Attack on Iran

[Arlekino]

Ok do we have to worry on Iran or not? USA preparing to launch on Iran in Kuwait troops been send, also in Georgia prepared hospital beds and China with Russia telling that USA pushing to world war3.
Scary comrades.

[Comrade Samuel]

Where did you hear this? Do you have an article?

[Arlekino]

From RT Russian channel, tweets.
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-troops-kuwait-iran-741/
and from tweets as well.

[Ostrinski]

god damn it

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I personally don't give a shit. Scaremongering as usual. There won't be a world war 3, and if there is, it'll be started by some crazed madman or by accident. Even George Bush wasn't stupid enough (/wasn't allowed) to be that batshit insane to provoke a nation that mattered on a geo-political level (namely Russia, China or India and Pakistan!).

[Arlekino]

Are you sure about that? Stammer and Tickle around Russia is missales and Russia don't like this, is treat for Russian security.
So sounds some attacks can be.

[brigadista]

that what syria is about

[Sasha]

Proxywar in Lebanon, maybe in Syria at most.
And then to say in dutch: ze dronken een glas, deden een plas en alles bleef zo als het was
(They drank a pint, took a piss and everything remaind exactly as it used to)

[Hexen]

From RT Russian channel, tweets.
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-troops-kuwait-iran-741/
and from tweets as well.

RT like the Russian Fox news I don't think it's a reliable source.

[Arlekino]

Well RT seems anti NATO news but I never thought is like fox news. What about Guardian wrote USA troops deployed in Kuwait.

[Rusty Shackleford]

my bets are 50/50 the strait of hormuz will see a gulf of tonkin incident this year.


i am stressed about it though. its just... stupefying. it feels like its been months but its been barely a month since drills took place and obama signed new sanctions/ndaa into law. but, the EU hasnt signed an oil embargo/central bank sanction yet and asian markets apparently 'rebuffed' efforts to not buy iranian oil.


its just a bunch of fuck thats going on right now.



i guess one question, if war did break out, would the draft be a possibility again in the US? assuming it turned into a broader war?

[bcbm]

i guess one question, if war did break out, would the draft be a possibility again in the US? assuming it turned into a broader war?

i think war with iran alone would be a very poor move for most of the us political establishment. combining that with a draft would be more or less a suicide move. they remember vietnam

[Bronco]

I personally don't give a shit. Scaremongering as usual. There won't be a world war 3, and if there is, it'll be started by some crazed madman or by accident. Even George Bush wasn't stupid enough (/wasn't allowed) to be that batshit insane to provoke a nation that mattered on a geo-political level (namely Russia, China or India and Pakistan!).

Yeah I think it's just a sabre rattling contest, Iran is trying to act unexpectedly and to piss off the US but they can't risk a war, and they know that they can't win a war without major support from Russia, China etc. the likes of which the US can't risk upsetting too much either

[Psy]

i think war with iran alone would be a very poor move for most of the us political establishment. combining that with a draft would be more or less a suicide move. they remember vietnam

The biggest risk is Iran disrupting the flow of oil by sending its submarine fleet into the Arabian Sea to hunt oil tankers, and oil tankers are much much larger then during WWII, where then tankers were only around 10,000 tons back in WWII while today tankers are around 300,000 tons.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i think war with iran alone would be a very poor move for most of the us political establishment. combining that with a draft would be more or less a suicide move. they remember vietnam
id honestly snap if i got called up. its the only way i could see myself reacting to that.

[Ocean Seal]

I once believed that we wouldn't see an attack on Iran at least within 10 years, but it appears that the bourgeoisie are getting ready to scale up an assault against Iran. I'm not sure that Russia would come into defend them, as they don't really stand much to gain. China on the other hand gets cheap oil from Iran and would hate to see their partnership with Iran go after a US friendly change of power. But then again China might be willing to let go the same way Russia did Libya. Iran also faces a strong threat from surrounding countries. They aren't well liked by the Saudi's, the Iraqi's, and Pakistan might be wanting to improve relations with the US. I don't believe it just yet, but war with Iran is a definite possibility.

[eyeheartlenin]

id honestly snap if i got called up. its the only way i could see myself reacting to that.

A couple of years ago, someone in the US military told the press that trying to draft and train young people these days would be way too much trouble, and I doubt young people represent less of a challenge to military indoctrination now, what with visible mass disaffection, even in the US. Plus, a draft would mean that thousands of middle-class parents would automatically orient towards antiwar activity. We would have a massive anti-war movement again, just like in the 1960's; an aroused petite bourgeoisie would do everything it possibly could to stop the war, before Chip or Buffy got their hair mussed.

Does the US really have the money to fight another war, given its recent commitment to keep GI's in Afghanistan for years to come? I doubt it. Isn't the US government broke? Isn't that why US post offices are being shut down, right and left?

Rather than drafting young people, imperialism is probably depending on the (apparently permanent) recession to drive them into the arms of the US Army, just to have a job.

And I really can't imagine the US committing to another, third, war in Western Asia, with a nuclear-tipped Iran. From what I read, there are lots of indications that US power worldwide is in serious decline. And I don't think the US government is eager to challenge another nuclear power.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I hope I don't get drafted :/

[Rusty Shackleford]

theres always money for war. because war means money. britain and the us are pumping up arms sales to saudi arabia right now.

[Ostrinski]

If there does happen to be a draft, the most rational course of action would be to leave the country. I know that's what I'll do.

