Latest Breaking News

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)

33. "Nukes" are a pretext

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:37 AM

Mar 2013

Last edited Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:58 AM - Edit history (1)

for maintaining a military presence in a region of the world that contains an abundance of the most important key resource to human civilization: energy. Western leaders have never been vague about the motives for our interests there. Winston Churchill called Iranian oil, "a prize from fairyland" for the British Empire. The US State Department has, for decades, consistently referred to the region as "the most strategically important area of the world". Iran, as a regional power, represents a potential deterrent to the 'need' for the US empire to control global energy reserves. It's why the US and UK thwarted democracy in Iran and supported a brutal dictatorship there for 25 years, and the fear of losing control of the region has driven their economic/terrorist war against Iran since 1979.

How would you like it, if a foreign power decided that your country was no longer entitled to its sovereignty?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nuclear watchdog agency says Iran not cooperating [View all] bananas Mar 2013 OP

Damned if they do, damned if they don't Tempest Mar 2013 #1

What are the conditions placed on them? JDPriestly Mar 2013 #2

The U.S. has been moving the goal posts for years now on this issue. Tempest Mar 2013 #6

How about you explain what "conditions" that have been made that you cstanleytech Mar 2013 #10

But you mentioned "conditions." What are they? JDPriestly Mar 2013 #13

I often see the red herring used of "but Israel has nukes". cstanleytech Mar 2013 #15

well, there must be a reason why they have them reorg Mar 2013 #40

the conditions placed on Iran exceed their actual contractual obligations reorg Mar 2013 #38

Israel's nuclear program and weapons are irrelevant. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #4

From your perspective, not Iran's. n/t Tempest Mar 2013 #7

They can use that red herring all they want, doesn't relieve them of their duties. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #8

When the US applies sanctions on Israel to end its nuclear program, this will be the right thing leveymg Mar 2013 #14

Red herring, not a double standard. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #18

Israel's nuclear bombs are outside the NPT, and the initial batch were made of plutonium stolen from leveymg Mar 2013 #20

Well you got one thing correct, FINALLY. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #21

I'm surprised you didn't know about the Israeli theft of plutonium from a US Navy nuclear plant, leveymg Mar 2013 #22

Oh...that explains it. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #23

And pretty obviously untrue. If it is US plutonium, I am sure we gave it to them. stevenleser Mar 2013 #24

Yup, especially given the nature of those sites. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #25

If you prefer the term, diversion of U.S. nuclear materials to Israel, that's still illegal under leveymg Mar 2013 #26

How can Israel be in violation leftynyc Mar 2013 #27

The US is in violation of the NPT for diversion; Israel in violation of US law for receipt leveymg Mar 2013 #28

You just asserted it was a theft. Now because it suits your purposes, you are saying it was transfer stevenleser Mar 2013 #29

If the transfer was authorized, it was diversion. If unauthorized, theft. Take your pick. leveymg Mar 2013 #32

Again, that analogy doesnt work. Israel never signed the NPT. If you want to assert hypocrisy your stevenleser Mar 2013 #34

Yawn leftynyc Mar 2013 #31

No, not up in arms. I don't expect that Israel will be prosecuted, but I don't think sanctions on leveymg Mar 2013 #35

Sorry, leftynyc Mar 2013 #36

A past President stated this. Also, read Hersh's, The Samson Option leveymg Mar 2013 #39

Here's more from that '07 NYT article about Israel's nuclear blackmail of the US leveymg Mar 2013 #41

Kissinger? That's who you want to hang leftynyc Mar 2013 #42

None of that makes Kissinger's statements about the diversion untrue, nor does it change the fact leveymg Mar 2013 #43

You are accusing Israel of leftynyc Mar 2013 #44

No, Israel cannot be in violation of a treaty it never signed and to which it is not a party. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #30

Steven, read more carefully. I said if not a theft, the transfer would be an NPT violation leveymg Mar 2013 #37

What do many think nineteen50 Mar 2013 #3

Of course they aren't. Cough cough. Myrina Mar 2013 #5

Oh, no, that's code for "We will liberate them soon" Blandocyte Mar 2013 #9

Odd, If that was the code then we should have invaded N. Korea by now. nt cstanleytech Mar 2013 #11

Well, if Iraq had actually possessed WMDs... I wouldn't have been against the war... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #12

You never seem to be a big fan of that freedom and democracy stuff cpwm17 Mar 2013 #16

"Nukes" are a pretext ronnie624 Mar 2013 #33

Are we sure this is LBNs? ripcord Mar 2013 #17

Video here Ash_F Mar 2013 #19