and has actively worked against being removed. The half baked embargo allowed Fidel Castro to blame the Americans for everything that went wrong in Cuba even if it had nothing to do with the embargo.
Check this out

Clinton noted that in 1996, when her husband former President Bill Clinton was seeking to improve ties, Cuba shot down two small U.S. planes that were distributing leaflets. The incident effectively ended that overture.

Since then he has made sure to lob insults at both Bush and Obama near the beginning of their terms just to make sure the embargo sticks.

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorism is simply a matter of perspective. One person sees them as a patriot and the other as a terrorist.

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[Anonymous Coward]

Because invading Cuba's airspace was clearly a smart move eh?
You know, one can easily look at this from a different angle.
The US likes the embargo, but wants to look like they're trying to be the good guys, so they're 'seeking to improve ties' while at the same time disrespecting Cuba and forcing them to shoot down two planes.
But no, obviously the mad Cubans are at fault with their warmongering and especially because Castro loves the embargo.

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[GameboyRMH]

fearsome but ultimately powerless boogeyman

Sounds like he has the power to boogey down! (and do whatever he can)

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember 9/11? Guess who backed that one up...

Hint: It wasn't Iran; it was a country that's supposed to be "friends" with the US.

Remember where Bin Laden was found? Guess who hid him...

Hint: It wasn't Iran; it was a(nother) country that's supposed to be "friends" with the US.

Your point was...?

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to discuss black ops, there are a lot of american black ops. But he was asking about official crap.

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[chrb]

Right now, the U.S., either directly or via Mossad, is backing terrorist groups in Iran that are murdering scientists.

People in glass houses...

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[Rakarra]

Because invading Cuba's airspace was clearly a smart move eh?
You know, one can easily look at this from a different angle.
The US likes the embargo, but wants to look like they're trying to be the good guys, so they're 'seeking to improve ties' while at the same time disrespecting Cuba and forcing them to shoot down two planes.
But no, obviously the mad Cubans are at fault with their warmongering and especially because Castro loves the embargo.

The embargo still exists because of one major reason -- there is a giant ex-Cuban population in Florida and they are rabidly anti-Castro. They oppose any attempt to lift the embargo. Florida is a disproportionately powerful swing state in the Presidential election (it was the deciding state in 2000, but it's always been a tough area). No President can afford to disregard them.

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just basic geopolitics powerplay. US has also sponsored "terrorist" groups all over Latin America and more. Israel occupied Lebanon and sponsored
various pro-Israeli Christian Arab militias and Iran/Syria sponsored Hezbollah. There was in the news a week ago when an ex-Israeli intelligence chief saui that Iran was a "rational actor". They do not want to wipe anyone off the map but will allow anyone to interfere with their regional power status which
is well deserved due to their size, population and generally high development level.

Re:blame ze juze!!

[Anonymous Coward]

the jewss the jewssssssssblameeee thE jewwwwwwsss!!!!!
and then blame the blacks right after.

...and it's amazing how often you'll be absolutely right.

Re:US wants SWIFT war on Iran (because of oil bour

[Opportunist]

Noooooo, them being blocked in international trade is entirely unrelated to the Iran daring to sell its oil for anything but Dollars. And the timing is also purely coincidentally.

Re:No, Ahmadinnerjacket is not a dictator

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he isn't a dictator. The Supreme Leader is the one actually in charge.

Easier

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a heck of a lot easier just to disable Iran's SWIFT codes, rather than delete them. That way, when they are turned back on next month, you don't need to recreate them, but rather just re-enable them. Honestly, won't someone think of the admin?

Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

The bottom line is that I don't trust anyone with nuclear weapons, especially the US government. Why especially? Because the US government is the only government that has actually used their nuclear weapons, deliberately killing innocents. (You can't use a nuclear weapon without deliberately killing innocents.) And you can't argue with history.

I certainly don't trust the Iranian government either, but surely I can't be the only one who doesn't see the logic in trusting a government that HAS used nuclear weapons, while at the same time distrusting a government that has not?

I see the problem now. The people that trust the US government fancy themselves being on the same team as the US government. That couldn't be further from the truth, even if you are a US citizen.

Barter HELPS avoid sanctions

[Gothmolly]

How do you track when someone swaps 100 tons of wheat or 100 bars of gold for some barrels of oil? You can't. If you "let" them use the international monetary system, you have a means of tracking all their activites. Follow the money and you find the bad guys. Giving them a pass on that lets them trade with whomever they want without any trace.

Re:Barter HELPS avoid sanctions

[Anonymous Coward]

We know where the "bad" guys are, they're running Iran. So now we know where they are, what next? Well, maybe we could invade them, or perhaps we could apply some other kind of pressure and hope they see sense without anyone getting hurt, and maybe that pressure could be in the form of blocking their international money transactions. Sure you won't be able to stop them bartering, but we invented money because bartering was a pain the ass because it required both parties to have things the other one wants.

Re:Barter HELPS avoid sanctions

[zoloto]

Is it should be anyways. I'm sick of governments tracking and cataloging everyone.

WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill"

[unassimilatible]

Obama already reached out to Iran. He began his presidency apologetically acknowledging U.S. involvement in a coup that happened more than 50 years ago. He then offered bilateral negotiations that, predictably, failed miserably (that was the whole plan of two-party talks, to blame the mean Americans and walk out). And, of course, Obama didn't support the 2009 uprising (when protesters were yelling, "where are you Obama?"), and has continued the blacklisting of Mujahedin-e Khalq (or MEK), the Iranian dissident movement as a terror organization, so as not to upset the Mullahs.

And what did Obama get for his "goodwill" as you put it?

Continued lethal Iranian assistance to guerrillas killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by blowing up a Washington restaurant; the announcement by a member of parliament of Iranian naval exercises to shut down the Strait of Hormuz; undoubted Chinese and Russian access to a captured U.S. drone for the copying and countering of its high-tech secrets.

It's worked great! Let's try appeasement again. Because this time will be different.

Re:WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill"

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, all these attacks have nothing to do with US invading said countries after all. ...

Dear Americans, you do so much for worldwide democracy by killing our civilians and raping our wives and sisters. It's a pleasure to welcome you in our country, here, destroy my house and build your shelter on top of it. All hail to the tank!

Your friend,
Abdul

Re:WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill"

[iluvcapra]

1) Iranians already knew the US put the Shah in power and any "apology" only reasserted facts that had been commonplace since the 70s, and which the British had already acknowledged in any event. What most Iranians are waiting for is the apology from the US for putting the Ayatollah in power -- my Persian girlfriend (left in 2005) tells me that pretty much everyone in the democratic and monarchist movements in Iran assume that the US was behind exiling the Shah to Egypt and putting Ayatollah Khomeini in power, and it really doesn't matter how many times I try to explain to her that the US had nothing to gain from it. All Iranian reformers know is that their country has been completely fucked up by the ayatollahs, America benefits from Iran being fucked up (for oil, ???, profit), thus America put the ayatollahs in power, QED.

