Friday, 25 September 2009

On The Path To War With Iran

It's 2003. George W Bush and Tony Blair are all over the media telling us that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction and must be stopped by any means necessary. Meanwhile, in North Korea, Kim Jong ill is jumping up and down shouting that he is building nuclear weapons. Saddam, WMD-less as it turned out, was turfed out and his country pillaged. Kim Jong Ill, proud owner of a gleaming new nuclear arsenal, continues to stomp around unhindered today, still making a loud noise.
The conclusion that we can safely take from this is if you have nuclear weapons, we will leave you alone.
Now concerning Iran, i come from the angle that it is the highest form of hypocrisy for us to threaten it while we look to upgrade our own hundreds of nuclear weapons.
But Iran can't be trusted goes the usual cry from those not content until there is an Iranian shaped hole in the Middle East. I think that the last decade or so has shown that when it comes to the honour stakes, we haven't covered ourselves in glory. Think of Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan.
The faint war drum grew much louder today when it was revealed Iran was building a second uranium enrichment plant.
Obama accused Iran of concealing the covert site "for years" and Gordon Brown called it a 'shocking level of deception'.
Very true, or it would be if they hadn't known about it for years and only chose to reveal it now when they are trying to get tougher sanctions. Sanctions that China will veto and Russia are not keen on which leaves us back on that path of bypassing the UN to attack which was previously taken by Bush and Blair over Iraq.
This is the US and the UK, those two again you notice, shifting into let's have a war mode.
They have began talking up the pressure in an effort to turn public opinion against Iran although they have no evidence and they are spinning and lying from the get go.
We are being talked into another situation here which will move along at pace and lead directly to us bombing yet another Middle Eastern country.
Obama promised change but it seems nothing actually has except for Bush and Blair we can now read Obama and Brown with Israel once again cheer leading.
Let's not be fooled again.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lucy, you seemed to be confused about some things. First, let me be clear, America is the greatest nation in the history of the world, especially when Republicans are in power.

Of course, as the greatest nation it needs to have the greatest military which it has. It also needs to take action when rogue nations get out of line and threaten America's interests.How dare they!

Iran, as you know, threatens to bomb our allies, Israel and Europe, with nukes one day! It's just as well America is far away or we'd be attacked too!

Thank the Lord that the U.K. and America hang out together and share the same attitudes. Fight them over there rather than on our soil I say.

Lucy, you need to sort yourself out. If you went to Church, that would be a good start. Purchasing a gun would be another. Perhaps electing a black Prime Minister might also prove helpful, but only once.

God Bless America!

Palin. S

P.S. I shot the moose. It tasted good.

Anonymous said...

lucy,

as usual you bring a unique - and i think crazy - perspective.

this is a good one... lots of material for conflict which gets the blogging juices flowing!


A) it wasn't bush and blair - it was bush, blair, russia, egypt, france, germany, saudi arabia, turkey, and every other nation that bothers to have a spy mechanism

B) we left n korean alone because we didn't want to piss off china!

C) hypocrisy - so naieve - this is about power not principals - if we dont stand strong you will be wearing a burka and your outspokeness would not be accepted - you would have to stay in your place lowly female

D) so you think iran can be trusted - how come you trust the nut called amadenajad (or however you spell his name) but you dont trust your own leaders? how come american and isreali religious people are nuts and cant be trusted but you trust the leaders of iran - like they aren't religious nuts...

E) honor/glory - once again this isnt about principals - this is about power - this isnt about being nice - their principals and ours conflict and they only time the differences can be overcome are when enough money and power are involved

F) once again you have unique access to the true insider data in the whitehouse and downing street - so, we've known about the second site for years huh? we were lying about saddams WMDs, now the second site is a sure thing but we are lying about when we knew it... very clever of bush and blair to leave this for obama and brown... wait, that doesn't make sense for them to do that... well most of your postions on this topic don't make sense so at least you are consistent...

G) the united nations (UN) were aligned originally because it was everybody that fought germany and japan. since then the members of the security council became rivals and now nothing can be done without going around the useless nutcases (UN)... without the security council nations the un is worthless, with the security council nothing can be accomplished - either way the UN IS A WORTHLESS ENTITY - which explains why people from the left like it...

