Is the world is creeping closer to war?

28 posts / 0 new

According to a senior official within the British Government – the United Kingdom is preparing for war with Iran. Plans have been drawn up to send hundreds of British soldiers and nuclear submarines to the Persian Gulf – just as saber rattling between Iran and Israel picks up. As British officials said, war with Iran is “a matter of when, not if … with 18 to 24 months the likely timescale.” We need the voices of peace to speak up now – before it’s too late.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

Quote Thom Hartmann:

Is the world is creeping closer to war?

You've done this a number of times... or someone has. Too many for me. It appears you (or someone acting in your behalf) take a statement like:

The world is creeping closer to war.

and hastily turn it into a question. But it needs editing. I'm embarassed to see it as a headline. Can someone please fix it?

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

IS NO ONE IS GOING TO EDIT THIS?

anti-Republicon
Joined:
Aug. 21, 2011 9:37 pm

"Are the big banks are drying up?"

bamboo's picture
bamboo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The civilized world and the middle east are simply on different planes. I'm not talking about governments here. I'm talking people. I'm sorry, I just don't understand the thought process. The culture of death. Why do they get their feelings hurt so easily? And why does someone have to die whenever they get offended?

For example: As a Christian, I would not be happy if someone burned a bible. But I would not go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people who were not even involved either. And this crap happens all the time! How do you reason with this type of thought? If someone wants to convert to Christanity, again they get their feelings hurt and someone must die. Are Muslims treated fairly in the U.S? In some cases probably not. But it is 1000% better for a muslim to live in the U.S. then for a Christian to live in the middle east. They risk death every time they go to church.

There are millions of peace loving muslims. I feel sorry for them. Because the middle eastern culture of death ruins things for them and everyone else.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:

Why do they get their feelings hurt so easily?

I'm not sure, since I'm not a muslim living in the middle east under assault or constant fear of assault from a perceivabley evil empire. I would imagine that if the tables were turned, and a middle eastern evil empire invaded the US and committed similar acts of disrespect, on top of the murderous assault for natural resources that our feelings might be a little hurt too.

anti-Republicon
Joined:
Aug. 21, 2011 9:37 pm

rigel, I presume that your claim to be a Christian means that you can appreciate how radically narrow Mr. Santorum and the Religious Right draws the circle to exclude me and what I believe to be the vast majority of American Christians. The fact that we have 'major candidates' talking freely about bombing Iran and spounting religious war at home is scary enough for American Christians. Why do we expect those abroad to think we are more civilized and cultured or whatever you think makes us superior? I think we need to get over being superior or exceptional and discover that terms of honor are given by reviewers rather than claimed by narcissists.

I don't think Jesus likes what is being said and done in His name, and if these literalists are right and I am wrong about the metaphysics, He is going to kick their butts big time. Don't get caught in that crowd, in the name of Jesus.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I think that we are already living on borrowed time. With the entire global financial system on its way out, and the Euro & soon the US dollar bankrupting the entire Trans-Atlantic system, I believe that the stuff in the Middle East is just posturing of London/Wall Street-run operations. They have been the "Gods of the Universe" for many centuries and they are desperately trying to get Russia and China to give up their commitment to economic sovereignty and progress. If these nations don't submit, they intend to start a quick, nuclear WW3. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Depsey has issued warnings implying such a scenario.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
Quote anti-Republicon:
Quote rigel1:

Why do they get their feelings hurt so easily?

I'm not sure, since I'm not a muslim living in the middle east under assault or constant fear of assault from a perceivabley evil empire. I would imagine that if the tables were turned, and a middle eastern evil empire invaded the US and committed similar acts of disrespect, on top of the murderous assault for natural resources that our feelings might be a little hurt too.

One thing is for sure. They love our "murderous assault on their natural resources." It has made them gazillionairs. They would still be living in tents if it was not for our thirst for oil. We pay them well for it. And they would not have it any other way. Peaceful nations such as Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and now Iraq have no fear of us. We will not invade we will not draw first blood. Remember, Gulf war one began with the rape of Kuwait.That is how the mess began. An ally was attacked. And the response was not an American response, it was a world response. But yeah, we have made them rich. No wonder they are so pissed.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Gulf war one, which was total bullshit, began when warlord GHW Bush duped his buddy Saddam into invading Kuwait to reclaim Iraqi oil fields. The ensuing invasion by USA, UK, and a few unwilling extorted nations produced an incredible profit for Bush's war machine (MIC). After laying waste to the infrastructure and murdering thousands of inocent Iraqi civilians with the massive air assault Bush stopped short of a complete takeover of Iraq. Probably figured that being a war hero would earn him a second term. And with this first invasion being so profitable a second invasion, occupation, and take over of Iraq and it's oil fields in his next term would be even better. But he didn't win a second term and had to wait another 10 years or so for the real genocide. Like I said, a murderous assault FOR their natural resources.

I don't know who all these rich people are that you speak of. Do you mean Bush's oil shiekh buddies? I'll tell you what, being warlord Bush's friends, they had better watch their back!

anti-Republicon
Joined:
Aug. 21, 2011 9:37 pm
Quote anti-Republicon:

Gulf war one, which was total bullshit, began when warlord GHW Bush duped his buddy Saddam into invading Kuwait to reclaim Iraqi oil fields.