2) The Wikileaks cables made it clear that the MEK is a cult that once proposed mass suicides and uses brainwashing to adhere members. It's lobbying campaign in the US Congress and ability to win support in that august body is despicable.

3) The leader of the 2009 uprising, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, was a strident supporter of Iran's nuclear program and the constitution of the Iranian republic in general -- we could discount his claims as rhetoric, but then we have to throw out just about everything Ahmadi says on the same grounds. The fact is there are no good options for "regime change" in Iran for the US, or Israel for that matter -- the current leaders are bad, their rivals in the reform movement agree with them on everything that bothers the US and Israel, the Iranian people are naturally and endogenously hostile to US and Israeli regional goals (because those goals are imperialist), and the only way you could take Iran off the threat board is by putting a deeply unpopular government in power and making Iran a client state. And the Iranian people know this and support the regime accordingly, because it's a hell of a lot better than any solution the west proposes.

The idea that democracies are less belligerent is a fallacy. A democratic Iran would be spinning just as many centrifuges as an Islamic Republic. More even.

With regard to the list of all the horrible things Iran has done to the US, yeah it's rough but this is the sort of thing countries do to each other. Some plot against the Saudi ambassador isn't a causus belli any more than the US and Mossad's covert murders of Iranian scientists. And refraining from bombing them isn't "appeasement."

Re:WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill"

[misexistentialist]

So Obama "said he was sorry" while encircling Iran with wars of occupation and restrictive sanctions, as well as continuing to damage Iranian interests with a multitude of covert and political operations. That's only counts as "goodwill" if you assume that USA global dominance is unquestionable.

Re:WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill"

[jafac]

The idea that democracies are less belligerent is a fallacy.

. . . well this was even true of ancient Athens. Or the Scandinavians (Vikings), who were Monarchy/Parliamentarians, but still a form a democracy. Famously rather belligerent, for several hundred years.

Re:WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill"

[shutdown -p now]

Continued lethal Iranian assistance to guerrillas killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan

Wouldn't be a problem if there weren't any Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, don't you think?

undoubted Chinese and Russian access to a captured U.S. drone for the copying and countering of its high-tech secrets.

The nerve it takes to write this... so there's a U.S. drone flying over Iran spying at them, they bring it down, and then you accuse them of treating it as war booty?

I have news for you; when Serbia shot down an F-117 during the Kosovo campaign, they also gave Russians access. In fact, right now everyone has access, given that it's in their war museum. Ohnoes!

Maybe you just shouldn't fly your precious secret tech where it can be legitimately shot down?

It's worked great! Let's try appeasement again. Because this time will be different.

"Appeasement" was, in effect, surrendering a sovereign country to the Nazis in hope that they will be satiated with that much. Last I checked, Iran did not invade or threatened to invade any countries. Support for resistance movements elsewhere is a whole different kettle of fish, and not the one that U.S. has any say over, given its own history of supporting anti-communist resistance movements elsewhere (need I remind you of Democratic Republic of Afghanistan?).

West cutting its nose to spite its face

[dataxtream]

The SWIFT system was constructed by the west to manage bank transfers. You can be sure that Iran will alternatives to it - just as Iran has found alternatives to every other sanction the US has imposed ove more that 30 years. So what the west is actually doing is facilitating the deconstruction of a once universal system, and facilitating the construction of an alternative that the west does not control.

Re:West cutting its nose to spite its face

[jeffc128ca]

The only other way to transfer money out of a country is by converting it to something physical that you can stuff in a suit case and carry across the border. It is a really big deal to get cut out of the SWIFT. Carrying bricks of gold or other tangibles across borders just doesn't work for serious amounts.

Any new system won't be able to connect to the major currency markets or any of the major financial institutions is doomed to fail.

Re:West cutting its nose to spite its face

[tftp]

The only other way to transfer money out of a country is by converting it to something physical that you can stuff in a suit case and carry across the border.

SWIFT is nothing but a trusted communication system. It was created in days before everyone and their dog had easy access to unbreakable ciphers. Things changed. Today you can create a GnuPG message that will be encrypted only to designated recipients and that can't be broken by any existing or theorized hardware. (The best way to break the GnuPG message is by breaking fingers of the guy who has the keyring and passwords.)

If SWIFT is unavailable then any alternative messaging network will do. You can even send IOUs back and forth through the mail. Denominate them in gold, for example. Iran sells 100 barrels of gold, gets an IOU for one ounce of gold. Iran buys a container of TVs and sends that IOU back. Nothing can be simpler. That's how banks were operating from the early days.

Any new system won't be able to connect to the major currency markets or any of the major financial institutions is doomed to fail.

Why would Iran even need to connect to "major currency markets?" They need to pay and be paid in deals with their international partners; those are countries, not markets. Those "major financial institutions" are a liability since the USA has full control over them and can arrest the money at any time.

In the end Iran becomes a major oil producer that doesn't sell its oil for USD. This is very bad news for Uncle Sam.

Re:West cutting its nose to spite its face

[Anonymous Coward]

The only other way to transfer money out of a country is by converting it to something physical that you can stuff in a suit case and carry across the border

http://bitcoin.org/

I like gold

[Anonymous Coward]

Gold works just fine. Who needs banks.

In related news ...

[Qbertino]

Iran, after just yesterday celebrating the aniversary of being 'very extremely close to building the bomb now' for 20 years, now announced that the Iranian gouvernment has ordered to cease all of the countries nuclear operations and research and inmediately focus all resources in building a rating agency.
The rating agency is being constructed in downtown Teheran as we speak and is due to be finished in 8 weeks, when offices will be furnished and the first analysist - fresh graduates from the Abda-alla-hap Business School - will move in. Stockmarkets throughout the western hemisphere plumeted as the news struck and the UN has summoned an emergency security concil meeting for tomorrow morning.
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinedschad, in a speech this morning, threatened western powers with saying 'we will rate all infidels with B- or lower'. His word could hardly be heard through thousands and thousands of bearded and veiled muslim ultrafanatics cheering in the streets and in parliament. Israeli gouvernment and military officials have declared Defcon 3.

Re:In related news ...

[dwye]

They had better be careful. The rating agencies in the West caused an awful lot of damage, there, too.

Monday is a good date for Israeli attack

[peter303]

Monday is the Persian New Year, the biggest Iranian holiday. Guard may be lower that day. Also the less fatalities if fewer people working at the nuclear sites.

Re:Monday is a good date for Israeli attack

[zoloto]

You could say the same thing about Christmas or Thanksgiving in the USA - but that's terrorist talk right there.

Re:Monday is a good date for Israeli attack

[Anonymous Coward]

Monday is the Persian New Year, the biggest Iranian holiday. Guard may be lower that day. Also the less fatalities if fewer people working at the nuclear sites.

Guard is up all the time, have no illusions!

