Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes | Political CorrectionSuddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.
The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.
The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.
was a Persian polymath: philosopher, mathematician, astronomer and poet. He also wrote treatises on mechanics, geography, mineralogy, music, climatology and theology.
The muslime troglodytes in the shithole of Iran have given the world nothing but terrorism and despair.
The Persian Empire for all its imperial success also gave nothing of substance to the world.
Bomb the virgin chasers and send them to paradise.
Omar Khayyám (1048-1131; Persian: ‏عمر خیام
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQC0zeQFgJc]Jesus misrepresented as "Palestinian" by Mufti of the Palestinian Authority - YouTube[/ame]Were talking about an ongoing chain [of prophets of the Islam], from Adam to Muhammad. Its an ongoing chain, representing the call for monotheism, and the mission of Islam The prophets were all of the same religion [Islam] Jesus was born in this land. He lived in this land. It is known that he was born in Bethlehem He also lived in Nazereth, moved to Jerusalem. So he was a Palestinian par excellence We respect Jesus, we believe in him [as a Muslim prophet], just as we believe in the prophet Muhammad.
Omar Khayyám - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBorn in Nishapur, at a young age he moved to Samarkand and obtained his education there, afterwards he moved to Bukhara and became established as one of the major mathematicians and astronomers of the medieval period. He is the author of one of the most important treatises on algebra written before modern times, the Treatise on Demonstration of Problems of Algebra, which includes a geometric method for solving cubic equations by intersecting a hyperbola with a circle.[4] He contributed to a calendar reform.
His significance as a philosopher and teacher, and his few remaining philosophical works, have not received the same attention as his scientific and poetic writings. Zamakhshari referred to him as “the philosopher of the world”. Many sources have testified that he taught for decades the philosophy of Ibn Sina in Nishapur where Khayyám was born and buried and where his mausoleum today remains a masterpiece of Iranian architecture visited by many people every year.[5]
Omar Khayyám - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBorn in Nishapur, at a young age he moved to Samarkand and obtained his education there, afterwards he moved to Bukhara and became established as one of the major mathematicians and astronomers of the medieval period. He is the author of one of the most important treatises on algebra written before modern times, the Treatise on Demonstration of Problems of Algebra, which includes a geometric method for solving cubic equations by intersecting a hyperbola with a circle.[4] He contributed to a calendar reform.
His significance as a philosopher and teacher, and his few remaining philosophical works, have not received the same attention as his scientific and poetic writings. Zamakhshari referred to him as the philosopher of the world. Many sources have testified that he taught for decades the philosophy of Ibn Sina in Nishapur where Khayyám was born and buried and where his mausoleum today remains a masterpiece of Iranian architecture visited by many people every year.[5]
American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes
American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes | Political CorrectionSuddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.
The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.
The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.
American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes
American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes | Political CorrectionSuddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.
The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.
The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.
Interesting take on the Iran-Israel situation, Jos.
A couple of questions arise, and not based on Rosenberg's relationship with Media Matters, but his piece, itself.
1. "...balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East."
Since Iranian proxies attack Israel currently, how is this different from the current situation? The reality is that even without Iran having nukes...Israel hasn't attacked?
2. "It is about preserving the regional balance of power, which means ensuring that Israel remains the region's military powerhouse with Saudi Arabia playing a supporting role."
This presupposes that there is some subtext in which Israel and Saudi Arabia are, and have worked together to control the MiddleEast.
Is this your premise, too?
3. "...requires overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with one that will do our bidding (like the Shah) ...."
I'll assume that you know enough of the history of Iran, the Shah and Ajax to realize that the Shah did not do our 'bidding.'
And the times that he did acquiesce, he increased the freedom of Iranians to his own detriment.
4."... there is no way of knowing if the Iranian regime wants to talk but what is the harm of trying? If they say no, they say no."
I'm certain, Jos, that you have been following the situation closely enough to know that this horse is long out of the barn.
5. "Nonetheless, at this point war looks likely. Under our political system, the side that can pay for election campaigns invariably gets what it wants."
Let me hypothesize, as Rosenberg has done....
The real pont to be gleaned is that the story is one of lessening the efforts toward war...not one of increasing same.
Could it be that the groups that favor Israel see that Obama's only chance of re-election is to attack Iran, and they do not want this man re-elected?
Makes more sense to me than Rosenberg's theory.
Terrorism is the one thing the muslimes excel at. Hos, feel better about yourself, now?American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes[/][/SIZE]
Omar Khayyám (1048-1131; Persian: ‏عمر خیام
American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes
American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes | Political CorrectionSuddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.
The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.
The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.
Interesting take on the Iran-Israel situation, Jos.
A couple of questions arise, and not based on Rosenberg's relationship with Media Matters, but his piece, itself.
1. "...balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East."
Since Iranian proxies attack Israel currently, how is this different from the current situation? The reality is that even without Iran having nukes...Israel hasn't attacked?
2. "It is about preserving the regional balance of power, which means ensuring that Israel remains the region's military powerhouse with Saudi Arabia playing a supporting role."
This presupposes that there is some subtext in which Israel and Saudi Arabia are, and have worked together to control the MiddleEast.
Is this your premise, too?
3. "...requires overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with one that will do our bidding (like the Shah) ...."
I'll assume that you know enough of the history of Iran, the Shah and Ajax to realize that the Shah did not do our 'bidding.'
And the times that he did acquiesce, he increased the freedom of Iranians to his own detriment.
4."... there is no way of knowing if the Iranian regime wants to talk but what is the harm of trying? If they say no, they say no."
I'm certain, Jos, that you have been following the situation closely enough to know that this horse is long out of the barn.
David Miliband, ex British Foreign Minister a few days ago. (he is himself a Jew for what that is worth)Iran might be “exasperating, difficult… destabilising the rest of the region” but military action would be unjustified.
If Iran develops nuclear weapons it would be unacceptable but they are at least two years away from this, he told Boulton and Co.
“Ingenious diplomacy” is key to stopping the situation escalating to war, the Labour MP added.
Even threatening attack in my view is unwise, because most states that acquire nuclear weapons do so for perceived security reasons, and if they are threatened well then they will think “we’d better rush on and get them”. So if anything they need assurance that “no, you don’t need the weapon because you will not be attacked, but you will be squeezed, you will be treated harshly economically.
“The question is “can you scare a country into staying away from the weapon” and I think that’s unlikely. They did not do it with Iraq, the Israelis destroyed the Oserak reactor in 1981, but Saddam just moved on. In my view the better way is to try and reassure states that they don’t need nuclear weapons, because they will not be attacked from the outside. That goes for North Korea as well.”
5. "Nonetheless, at this point war looks likely. Under our political system, the side that can pay for election campaigns invariably gets what it wants."
Let me hypothesize, as Rosenberg has done....
The real pont to be gleaned is that the story is one of lessening the efforts toward war...not one of increasing same.
Could it be that the groups that favor Israel see that Obama's only chance of re-election is to attack Iran, and they do not want this man re-elected?
Makes more sense to me than Rosenberg's theory.
[Iran has every reason to be scared.
TEHRAN, Oct. 26 - Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told a group of students at an anti-Israel event on Wednesday that Israel "must be wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA news agency reported.
If the peoples of the Middle East continue on their present path, the suicide bomber may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape from a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression.
The muslime troglodytes in the shithole of Iran have given the world nothing but terrorism and despair.
The Persian Empire for all its imperial success also gave nothing of substance to the world.
Bomb the virgin chasers and send them to paradise.
