Stumble This | You should also watch “Clinton trying to make Obama unelectable; Wants to Bomb Iran” |
UN Inspector Scott Ritter predicts where a war with Iran will lead. In the same talk Ritter has something to say about Israel and how they influence our foreign policy.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Israels-influence-of-US-policy
http://www.videosift.com/video/Israels-influence-of-US-policy
edit: Ritter is a strong rhetoric and basicaly his predictions of what might happen if US goes to war with Iran are not so inflated as many in the states seem to believe. to me this scenario seems quite plausible. so i'm asking sifter who are from US on their views on possibility of further escalation of Iran conflict right now and in this pre-election time? cause, man - if that happens i'm gonna start digging a deep hole for a nuclear shelter (on the same place where my "dead pool" is right now)
There have been a lot of progressive victories in Iran over the last decade, and the youth is ready for change. If we start bullying Iran, we will undo this progress, which is perhaps what the neo-cons are really after here.
Iran needs space to grow, not their populace in body bags.
People seem to think that Iran is nothing but a bunch religious zealots living in huts and riding camels. On the contrary, they are a very metropolitan people living in a highly industrialized nation. We could never walk on Iran because they have a sophisticated military with a highly developed air force.
The Iraq blowback was not because of fundamentalism, but that's a convenient excuse for both sides: invader and subjugated. What would you do if you were invaded tomorrow? What would you do if your house and family were destroyed for reasons you didn't understand. Imagine you were 16. You damn sure wouldn't stand there - without any money - and try to rebuild a smoldering heap of rubble so you can live in it alone. But there always going to be someone there to hand you a gun or teach you how to lay road spikes. And it's guaranteed that he or she would remind you that we can once again be "one nation under god."
Iran would never lay itself down. Iraq was already crippled when the U.S. invaded and look what's happened there. When there's a will there's a way. Invading Iran would destroy the U.S.
I don't think it's an effective bluff though- as it's just strengthening the theocracy there- as the Iranians rally round the flag. Stupid NeoCon saber rattling.
Why even mention them...
Every idiot could tell that the USA wouldnt only make the whole middle east their enemy, but also would lose several allies and the rest of the world would also take a (or several) step back from the USA. They would literally dig their own grave.
because the title, sure as fuck didn't apply to me.
i just wanted to see what dft said, that made the top comments.
upvote for sy hersh's work. you probably should include his name in tags.
and since you you bring it up, >> ^ajkido:
Isn't QuantumMushroom just a troll? Like choggie? That was my impression...
Why even mention them...
"just" one? no. srsly. he can be more, when he wants to be, and he'll get a chance to again soon.
choggie? no.
why? because it's topical, and it wouldn't be hard to guess his reaction, unless he thought about it a little first.
"And that something we should all think about as we march off toward our vaaaan down by the river."
But don't let reality get in the way of Bush telling you that getting tied down in two theaters is making you safer every single day.
... our international support is so weak that if we nuked anyone I have a feeling we would become outcasts. You think the world hates America now, it wont compare to the amount the world would turn on us if we nuked someone
exactly. already nobody wants your dollar, and that hurts more than nukes.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Israels-influence-of-US-policy
I think he's a little too sure of his prediction. Just a little.
Bud, i've seen how war is, he is sure of his prediction, because that prediction is true, and Bush is the worst president America has ever had.
>> ^TheSofaKing:
I think he's a little too sure of his prediction. Just a little.
Bud, i've seen how war is, he is sure of his prediction, because that prediction is true, and Bush is the worst president America has ever had.
Apparently, you must be 8 or younger.
Apparently you have never heard Ahmadinejad speak. I also think everyone is a little too sure that an attack is imminent. I don't believe that it is and I hope more then anything that it can be avoided. However, when Iranian leadership, who believe they can bring on the hidden imam by causing apocalyptic chaos, threatens to wipe Israel off the map... I tend to think that we should obstruct their nuclear ambitions at every turn.
"Don't make this harder for us, Iran, or,... well,... we'll bust you up next! Yeah!"
This stuff isn't aimed at the government, it's aimed at the voters.
It was speculation and fear mongering that led to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq (this is NOT a war) in the first place.
Now we're on the brink of illegally invading Iran and people are shouting 'oh it's just speculation'.
And yes invading Iran would create a huge problem it would mean the US is implicit in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and undue support of Isreal in the oppression of Palestinan people. Already the invasion of two soverign states is a violation of UN charters on aggression and are considered war crimes by Nuremberg standards.
But somehow bombing civilians is far more legit then someone fighting the oppression of a imperalistic power. People should take their blinders off and realize that the War on Terror is simply the new logic of the Cold War fighting communism applied in a new context in order for the US to project power and influence, first how does on fight a tactic? Second how many states were invaded or destabalized during the 60s, 70s and 80s in the fight against the red menace (guatemala, chile, bolivia and so many others)? How many inhumane states are supported now in their regimes if they are against terrorism (egypt, jordan, uzbekistan and many others)?
You make some valid points, but I can't take you seriously when you say things like this. Who's really bombing civilians in Iraq? One sect of muslim fanatics are bombing the other sect, and civilians are their intended targets. You imply U.S forces are targeting innocent civilians (which is untrue), and then ignore the bulk of the damage being caused by the parties of god.
It's like if a state is doing the killing it's okay.
The islamofashies are certainly crazy enough to use nukes, and it's this "craziness" that other countries don't like in nuclear-capable countries.
If Iran is as "sophisticated" as liberals claim, then the Iranians already know better than to f--k with the USA and they'll assassinate Amadinnawackjob for us when he runs his beard one too many times.
A troll is someone who disrupts an internet thread for attention.
A "sift troll" is anyone who reminds liberals the emperor wears no clothes.
Leftist historical fiction known as the 'American Empire' is your problem.