Take it down a notch sparky

[tacokill]

Cuba wasn't embargoed because it was sponsoring terrorists. It was embargoed because they were in bed with the USSR, a fully communist devoted country at the time. Having the USSR try to place strategic nuclear weapons 90 miles off the coast of the US didn't help. Cuba was a proxy for disagreements between the USA and USSR.

That you think it has anything to do with terrorists is laughable. The policy is only bizarre to you because you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes it even more understandable why the US would continue to embargo Cuba over 20 years after the USSR was dismantled. Can't have any country other than the US placing strategic nukes over the world in foreign countries.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[TermV]

You don't find it strange that the US is still embargoing Cuba 20 years after the Soviet Union dissolved, or that the US has better relations with all the former USSR countries or even Vietnam?

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[domatic]

The Cuban ex-pat lobby has a lot to do with it as well. The Bacardi family in particular spreads around any loot required to keep the embargo in place. The way election politics work these days, that lobby can't be ignored. Florida Congressmen and Presidential candidates who might not care about Cuba otherwise are made to care.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[gelfling]

I have to laugh at the people who whine about Cuba's embargo. Cuba is free to trade with every other country on earth. Fiat attempted to build cars there and couldn't make a go of it under Castro's policies. Canadians can fly to Cuba any time they like. What kept Cuba from imploding during the Soviet era was the fact that the CCCP paid Cuba four times the market rate for their sugar exports. When the CCCP collapsed so did their sugar subsidies and what little industry existed in Cuba ground to a halt. No less stupid than Castro is his next door neighbor El Hefe Presidente for Life of the Bolivarian Socialist People's Republic of Venezuela, Hugo "il Duce" Chavez. With 30% unemployment and 30% inflation, Chavez raids the oil sector to hand out plumb cash awards to his supporters while the country plummets into anarchy and is now the most violent country in the world not actually at war.

And HIS best friend, Bolivia's Morales, who happens to be the largest cocoa grower in the country and probably richest Bolivian, walks around in a pancho like he's a man of the people and demands that cocoa leaf chewing be legalized across South America. His Reign of Stupid has been marked by the nationalization of all electric companies which of course, now can't operate very well and there are national rolling blackouts.

So....good job?

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Novogrudok]

> Bolivia's Morales, who happens to be the largest cocoa grower So he is in chocolate business. Is he a part of a conspiracy to make free world peoples fat on candy? > demands that cocoa leaf chewing be legalized across South America Now that is stupid. Why on earth somebody want to chew on leaves of Theobroma cacao?

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets not forget that the US actually placed its nuclear weapons in Turkey first.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[steelfood]

The Cold War is over.

Let me reiterate once more:

The Cold War is over.

There is absolutely no reason to continue to embargo Cuba. It's done only because Castro isn't a U.S. puppet, and successfully defended his country from becoming one. Since the U.S. couldn't screw it over like they did to the rest of South America (remember Bay of Pigs?), the only option is to try to weaken it with trade sanctions. The embargo won't go away while Cuba prospers.

The U.S. had some measure of control over Qaddafi. Same with Mubarak, and Assad for that matter. They were backed by the U.S. (if anyone remembers that far back in the past) because they could be controlled.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Troed]

I have to laugh at the people who whine about Cuba's embargo. Cuba is free to trade with every other country on earth.

The US just stopped a Danish national from importing Cuban cigars, from Germany, to Denmark.

“It’s a clear example of the US abusing rules which were implemented to fight terrorism. That the American authorities can stop a completely legal financial transaction between two European countries is an abuse of EU citizens’ rights.”

http://cphpost.dk/news/international/us-snubs-out-legal-cigar-transaction

Did this fact change your mind about anything? Why not?

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't find it strange that the US is still embargoing Cuba 20 years after the Soviet Union dissolved, or that the US has better relations with all the former USSR countries or even Vietnam?

When Cuba has basically the same stance toward the US, why should it matter that they don't have Soviet allies any more? We should be nice to them just because the bully they used to hang out with is gone? Hell no, we will hang out with them when they admit it was a pretty fucked up thing to do. To this day they haven't changed their attitude, so the US hasn't either.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[tacokill]

My comment wasn't intending to analyze the policy. It was to clarify the history of the policy.

Yes, of course I think our policy needs to be reviewed. However, it doesn't take a lot of thought to understand why it hasn't. Cuba is still, by self definition, a communist country. Raul and Fidel have no fondness for America and they make it known by consistently associating with and supporting America's enemies such as Chavez, Morales, etc.

While personally, I can't wait to travel to Cuba, the situation is more complex than you describe. It is common for things of this nature to take decades or even a century to work themselves out.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[shutdown -p now]

Having the USSR try to place strategic nuclear weapons 90 miles off the coast of the US didn't help.

Cuban missile crisis was set in motion by U.S. placing its nuclear weapons in Italy and Turkey, putting the entire European part of the Soviet Union (including Moscow) into direct reach. And guess what? USSR did not place those countries under embargo.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Anonymous Coward]

Castro, while in favor a agraian land reform, was not initially in bed with the USSR. Cuba allied with the USSR for protection against a hostile neighbor who was only 90 miles away that had previously invaded them and set up a corrupt and represive puppet regime. Not that I am a fan of Castro, or so called "communism".

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Xest]

"Raul and Fidel have no fondness for America and they make it known by consistently associating with and supporting America's enemies such as Chavez, Morales, etc. "

Well who exactly are they supposed to associate with when the only other country nearby has embargoed them? It's not like they can live in isolation for the sake of trying not to upset the Americans.

I don't think it is common for things of this nature to take a decade or a century to sort out, look at how quickly America repaired relations with nations like Germany, Japan, Vietnam, and so forth after it finished it's full on outright wars with them.

The situation with cuba really is just unbelievable, there's absolutely no reason the embargo shouldn't have been lifted decades ago other than the fact Cuba, a piddly little nation, dented American pride by succesfully standing up to them and fending off numerous CIA coup plots.

I'd wager that if the US had dropped the embargo during the fall of the soviet union, that Cuba today would be so overwhelmed by increased US trade and influx of US culture that it would resemble something more like Hawaii than a communist dictatorship. It's ironically the embargo that is keeping Cuba an opponent of US policy.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuba is free to trade with every other country on earth.

Really?

[Canadian citizen] “James Sabzali was convicted in a U.S. court last April (2002) of selling water purifiers to Cuban hospitals. Of the 20 counts on which he was convicted, eight of those counts relate to sales he made while living in Ontario, operating his own business, and completely within the boundaries of Canadian trade law.”

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Formalin]

Having the USSR try to place strategic nuclear weapons 90 miles off the coast of the US didn't help.

The US putting nukes in Turkey a year prior had no part in that decision, eh? What's good for the goose...

When ex Warsaw pact states are now NATO and EU members, it's a sign that it might be time to relax the attitude to Cuba. (and that NATO has no purpose left to exist, but let's ignore that for now).

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Kalriath]

His Reign of Stupid has been marked by the nationalization of all electric companies which of course, now can't operate very well and there are national rolling blackouts.