H) wow - you really have the greatest back channels into the real data: "they have no evidence and they are spinning and lying from the get go". but, you confuse me, have they known for years or is it all made up? you are all over the place!!!

I) finally we can agree - obama and brown are just like bush and blair... except that obama, unlike bush, wants to turn america into an european like nanny state

J) yes, lets not be fooled again - saddam convinced everybody that he had WMDs (bad move dumbass), now amadenajad (or however you spell his names - who cares) is trying to convince the world that iran (oil rich) needs nuclear energy now and that they aren't trying to create nuclear weapons... right?

in spite all of my sarcasm, i really enjoyed your post - gets the old neocon juices perking!!

q

Lucy said...

I suppose i am going to have to work my way through from A to J. Put the coffee on.

A) It was Bush, Blair and the Spanish PM at the time who nobody remembers that were pushing it. That's why they couldnt get the required number of votes through the UN, the rest didn't believe them.

B) If China is the problem with N Korea than attacking Iran will cause a problem because China buy oil and sell petrol to Iran. You think China will allow you to destroy a deal worth billions?

C)How does womens rights in Iran compare to that hotbed of feminism that's Saudi Arabia or doesn't it matter in countries that happen to be friendly to us?

D) As i said before, Saddam said he had no WMD's, Blair and Bush said he did. Who was lying?

E) I read Hillary Clinton speaking on Burma last week and said that sanctions were not working and it was time to engage in talks with them. This week her boss is saying talking isn't working with Iran, lets tighten sanctions. More chance of making money and achieving power by using the stick on Iran than Burma who now get the carrot?

F) It was mentioned on Sky news, BBC news and Channel 4 News. Triple sourced if you like and mentioned in a few newspapers today how Obama was briefed on it in that period between winning in November 08 and taking over January 09.
No contacts in Downing Street or White House, just listening to, and reading, media reports. I don't know how fair and balanced Fox News are covering it. I may go check after this.

G) I agree. The UN needs to be overhauled so the Veto is removed from the permanent members and run on a majority decision.

H) They have no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb which is the conclusion they seem to be grasping unsuccessfully at.

I)I don't know what Obama is doing there so couldn't comment.

J)Iran may be oil rich, but they don't have the required refining capability, hence importing petrol from China

Glad it got your neo-con side buzzing. I look forward to the rebuttal at your blog.

Anonymouse said...

Reuters. Sept 8, 2009.
Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei.

"Many people are talking about how Iran's nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped. The idea that we'll wake up tomorrow and Iran will have a nuclear weapon is an idea that isn't supported by the facts as we have seen them so far."

Anonymous said...

lucy,

i really tried to stir people up and it didn't work... i tell you they were just bush haters...

i wonder if the rightwing blogs are as full of angst against obama now as the leftwings were against bush? may have to check a few...

q

Anonymous said...

My turn for coffee...

A) The Russian intell people agreed that Iran had WMDs. The UN didnt support the US action because Russia ALWAYS blocks US resolutions, just like the USA always blocks Russia. The French and Germans (i think) wanted to give the IAEA (or whatever it was called in 2001) more time (because 10 years wasn't enough - give me break). Saddam would not cooperate with the IAEA THUS his words about not having WMDs were overriden by his actions...

B) You twisted my words. I didnt say china is the problem, i se don't want to piss off china. they have made it very clear that east asia is there stomping ground. that is why we stopped marching north in the korean war, and why we stopped marching north in the vietnam war - chinese troops are in the next valley! stop here now!.

C) So you are suggesting we invade Saudi next for women's rights? How come lefties only talk about rights when it suits them?

D) Saddam said i don't have wmds. we said let us inpsect then. he said no. what would you conclude? oh, never mind, i forgot you always believe desposts... and this is one of those places where you dont care about women's rights...

E) huh? i said the Iran situation isnt about principles, it is about power... by power i mean russia versus US/nato versus china... if you are the US and russia blocks everything (and you are obama and you want to act like you are different than bush but you really aren't) then you have to have to use every option before you use military - just like bush did with iraq...