Nice conspiracy theory. Now take off your tin hat and back it up.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Rigel I hope you remember the "Sticks & stones" rhyme from grade school!

However, stigmatizing truth by publicly calling it a "conspiracy theory" doesn't make it any less true or any less evil, even if the stigma sticks.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

In a face to face sit-down meeting with US envoy April Gillespie, Saddam Hussein told her that Iraq would no longer put up with slant-drilling by Kuwaiti-based companies into Iraq's oil fields. They were stealing Iraqi oil, plain and simple. Gillespie specifically told him that the United States would not interfere with the internal problems of Iraq, and that was an "internal problem."

He sent his army in to stop the theft and basically kick Kuwait's ass for being a bunch of greedy thieves. And instantly the White House did exactly the opposite of what it promised, rounded up a bunch of unwilling nations into a "coalition" and bombed the shttt of of Iraq.

As antirepublicon wrote, it was total bullshit.

Ted Newsom's picture
Ted Newsom
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

I don't think Jesus likes what is being said and done in His name,

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you provide a few quotes to enlighten me?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Thinking that it would be a good idea for someone to type the name "April Gillespie" into the little Google thing and clear this all up, I did.

Turns out someone named George Gillespie has just confessed to a rather sensational murder in NYC, so Google was crowded, but not impossible at all.

2 interesting things came up: 1. http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_andambassaprilglaspie22303.html a nice summation. The quotes, especially the second Gillespie quote, are repeatedly confirmed. Gillespie's defense, essentially that she assumed Sadaam should have known that her "we don't care" meant how Arab-Arab affairs were negotiated, not war, paints to me a picture of competing morons, as Sadaam clearly was talking war. 2. If you want conspiracy theories, YouTube has no videos of April Gillespie. None. Not her testimony, which was televised, or any interviews, or even home movies of her vacation in Nepal. It was like looking for someone in the tennis court painting.

doh1304's picture
doh1304
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 9:49 am
Quote doh1304:

Thinking that it would be a good idea for someone to type the name "April Gillespie" into the little Google thing and clear this all up, I did.

Turns out someone named George Gillespie has just confessed to a rather sensational murder in NYC, so Google was crowded, but not impossible at all.

2 interesting things came up: 1. http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_andambassaprilglaspie22303.html a nice summation. The quotes, especially the second Gillespie quote, are repeatedly confirmed. Gillespie's defense, essentially that she assumed Sadaam should have known that her "we don't care" meant how Arab-Arab affairs were negotiated, not war, paints to me a picture of competing morons, as Sadaam clearly was talking war. 2. If you want conspiracy theories, YouTube has no videos of April Gillespie. None. Not her testimony, which was televised, or any interviews, or even home movies of her vacation in Nepal. It was like looking for someone in the tennis court painting.

Thank you for your efforts to clarify those details, doh. Memories of those sorts can, perhaps, provide a minor speed bump in the next well orchestrated attempt to spend billions killing some more people in another country for long term geopolitical purposes.

I'm afraid what you can't clear up is the attitudes that drive our neoconservative set to use our foreign policies headed by the Office of the Presidency to advance American Empire on this planet In their case, they tend favoring the employment our primary foreign policy instrument, the MIC. Those attitudes will remain embedded in the propaganda ever fomenting the fog of war.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

One possible scenario may be that Iran will attack the United States after Israel attacks Iran. At least according to one article headline I saw on Yahoo! home page. Whether Iran would do that or not I don't know, could be that this scenario is being promoted by the press to lay the ground for another "false flag" operation.

What Rigel1 ignores in his argument is that our "paying them for oil" as things now stand is a product of western imperialism itself; the idea that "they would be living in tents" if it weren't for us is the standard rhetoric of imperialism and colonialism. The self-serving rationalizations for war form a thin pretense for the slaughter of countless innocent men, women, and children.

Rigel1 started by making a blanket statement about "them" (Muslims) and then proceeded to base his assertion that "they" are the aggressors upon the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, a totally different set of circumstances than what is relevant to the topic of this thread. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is obviously not "how this all began;" the need to maintain the myth that the U.S. is acting with the intent to preserve peace is disingenuous at best. In fact, the time came long ago for the U.S. to allow former colonized peoples to determine their own political fate. But if we did that we would be "paying them for oil" at prices determined by the "free market;" and that isn't in the best interest of the capitalists who are invested both in cheap oil and militarism.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Has everyone reading here scanned the article from the Israeli newspaper that I provided in the thread that I started yesterday? I believe that it is worth reading if you have not.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

I have, thank you.

I also read the one from the Generals to Obama the other day. Not sure where now.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am
Quote .ren: I also read the one from the Generals to Obama the other day. Not sure where now.

Same thread, first post.

I am curious why no one seems to have anything to say about that.