So....good job?

What the fuck do you mean, "of course"? There are many countries with nationalised power that do operate very well, with no blackouts. The country I live in - New Zealand - does it with 3 out of 4 electricity generators being state owned, and they operate "on par with, or more efficiently than, private sector equivalents" (in the words of a report the government commissioned to try and prove they were not efficiently run so they could justify selling them). Hell, we don't even have nuclear. Almost all our power is hydro.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[gelfling]

Public and nationalized are two entirely different things, however much sophomore Marxists confuse them. There are many utilities even in Great Satan USA which are public utilities, such as LIPA once known as LILCO which run better than the erstwhile private entity. Nationalized is when you have a private entity and the government for no know or obvious reason or explanation confiscates it by force and installs cronies to run it. Chavez nationalized the power industry by fiat and the army. He took the property and made it the property of the state, fired all the operating staff and replaced them with political cronies. Castro did the same thing with every private industry in Cuba. It hasn't worked out wonderfully well for either of them. But maybe 'success' wasn't in their wheelhouse of part of their objectives. I suspect they weren't.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Kalriath]

Interesting - thanks for the clarification.

The Mark

[FudRucker]

Â16 And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: Â17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Could someone explain this whole thing to me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that while nuclear weapons aren't exactly pleasant they aren't extinction-level devices. The main reason they were thought of as such is because with the Cold War, if either the US or Russia used nuclear weapons then the other side would launch everything it had as a combination pre-emptive/retaliatory strike, meaning that the only way to strike initially would be launch everything so that they other side hopefully wouldn't have a chance to respond. That's why nukes could have caused that nuclear winter, not specifically because of the properties of nuclear warheads but from two continents being annihilated by Mutually Assured Destruction - mostly due to the damage in Asia due to the conjoined Eurasian continent.

For weaker nations, nuclear weapons help keep their enemies away from them in a balance of power - I wouldn't mind seeing the weapons go away but I can see why such nations would want them defensively. Course, it just takes one or two bad decisions to deploy them offensively...

I realize Hiroshima and Nagasaki were early versions of nuclear weapons but the strikes didn't make Japan a nuclear wasteland. How much has the media overplayed this into one device being able to annihilate everything within 60 miles of it?

My point - nuclear weapons are an advancement in destructive firepower but aren't an extinction-level event, if Iran has it then sure - it's not good as that means more nuclear weapons are present and if they use them that's not going to do anything good to the local biosphere but it isn't going to destroy the planet, is it?

What are we worried about - are we worried about them having nukes and as such having a better bargaining position, that they could use the weapons offensively, that they'd create more weapons that could filter into unregulated groups or such?

Re:Could someone explain this whole thing to me?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much has the media overplayed this into one device being able to annihilate everything within 60 miles of it?

When Bravo was detonated, it formed a fireball almost four and a half miles (roughly 7 km) across within a second. This fireball was visible on Kwajalein atoll over 250 miles (450 km) away. The explosion left a crater 6,500 feet (2,000 m) in diameter and 250 feet (75 m) in depth. The mushroom cloud reached a height of 47,000 feet (14 km) and a diameter of 7 miles (11 km) in about a minute; it then reached a height of 130,000 feet (40 km) and 62 miles (100 km) in diameter in less than 10 minutes and was expanding at more than 100 m/s (360 km/h, 224 mph). As a result of the blast, the cloud contaminated more than seven thousand square miles of the surrounding Pacific Ocean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#Detonation

Annihilation may be overstating it, but the US paid $150M to cover the birth defects caused on the neighboring islands.

Re:Could someone explain this whole thing to me?

[idontgno]

Castle Bravo (the shot you're speaking of) was a 15 megaton device. Do you know who currently has a multi-megaton device in their current warhead inventory? As far as I know, no one. The trend with nations sophisticated enough to make the really big warheads is to instead make smaller and more compact warheads with a fraction of that yield and deliver them super-accurately (CEP within a few dozen meters rather than kilometers).

As far as countries seeking nuclear capability, I can't even fathom one trying to skip the first step of a basic fission weapon (even boosted) and jumping right into multi-megaton-class fusion weapons. And those would probably be undeliverable in any military sense without either heavy bombers or heavy ballistic missiles (and Iran's current riced-out SCUDs won't cut it).

So, yeah, annihilation is seriously overstating it. The core of any large city would be obliterated by a modern nuke, and the surrounding area would be a disaster, but let's not exaggerate. One device, one city. That's plenty bad enough, right?

iran deleted from banks.

[Anonymous Coward]

federal reserve, central banks and the IRS should be deleted

Just a schema- will have no real effect.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have implemented SWIFT for investment banking ETL- let me preface this by saying most back-office investment banking ETL operations are not standardized and generally a mess. SWIFT is a relatively new standard schema. You will still absolutely be able to get pricing on an Iranian bond from Bloomberg. Money is far more important than poitics in the financial world.

A CUSIP or ISIN is the unique identifier for securities. When you want to know how much your security is trading for or what the options spread looks like, you use that identifier- and a company like Bloomberg or Reuters will send you back the data for a fee. That request/response may be in a SWIFT format- but I can tell as of right now, you certainly don't have to use that. every market data providers format is different, SWIFT is just a relatively recent attempt at a standard.

So really- this will have no effect. Even if Bloomberg where to stop pricing Iranian securities, they're still worth something on an exchange- and some market data provider is going to tell you how much that security is worth. And you'll still be free to trade it.

Re:Just a schema- will have no real effect.

[Kalriath]

Uh, you could not be more wrong. SWIFT provides the interbank communications network that allows international funds transfer. The deletion of their codes from the system prevents funds from being electronically transferred in and out of the country.

We're Gonna Get Those Terrorists

[eternaldoctorwho]

...now watch this drive.

The same in Arabi Saoudi

[Anonymous Coward]

And other country from middle east. Why are they singled out ?

Re:The same in Arabi Saoudi

[CohibaVancouver]

And other country from middle east. Why are they singled out ?

Because Iran is the only country in the Middle East actively trying to build a nuclear bomb that has a leadership that has talked about wiping Jerusalem off the map.

Re:The same in Arabi Saoudi

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you start with a country a bit closer to home, which has demonstrated that they do have nuclear weapons, and have been suggesting that attacking Iran is an actual possibility. I.e. the US.

Then you can continue with a country which probably has nuclear weapons, and are actively discussing when to attack Iran. I.e. Israel.

Picking on Iran before you do anything about the other two, makes you the largest hypocrite I've ever had the pleasure to argue with.

Unlike Iran, where the only evidence of nuclear weapons are claims from the same people that claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the talk about wiping Jerusalem off the map probably came through several layers of mistranslation (Jerusalem is a holy city to Muslims too).

Re:The same in Arabi Saoudi

[chrb]

You do realise that Jerusalem is considered by Muslims to be a holy city? No, thought not...

Re:The same in Arabi Saoudi

[Reservoir Penguin]

They never said that. And really, Jerusalem, they want to wipe one of the mostly holy site in Islam with nukes?