F) well, once one has quoted "Channel 4 News" one has topped the pinnacle - and we know we can trust everything we hear in the news - except we aren't hearing that stuff hear - are you saying that your news is better than our news? like, your news is all unbiased and cool and ours sucks? this is funny to me because everytime someone in the US says news in the US can't be trusted they are called a far right christian nazi - unless of course they are critizing Fox News... and just for the record lucy, i read a japanese, french, german, korean, and english news paper every day, as well as, 10 or 12 american newpapers, numerous think tank reports (left and right), watch multiple TV news sources every evening (including the comical BBC America), and listenting to multiple radio newssources (CNN, NPR, and yes Fox). sadly, i don't have access to "Channel 4 News" but i will look into it...

G) concerning the UN, it seems we don't agree. You said" The UN needs to be overhauled so the Veto is removed from the permanent members and run on a majority decision." I think the UN needs to be dismantled. it has no reedeming value. AND THE LAST THING I WANT IS A BUNCH OF THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES USING A MAJORITY VOTE TO TAKE EVEYTHING I HAVE AND GIVING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE (THEMSELVES).

H) You say "They have no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb which is the conclusion they seem to be grasping unsuccessfully at". I say that even if they did you wouldn't beleive it. I say that if iran doesn't then let the IAEA inspect. Actions speak louder than words. They are hiding something.

I) you say "I don't know what Obama is doing there so couldn't comment." I thought yawl had all this great news? How come you dont know what Obama is doing in the greediest, least green, most power military in the world?

J)Iran may be oil rich, but they don't have the required refining capability, hence importing petrol from China. THEN THEY SHOULD BUILD REFINERIES INSTEAD OF NUKES!

Rebuttal on my blog - heck no - rebuttal here - what has happended to your readers - are they saving their energy so they can go ape shit on the next republican, redneck, racist, nazi president?

Anonymous said...

lucy,

appologies for all the mispeeeled words.

i'm bad at speeling, combined with old age tying skills, combined with only have a few minutes ends up in a big mess...

got to go now, must read my japanese, german, french, korean Fox news sources...

q

Lucy said...

It's a bit late for coffee and i don't know how well hot chocolate will work but i will give it ago.

A> Of the permamnent members, it was France that threatened to use the veto although Russia was against it as well and may well have done the same.

C> Your comment 'if we dont stand strong you will be wearing a burka and your outspokeness would not be accepted - you would have to stay in your place lowly female' means anpother reason action needs to be taken against Iran because of its lack of woman rights, an accusation you could throw at many other countries but especially Saudi Arabia. Why are we not training our sights on them as well?

D> The Inspectors were in Iraq, inspecting and given access to wherever the US and UK sent them.
Hans Blix was satisfied with the access they had, his only complaint was not being able to interview people without the prescence of a guard.

F> I have no idea if our news is better or worse than yours, or why you don't hear what we do from your japanese, french, german, korean, and english newspapers. I'd be thinking about changing my subscription though, you seem to be missing out.

H> If the UN and IAEA say they have no evidence, then i'm satisfied. If the UK and US say different, my first reaction is to think back a few years and wonder can i trust the same people, with the is same issue who were so woefully wrong last time. Nope.

I> Why would I be concerned about what Obama is doing inside America? I give it as much time as you would give to to what Gordon Brown is doing here which is none whatsoever.

The readership has taken a massive dip. I will have to put some effort into trying to build it up again.

Anonymous said...

hey i tried to get things stirred up...

q

Lucy said...

Appreciated Q.

kursk said...

I can tell you exactly why your blog is not very popular. Its because you jumble everything together instead of sticking to one subject. Nobody knows what to expect.

Anonymous said...

i gotta tell you kursk, i've never been as certain about anything as you are concerning lucy's blog - uhhh, that i can remember...

a tad harsh perhaps too...

q

Lucy said...

I can take constructive criticism and i agree with you to a degree kursk, i do jumble everything together but i decided to do that on purpose to widen the scope so it isn't just a one subject blog which i thought may get repetitive.