I was shocked, but on the other hand, I actually didn't really have anything to say about it either. Just that manipulations are non-stop in these politics, and without great leaders, crap happens.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Yes I was referring to that post, but I read it before I saw your post. I think maybe here (I go to a lot of differnt sites in the morning, by now I'm usually ready for a nap) Actually thought about starting it on a thread myself. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

All I can do is track it and keep track of the tracking myself. The nature of the geopolitical power structure in this nation is such that we are not consulted. All the tracking I did on other Thom boards, which I once could use as reference, have disappeared.

I get certain rewards for my efforts. One, I can now see patterns of propaganda and who is usually the source.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am
Quote .ren: The nature of the geopolitical power structure in this nation is such that we are not consulted.
I noticed underneath the article to which you provided the link that now Obama administration has changed direction & is going to aid the Syrian opposition which two weeks ago it was said was being worked by AlQaeda. That all sounds like omni-manipulation, to me.

Quote .ren: One, I can now see patterns of propaganda and who is usually the source.

Do you mean the people posting here, or the geopolitical? How do you track the information?

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Do you mean the people posting here, or the geopolitical? How do you track the information?

That's not easy to explain. For instance, I've been tracking the neoconservatives since they were Democrats under "Scoop" Jackson during Vietnam, then they switched to the Republican Party in the late 70's because they became fed up with the influence of the peace loving Sixties generation on the Democratic Party, and began calling themselves neoconservatives. You kind of get a feel for how they think if you've been doing it for so long. That's what I mean by seeing patterns.

Geopolitical thinkers like Zbignew Brezinski present a whole different set of patterns to consider. He, for instance, had a huge influence on Carter, Carter made him his National Security Adviser, Brezinski later wrote the Carter Doctrine, influenced our actions in Afghanistan that led to the U.S. funding of what became al Qaeda, and he was an early advisor in Obama's run for the Democratic Party's nomination, and may still be one of his behind the scenes advisers for all I know.

International relations theorists are another set of patterns.

And there are more.

People on this site merely express variations of those patterns. They usually speak dogmatically about them, indicating they may be unaware they've bought into some propaganda, or perhaps they are coming from a think tank that promotes a particular version, and they want to sell it here kind of like a religion.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

Thanks for the explanation! Interesting!

This seems to be such an insecure time that the only thing that matters is to develop a plan that can get us back to a place where we are not in so much danger. No ideaologies! Only functioning truth that will keep us out of war, away from human species extinction by climate, bringing the US back to real democracy, and getting the BS out of the world banking systems— just so that the whole human species can get back to thriving again, and not just squirming with dread & fear locked in the fetal position!

Anything else comes from somebody's baggage at this point in time, IMO. Genetic and/or environmental.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

T.H. Administrator says: "We need the voices of peace to speak up now." I'm listening, I don't hear anything - not here.

Alberto Ceras
Joined:
Feb. 4, 2011 10:21 am

Why are public figures so afraid to oppose the aggression against Iran in the aftermath of the fiasco of Iraq? Iran's leadership is not suicidal-- they only want a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to American/Israeli aggression. Israel reportedly already has nuclear weapons, yet no one asks why Israel, the only nuclear weapons enabled nation in the MIddle East, still does not feel safe. Why? It is the US & Israel who have been threatening Iran. How would we feel if Iran had:-- 1.) placed war-ships in the Gulf of Mexico; or, 2.) assassinated American or Israel scientists; or, 3.) threatened to strike unless we stopped enriching uranium (which Iran has the right to do under the NPT)? Iran does not have nuclear weapons. So why don't we propose a nuclear-free Middle East?

E Watson's picture
E Watson
Joined:
Mar. 11, 2012 8:42 am

Yes, there are voices for peace speaking up, and no, they are not all seduced by the idea that American Power is the great stabilizer in the world. Nonetheless, the people with the microphones and networks are part of that corporate interest bloc who do want American imperial 'stability' for their institutions.

It also helps to appreciate how badly these voices fared for several decades when "responsibility" as the last remaining superpower was the rhetoric and any questioning was "blaming America first." It was all about being dirty hippies and naive kumbaya singers or smart intellectuals/tough guys who knew about evil. The problem of good and evil is that when you call yourself good, you are most likely not. When you presume the other is evil, you justify your own. We have had very little reflection on the moral use of power. There is nobody doing what Reinhold Niebuhr did, and those who thought they understood him tended to go neocon.

Anti-war rallies have been ignored and belittled, and those who protest the WTO are seen as ruffians. The Empire has been very good at pr and intimidation. Believing in the illusion has been a lot more comfortable than knowing the truth and its consequences. A lot of lonely prophets hunkering down in our psychological caves have not built a community of peace and action. It is not something we need to keep on (not) doing. Speak up and join the chorus. There is more to fear than fear itself. Like being paralyzed by fear.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

... or smart intellectuals/tough guys who knew about evil.

"Its not my fault the world is an evil place and I have to do evil things even when I don't have to, because I have free choice and I do evil things. Who gets to say what evil is anyway? So shut up and pay your taxes."

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

We Need to Stop Worshipping Cops

If you protest police brutality and you don’t protest police deaths, then you’re a hypocrite.

That’s what conservatives have been saying ever since two New York City cops were murdered Saturday in an apparent revenge attack for the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system