Re:The same in Arabi Saoudi

[Savantissimo]

A tri-defecta!
1.)Iran is not properly in the Middle East. "In 1958, the State Department explained that the terms "Near East" and "Middle East" were interchangeable, and defined the region as including only Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar.[Wikipedia article "Middle East", citing The New York Times. 1958-08-14.] Others have used the term more loosely to mean more, even including India, but that makes the term geographically meaningless.
2.) There is no credible evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
3.)Iran's leadership has never said anything about "wiping Israel off the map", let alone Jerusalem, which you may recall has many Palestinians and the Dome of the Rock in it, and which is only partly in Israel.

Also Israel is not a NPT signatory, refuses to allow inspections, and has a sizable nuclear arsenal as well as submarines capable of a nuclear counter-strike. They have also engaged in the transfer of nuclear weapons technology and materials to the apartheid regime in South Africa, a state under UN arms embargo at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symington_Amendment

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

The Glenn Amendment (Section 670) was later adopted in 1977, and provided the same sanctions against countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology or explode or transfer a nuclear device. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

All aid to Israel since then has been illegal, and it's about time to start following the law.

Iran will never give up their nuclear program

[jsepeta]

No matter how nice or mean we are to Iran has no bearing on the fact that it's in their nation's best interests to wield nuclear weapons as a deterrent vs. US invasion. Obama has done pretty much what Bush was doing - fucking up in the Middle East because he doesn't grasp the very basic concepts of the rights of states to determine their own government. You can't just give someone a Democracy - it must be willfully EARNED. Iran's sovereign right to be a country run by zealous Muslim imams is tragic, but it's still their right to be Holocaust-denying jackasses.

Re:Iran will never give up their nuclear program

[Myopic]

"You can't just give someone a Democracy - it must be willfully EARNED."

Is this the kind of statement which can be shown false by examples of exactly that happening, or is it immune from the facts of history?

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran has decided to switch from the Iranian rial to Bitcoins. According to various government officials the shift is part of Irans plans for a high-tech future.

Yes it was Bushes fault

[voss]

Khatami(the closest thing Iran has had to a moderate and the only honestly elected president Iran in the last 40 years) wanted to normalize relations with the US in 2003. Iran hated Al Queda who they view as an enemy and a rival for power. In 2003 iran was willing to do everything the US wanted(including fighting al queda,stopping support of hamas, full cooperation with the IAEA) in exchange for normalized relations and "mutual respect". A detente with the US would have likely strengthened Khatami's power base in Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/us_iran_1roadmap.pdf

Bush wanted iran to capitulate to all US demands first instead of "mutual respect"

Re:Yes it was Bushes fault

[tinkerton]

I would like to add a few corrections to your post. First, I think Ahmadinejad was honestly elected as well.
Second, in the last 30 years there has been little evolution in the iranian willingness to normalize relations. They always wanted to normalize. What has changed is that they are less willing to do concessions of goodwill without a negotiated agreement(it's no surprise very few people here are actually aware they've done such concessions before). That means, they'll cooperate with the IAEA according the the standard protocol of agreement. If the IAEA wants them to follow the extended protocol 3.1 there will have to be negotiations about normalization. Normalization will mean accepting the civilian iranian nuclear program while the iranians provide extra guarantees that they don't develop nuclear weapons.

What also has changed little is the american attitude: Obama has followed pretty much the same strategy as Bush, even though he created the appearance of a willingness to negotiate. In fact he may have intended to open up on Iran when he campaigned but quickly gave that up.

As about that nuke project, the US and israeli intelligence organisations agree that Iran has not shown an intent to create a bomb. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

Re:Yes it was Bushes fault

[dwye]

You assume that Khatami had any power over Iranian actions, vs. being a meaningless noise unless backed by the mullahs, which he certainly was not; in fact, I recall them quickly repudiating his offer.

Iran is a theocracy with a civil "government" to handle traffic licenses and commercial matters. Important matters like sorcery, blasphemy, and which countries are Satan are reserved to the clergy, as is which people can be elected as chief of the bureaucracy, aka President of the Republic. I would not be surprised if only the mullahs could legally impose death sentences.

This is basically the equivalent of the situation in the Soviet Union, where the General Secretary of the Communist Party had the power, and the President of the country was just a major functionary.

Re:US wants SWIFT war on Iran (because of oil bour

[Rogerborg]

Eh, it took over 2 years for Iraq's decision to take Euros for oil to result in "regime stabilisation" (or whatever history records as the casus belli). The should be enough time for the Iranians to get their garlands of flowers ready to drape on the liberating boot of freedemocracy.

The US and UK are to blame for this mess

[jonwil]

If the US and UK hadn't intervened and overthrown the democratically elected government of Iran just because said government decided it was going to kick out the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (one of the ancestors of the modern BP oil company) and take full control over Iranian oil, its likely that Iran would have continued as a democratic constitutional monarchy instead of becoming the strict Muslim state it is today.

Re:The US and UK are to blame for this mess

[TheSync]

its likely that Iran would have continued as a democratic constitutional monarchy instead of becoming the strict Muslim state it is today.

Yeah, because look at all the other liberal muslim democracies in the middle east...oh wait.

I agree that Western intervention has not helped the middle east, but I think you have to ignore cultural realities to imagine stable liberal democracies forming (without significant cultural reform, which takes generations).

It is likely that Iran would have ended up like Egypt: a socialist autocracy that claims to be a democracy. Egypt is shortly to become an islamist autocracy that claims to be a democracy. Which is what Iran is.

Re:The US and UK are to blame for this mess

[isorox]

If the US and UK hadn't intervened and overthrown the democratically elected government of Iran just because said government decided it was going to kick out the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (one of the ancestors of the modern BP oil company) and take full control over Iranian oil, its likely that Iran would have continued as a democratic constitutional monarchy instead of becoming the strict Muslim state it is today.

If William the Conqueror hadn't invaded in 1066, the UK would be different, the U.S. wouldn't exist, Israel wouldn't have been created, and Iran wouldn't have had their government overthrown.

We can always go back far enough to blame someone else.

Re:The US and UK are to blame for this mess

[chrb]

without significant cultural reform, which takes generations

Iran: In 1963, a referendum overwhelmingly approved by voters gave women the right to vote.

The people of Iran voted for women's suffrage in 1963. That was a pretty socially forward thing to do - at this time African Americans were effectively disqualified from voting in many U.S. states, and interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Obviously things have changed in the U.S. since then. Imagine how Iran might similarly have changed, after five decades of democracy and universal suffrage.

Re:The US and UK are to blame for this mess

[dwye]

So, this was under the guy that the British and Americans overthrew in the early 1950s?

Oh, wait. This must have been under the Evil Shah. How is that possible?

Seriously, Ayatollah Khomeni hated that guy (YOU look up his name) from the 1950s more than he did the Shah, and I expect that attitude is still held by the rest of the mullahs. The reason that people bring up that guy is the same reason Irish Republicans bring up Strongbow and Cromwell, blaming things too long in the past is fun and guarantees no chance of fixing them.

Re:The US and UK are to blame for this mess

[shutdown -p now]

Iran is culturally very different from Arab countries in the region (because, for starters, it's not Arab). It wasn't all that Islamized prior to the revolution, either. It's all a bunch of what-ifs, but I wouldn't take Egypt as a meaningful model of what Iran could have been.

Re:The US and UK are to blame for this mess

[TheSync]

The people of Iran voted for women's suffrage in 1963.

And indeed, women in Iran are far more free than those in Saudi Arabia. But let us remember that vote occurred under the government of a corrupt dictator, and was much more about abolishing the feudal landlord/peasant system than any of the "liberal" reforms.

But it doesn't change the fact that the country remains a crony socialist one and basically a dictatorship at the core. That is the cultural change required.

And people worry about resource wars in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

They are already here.

What with America wrecking this place for oil, China telling everyone to beat it with respect to wanting precious rare earth elements for pretty much anything, and many others.

Not to be all "oh worlds gon' end", but things can only get worse from here on out.
Unless of course any of those fusion projects become successful any time soon...
That will remove such a huge problem from society, energy production.
Equally, it will spread on to water. With such high amounts of power, we could power water purification on mass scale instead of silly little plants and lakes, or removing water from vital river sources.
Then food. High-density food vertical farming, even a full hydroponics system. I saw a recent documentary on a prototype for a large-scale version, it works really nice
The big 3 will be trivial within a few decades of it finally being successful. Whether or not it will be too late by then is another question.

Time to register...

[Anonymous Coward]

OilForBitcoins.com

No offense intended

[Shivetya]

but your four suggestions require a rational regime to be in power. I am not sure you can find many in the world who are rational, especially in that part of the world. I would go as far to suggest few in the West meet the criteria but they are certainly closer.

Unfortunately being nice doesn't work in the real world. The bad guys simply see it as weakness to be endlessly exploited.

So about your list.

1) they would never believe it and they need as a bogeyman more than as a friend to keep their own people in line.

2) I bet the list would not stop at Mossad, I am quite sure there are many other world powers involved. Why just pick on them?

3) Reign them in? Hell they have shown more restraint that we have when it comes to world affairs. What do you expect them to do? They suffer nearly daily rocket launches from supposedly "peaceful areas" watch nearly daily speeches from Iran about wiping them off the face of the Earth, and they are one of the few states to have been invaded by their neighbors yet survived. Please don't throw the plight of the Palestinians in on this, no one else there wants them anywhere but where they are now.

4) Until you have rational leadership in Iran you cannot have normal anything.

If I was Iran

[AdamJS]

I would have a system in place to render their oil useless at a moment's notice. Seems a lot more attainable than a nuke.

Act of War

[Anonymous Coward]

Jewish-style.

How about all the Iranians living abroad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone think, that this might make their lives quite a bit harder? How can they now e.g. transfer needed money for their families/relatives?

Re:How about all the Iranians living abroad?

[WindBourne]

They can not. That is the point of this. The idea is to put enough pressure on this gov. that they collapse. A very nice theory. Sadly, nations like zimbabwae, Iraq, and Libya have shown over and over that other nations will happily cheat.

Dark markets

[PPH]

They're here. They're big. We can't stop them (nor do we want to, thanks to the likes of Goldman Sachs).

It was for exactly these kind of situations that..

[Anonymous Coward]

.... BitCoin was invented :D

It's only fair

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, they deleted the US from the world's banking computers when they developed a nuclear programme.

insightful commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

step 1: wait til comment period ends for this page
step 2: save as html only
step 3: extract every username (idnumber) combination
step 4: never read anything they write ever again

does it matter?

[Chirs]

I'm Canadian. Our government was elected with 40% of the popular vote but because of how the voting system works they have a majority in the government and can basically do whatever they want. The way my voting district boundaries are set up there's basically no chance that the candidate I vote for will be elected.

So...am I personally responsible for what my government does or not? Given that I am politically opposed to the current ruling party, how would I have less influence on government policy if it was a dictatorship?

The US is a republic, not a democracy

[Chirs]

The US has chosen to elect individual to represent them. Presumably those individuals should be more up-to-speed on political matters than the people that elect them, so it doesn't seem totally unreasonable for them to make decisions that the average joe wouldn't because they're not paying attention.

Iran Elections

[tinkerton]

Here's an article about the iran elections that sums up the arguments for a legitimate win for Ahmadinejad

http://www.raceforiran.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/IranArticle-060110.pdf

Ominous precedent

[Foxhoundz]

It seems like EU and the international community is injecting politics into the world's economy. God knows that this is going to have disastrous consequences if this becomes a norm.

Bitcoins to the rescue!

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess Iran will need to start using bitcoins, which could be used to circumvent such exchange bans.

Oh no Iran is in real trouble now...

[WaffleMonster]

Most US banks don't have real swift codes either and very few of us seem to care.

It does not mean your cut off from the transaction network it just means you need to go through an intermediary bank that happens to be on a particular network you want to transact with.

There are no shortage of such banks in Russia and China who don't give a shit about US/EU sanctions.

No Problem for Iran

[Ensign_Expendable]

They will just run their transactions through Chinese and Russian intermediaries. Inconvenient but not crippling.

No

[anonieuweling]

No UN conviction.
No IAEA proof.
No US proof.
Still the bankingcartels that own the US government and much more do think they need to press forward and hasten their collapse.
The US needs the oil, needs the resources.
The weapons thing is just another excuse as it was in Iraq.
And the people let it happen. War after war. Without approval from congress.
The empire is already falling but we don't see it.

Question the whole premise

[GSloop]

...due to its program to develop nuclear weapons

What program? What evidence.

I know many believe that's the case, but there's no conclusive evidence - at least none that isn't the "just trust us wink-wink, our all knowing leaders would never lie to you, and we're perfectly trust-worthy" kind. You know, don't let the problem of actual *evidence* worry your pretty little head. Leave that to the big serious folks. [Who incidentally have financial ties to the military-industrial complex and are hauling home cash by the truck-load.]

Second - they have a right to pursue a nuclear program. [They've signed agreements not to pursue a weapons program.]

So, it seems really crazy to demand that the Iranians prove the impossible. True or not, they will NEVER be able to prove they aren't working on a nuclear weapons program. I mean, sheesh, if Iraq couldn't prove there was no WMD program when there really WAS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER that they were, how could Iran hope for any better?

Proving a negative is always a losing battle...
[You know why Elephants paint their toenails red, don't you? Because they can hide in Cherry trees! You've never seen one, have you? See, it works!]

What Iran is really doing, I'm not sure. But I don't think anyone else is SURE either. So, we simply have to live with not knowing for sure.

Finally, I'm really not sure what gives the rest of the world the right to demand that a sovereign country stop doing developing any nuclear program.
It's OK if the west, or our friends do it, but you're EEEEVVVIIILL brown skinned muslims, so everyone must be *very* afraid!

I'm sure it won't be a good thing, but frankly, ANYONE having nuclear weapons is a bad thing. But it's kind of hard to ask "them" to give up the opportunity when you and all your friends have so thoroughly enjoyed it yourselves.

 

Re:Question the whole premise

[bonniot]

What program? What evidence.

I know many believe that's the case, but there's no conclusive evidence - at least none that isn't the "just trust us wink-wink, our all knowing leaders would never lie to you, and we're perfectly trust-worthy" kind. You know, don't let the problem of actual *evidence* worry your pretty little head. Leave that to the big serious folks. [Who incidentally have financial ties to the military-industrial complex and are hauling home cash by the truck-load.]

Actually, even the U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb.

Re:Question the whole premise

[rcbutcher]

The Supreme Leader has declared nuclear weapons sinful and un-Islamic, hence not to be developed or used. He comes across as a decent honest and serious man, more credible than many of the devious jerks leading Western countries - I would accept his word before that of Blair, Cameron, Bush, Obama or Sarkozy. Further - what he says goes in Iran, Ahmadinejad is just the frontman. Conclusion : Iran's enrichment program is for peaceful power-generation purposes, until we have evidence to the contrary.

just to clarify

[nimbius]

"international sanctions against Iran due to its program to develop nuclear weapons."

always remember: the united states, nor the UN, nor the IAEA have any proof at all that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. its subtle changes in the wording that will inevitably lead us all to conclude this is the case however.

Mis-scored Post, Actually

[cmholm]

The parent comment throws together a mish-mash of accurate and inaccurate statements, and finishes with somewhat naive bullet points.

• 
  --> GWB's axis of evil speech was idiotic.
  --> Iran as been researching nuclear weapons technology since prior to the revolution. Some puppet.
  --> North Korea has been utterly focused on developing a nuclear bomb since at least 1993, when they dropped out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
  --> And if I could catch a leprechaun, I'd have enough gold to pay off the US debt: The internal politics of the US is such that nothing will be done to reign in Israel in the larger sense, for much the same reasons that nothing will be done to change the relationship with Cuba. In the short run, I'm sure plenty of pressure is being applied not to attack Iran right now.
  --> Sanctions are having a noticeable effect. Previous Irani negotiation offers included a number of pre-conditions that left little to negotiate. Those pre-conditions have disappeared in the last few months. What's unknown is the degree to which the Iranis actually want to negotiate, vs. buying more time to do whatever it is they're doing.

Weighing Alternatives: I Bet You Voted Nader

[cmholm]

Regarding the parent's quip for a "libertarian trade embargo", the market is stupid, and would sell the rope used to hang it. The root of the writer's complaint is with how foreign and trade policy is handled in democratically organized nation-states, not the issue-of-the-moment.

If war comes, and the writer wishes to root for Iran, that's his prerogative. But, he's liable to get his ass beat and end up on a number of shit lists, depending on the nature of the flag waving. Just keeping it real.

Theocracy in Iran v. Religious Influences in the US: I think we've found another Nader 2000 voter. He's spot on that the GOP presidential contenders are going out of their way to pander to primary voters. But, even if the current GOP had a lock on every elective office in the US, shitty as that would be, it wouldn't begin to measure up to the degree of clerical control Iran "enjoys".

You need to move

[p51d007]

from whatever fantasy world you live in, and move to REALVILLE! You think anything short of murdering every last jew, homosexual, non islam believing person in the world is going to shut Iran up?

Those who read your posts are the ones who suffer.

[TheMiddleRoad]

You should put a "Hobbies" section on your signature. Within, list "Making straw men" and "Knocking them down". That would be right after the "Education" section, where you put "I make shit up".

Seriously? Iran started pursuing nuclear technology in 2003 after George Bush gave his Axis of Evil speech? Seriously? Holy shit! Please, tell me who rewrites your history. I've got to use them! To think that reality says they started not long after their glorious revolution. History is such a fool.

And North Korea started in 2003? 3 years from deciding to develop one to testing? Those North Koreans must have some seriously amazing physicists. North Korea started, at the latest, not long after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Mullahs always act in their own twisted sense of best interest. Obviously the best interests of Iranian citizens is not a priority, evidenced by their brutal crackdown on protestors. A twisted sense of self-interest includes annihilating millions of Jews in order to secure entry into heaven. Of course heaven can wait since the Mullahs will be snug in their deeply buried nuclear shelters, but the rest of the Iranian people can turn into shadows on the wall for all they care.

Helped cause Iraq war

[Anonymous Coward]

the Iraq war happened just after Iraq said they'd stop using the dollars too. Lots of people have debated about it
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

Re:Helped cause Iraq war

[Opportunist]

Pure speculation and completely unrelated, everyone knows the Iraq was invade... liberated because Saddam was teh Evilz and he had WMDs.

We know for sure. Here's the advice notes from back when we tossed weaponry at him to fight the Iran after that turned from our friendly dictator buddy in the Middle East to some religious nutjob government.

Different Currencies, Different Races

[andersh]

Race to the bottom? The Euro and Dollar are not in the same category.

I think you're confusing the Greek debts, or possibly the PIGS-countries, with a general European malaise. Have you looked at the value of the Dollar and Euro versus other currencies over the last year, five or ten years?

The Euro currency will "recover", from what little it has lost, because it's supported by strong Northern European economies like Germany, and the rapidly growing markets in Central and Eastern Europe (see Poland especially).

The Dollar only has power and dominance as long there's faith in the US currency and government. China has "funded" the Dollar for a long time, from what they've said and done lately it's clear that's not going to continue for ever. I expect the RMB/Yuan to become more important than it is, I'm not sure the Dollar will remain dominant in a multipolar world.

Re:Different Currencies, Different Races

[phantomfive]

Oh yeah? Germany's going to save Europe, eh?

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran is just a county like all others filled with regular people. The difference is the few who run it are basically assholes. This is particularly unfortunate for the average Joe just like you and me who was unlucky enough to be born there :(

It's not the first country this has happened to and it won't be the last. I thank the lucky stars I was born in a (relatively) free country.

Re:So...

[ColonelClaw]

grrr, posted without logging in first, sorry.

Morons can't read I guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF??? Every intelligence agency in the world says Iran has no nuclear weapons program. More of that Bush agenda thing here.

Europe is the historical Axis of Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

This is rich, coming from the continent that exploited, killed and plundered across the whole planet for hundreds of years. Time to get on the new program, Europe.

Europe is the historical Axis of Evil

[rcbutcher]

This is rich, coming from the continent that exploited. killed and plundered across the entire planet for hundreds of years. Time to get on the new program, Europe.

Iran deleted from banking computers

[Anonymous Coward]

To help enforce sanctions that haven't worked in over 30 years now, (or however long we've had "sanctions" against them) they've been deleted from the banking system.

So that will also stop them from using cash, right? Oh, wait... cash doesn't go through the computer system...

After a long enough time, a nation with sufficient natural resources, people, and the will to develop, becomes successful and prosperous despite or even because of sanctions. All sanctions do is force them to become self-sufficient, and self-reliant. They are heading that direction if they're not already there. Right now we cannot trade with the moon men, or people of Mars, or those of Jupiter's, or Saturn's moons. What effect is that having on our economy? Oh, that's right, there are no moon men or people (as far as we know, no life at all!) in any of those places. If it turned out there were, would we be suffering because we can't trade with them?

Let's pretend that all international sanctions imposed against Iran are actually being honored by everyone. They simply live in what amounts to a very small world, indeed. If sanctions were really tight and effective, the US, China, and countries that actually produce goods would be as the moon men, and the hard-working, industrious people of Mars, or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. (No disrespect to those working hard to make consumer goods elsewhere in the solar system or broader universe... we're just talking regional trade, here.) If we all did not exist, Iran would have to do all for itself. Over years and decades, it has been learning and developing to do just that, and eventually, sanctions are like those things that don't kill them... they only serve to make them stronger.

Like antibiotics that help breed resistant strains that are stronger than their ancestors, sanctions are not only ineffective, they're worse... counterproductive.

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers w

[Anonymous Coward]

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” -Frederic Bastiat

With jews,

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU lose!

alleged

[Internetuser1248]

"..international sanctions against Iran due to its alleged program to develop nuclear weapons."

FTFY

Perhaps there's some important evidence I missed

mod parent funny.. because it's true

[Hyperhaplo]

and +1 horribly insightful

Take away people's means to access a basic service.. and the net will provide. Probably not in bitcoins.. but.. bankers around the world will find a way to take Iranian money..

Don't let facts get in your way.

[jcrb]

Sorry, but you have your cause and effect backward, NK got into the Axis of Evil because of their nuke program not the other way around

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_North_Korea_nuclear_program

The Iranian program also long predates the Bush speech, Clinton had already imposed sanctions against them in 2000 due to their activities.

The rest of your post is delusion, your points that you think would lead them to negotiate would convince them precisely that they were taking the right actions by going forward.

I'm guessing you don't play much poker, or negotiate in business contracts. You seem to assume that there is some reason they would not just want to have those weapons in the first place.

Why

[NewYork]

Just route all Iran financial transactions through PayPal

SWIFT codes for Iranian banks being deleted

[Anonymous Coward]

This action, of course, constitutes a classic casus belli, just as do the Israeli assassination of Iranian scientists, the release of Stuxnet worm, the US arming of Balochi tribesmen to carry out military attacks on Iranian territory, and the constant threats from the US and Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear sites (prohibited by IAEA Resolution 533 which regards any such attack as a violation of international law), etc, etc. But it would seem that the US and Israel enjoy impunity against the rules which govern the rest of the world....

Henri

Act of War committed

[Anonymous Coward]

The US et al. are committing an Act of War by doing this. What ever comes is deserved.

It's all about the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

...the oil? ...the nukes? I doubt it. I predict Iran will be invaded under whatever pretext will justify it. One of the first things the invaders will do is dismantle the state owned central bank and establish a privately owned central bank. Just as happened in Libya, Iran, Afghanistan and soon Syria. State owned central banks are contrary to a unified world banking system. Very few of them left.

Ron Paul?

[simplexion]

If only Americans would vote for him.

Thank you, my white power friend!

[TheMiddleRoad]

Now this I love. You're working the whole Khazar thing in. How much time do you spend on Storm Front? Own any Nazi paraphenalia? Burn crosses often? I'm glad your Jew-hatred has come out for all to see.

Face it: Iran is an evil regime that has manipulated Palestinians into an endless war they will never win. Their blood is on Persian hands. I'm sure if you got the chance, there would be plenty of "Khazar" blood on your hands.

Re:Thank you, my white power friend!

[sixtyeight]

Now this I love. You're working the whole Khazar thing in. How much time do you spend on Storm Front? Own any Nazi paraphenalia? Burn crosses often? I'm glad your Jew-hatred has come out for all to see.

Slashdot readers note: This is, as I've already mentioned, typical Khazar behavior. Anyone who does not accept them is immediately said to be any number of things. This is not only characteristic, it's highly irresponsible behavior.

Now that you've repeated against me the same tactics you tried with Savantissimo - and which I've already pointed out are typical Khazarian blame-shifting tactics to put others on the defensive - I'd like to see you back up your accusation. Any of them, actually. Pick one and show proof, or be publicly branded a troll.

Face it: [propaganda deleted] I'm sure if you got the chance, there would be plenty of "Khazar" blood on your hands.

Don't be silly; it's been on their own hands every time it's happened. I work in metaphysics, and have frequently enforced upon people the very backlash from their own kharma. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. But Khazars are treasonous to the countries they infiltrate, and that being a capital offense should be tried in a court of law were our society not so eroded by your peoples' efforts.

My Jewish friends follow the Torah, and have not only known what I was talking about but agreed with me when I've asked them about your fraud of a former kingdom with them. I suspect other readers of Slashdot will encounter the same thing, if they ask around with their Jewish friends.

Meanwhile, your people are having more urgent concerns as the governments of the world - willingly or otherwise - purge themselves of corruption. Evidently, one only rips off the Asian societies for trillions once before they resolve matters with finality. When things become dire for you, I've heard that your people are going to be able to seek refuge in North Korea once the purge reaches street level. Take that news from me as an effort towards pity, and consider packing now.

Re:Thank you, my white power friend!

[TheMiddleRoad]

Rant. Rant. Rant. Rant. Hahahahaha.

Re:Thank you, my white power friend!

[sixtyeight]

I appreciate your concession, troll.

Get informed here

[TheMiddleRoad]

For those of you who might still be reading what sixtyeight has to say, I'll provide a link to some useful information so you can understand the hateful pill that he has swallowed. Don't take the candy, kids.

http://cifwatch.com/2011/02/27/guardian-reader-pulls-out-anti-semitic-khazar-myth/

"It is one of the great ironies of the 21st century that anti-Zionists and anti-Semites on both the Left and the Right, have returned to racialist arguments against Jews that most of us thought had died out after World War II."

That's just a taste. I'm sure sixtyeight will froth like mad when he reads the link. Then again, he already was.

Re:Get informed here

[sixtyeight]

I don't click links from trolls, I report them.

You conceded your point - and discredited yourself - when you defaulted on proving any of your offensive and irresponsible accusations. As you now lack the standing to speak with any validity, the conversation is over.

Re:Get informed here

[TheMiddleRoad]

I missed the fantasy concession that you keep bringing up. Where did you go to school? I'm still interested in when you're going to start quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at me as proof of my evil and stupidity. I think if your Jewish friends knew you any better, you'd have no Jewish friends. Perhaps they're just acquaintances and your hateful ranting scares them into agreeing with you. Do you carry a gun?