[blake 3:17]

I think there's a very distinct possibility of a horrific war with Iran, led by the US and Israel. The Canadian government would certainly back it. There are divisions within the EU and European community.

The immediate tactics are extending economic sanctions, dirty tricks campaigns like the wave of assassinations, and vilifying Iran on the world stage. The US has already been flying planes into Iranian airspace, and claiming them as navigational mistakes. The next step would be to start a "minor" bombing campaign.

Edited to add: I just took a look at various polls of Americans on US military intervention in Iran. Nothing conclusive other than that support for an attack on Iran has increased over the past several years. Republicans are trashing Obama and Clinton for being soft on Iran. In the absence of a left alternative, Obama could well decide to attack Iran to shore up support for the next election. He'd win some Republican votes and there is no substantive opposition to him within the Democratic party.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I hope I don't get drafted :/

Refuse to go and take the prison term... that is my "plan."

[Psy]

theres always money for war. because war means money. britain and the us are pumping up arms sales to saudi arabia right now.
If Iran starts sending oil tankers to the bottom of the Arabian Sea it would mean huge losses for industrial economies as industries starve for crude oil. Already shipping companies have stated if Iran started to sink their ships they will stay in port as their insurgence doesn't cover losses caused by acts of war.

[bots]

I think there's a very distinct possibility of a horrific war with Iran, led by the US and Israel.

I'd say there's a pretty good chance Israel will attack Iranian nuclear facilities at some point this year. stuxnet and Mossad throwing magnetic bombs on nuclear scientists' cars hasn't seemed to slow Iran's nuclear program at all.

[ВАЛТЕР]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151739#.TxLnIHy81gY.facebook

Russia warns against attack on Iran. Declaring that an attack on Iran would be "...a direct threat to our security."

Also Rogozin warned that any more attacks against Iran would result in "a scorching Arab Summer."

Is it just me or do many of the events sound like pre-WWI talk. With nations taking sides and building up their arsenals with modern weapons, while promising defense of one or another.

This dick waving contest can turn into a proper shit-fight pretty soon, and as a result a lot of people will die needlessly.

[workersadvocate]

Yeah, I think this time there will be a hot war between Great Powers.
These are grave consequences of so far failing to resolve the crisis with working class revolutionary social change.

[Threetune]

Yeah, I think this time there will be a hot war between Great Powers.
These are grave consequences of so far failing to resolve the crisis with working class revolutionary social change.

Absolutely. You nailed it.

All the people on here saying they don’t think it will happen or worse, don’t think it’s of much consequence, are attempting to dumb down revolutionary understanding of the depth and consequence of the capitalist crisis which must constantly escalate its war drive whatever the final outcome might be.

War is the extension of crisis policy.

Let the people who say ‘no big deal’, in the face of the overwhelming evidence of another build up, back up their wiseacre dismissals with some hard facts.

[manic expression]

Things are apparently tenser than I had thought. By some accounts the US Sixth Fleet is in the eastern Mediterranean and Russia has a battle group there as well (both there because of the situation in Syria, or so we're to believe). Syria and Iran have a mutual defense pact. Most of this is probably just showing muscle IMO, but people are right to be concerned about the future of the situation. It's very hard to say, but I still wouldn't put it past the mad dog that is Israel to sense an opportunity to strike.

[Rusty Shackleford]

currently there are 2 carrier strike groups in the gulf while a third is scheduled to return to san diego within the next few weeks. as for a russian fleet, i thought it was off the coast of syria and not in the gulf.

[Threetune]

“The Israeli cabinet was reported on Wednesday to be debating whether to launch air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in the coming weeks. The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the defence minister, Ehud Barak, are lobbying in favour of action, but other senior ministers are urging caution.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/us-heading-war-iran-obama

[brigadista]

salvadorean option

[Homo Songun]

I think the skeptics here are underestimating just how depraved the Zionist entity really is. Combined with the advancing senility of US imperialism, that means a high probability for war in 2012.

One interesting variable is that it is an election year in the US. I think it would be a disaster for Obama's poll numbers to do a Iraq style invasion. On the other hand, George II had a 90% approval rating after 9/11. Which leads me to agree with Rusty that there will be some kind of series of Gulf of Tonkin incidents as an excuse for war.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Even if there is a war with Iran, I really can't see there being a draft. The Us has ~1 million active duty soldiers and ~1 million reserve soldiers, and coupled with the obvious British support, there would be no need for a draft against 500,000 iranian troops with an airforce and navy puny compared to the size of america.

and imperialism marches on...
any word of iranian socialist partisans?

[ВАЛТЕР]

there would be no need for a draft against 500,000 iranian troops with an airforce and navy puny compared to the size of america.



500,000 during peacetime.

With a population of 77,891,220. They can mobilize a massive army.

Not to mention the modern air defense systems and surface to surface missiles they poses, Iran can put up a hell of a fight.

Also, notice the topography (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Iran_Topography.png)of Iran, it isn't a flat pan like Iraq. There are rows of mountain ranges that look as if they were built solely to slow an enemy advance.

Iran will be a tough nut to crack. As long as the people are motivated, they can hold off the west.

Edit: Also with troops held up in Afghanistan atm. They wont be able to get that many boots on the ground. Remember, 1,000,000 soldiers won't be fighting, half of it goes into logistical support, etc.

[Princess Luna]

I don't think America wants a direct war with Iran (though Israel certainly does) first off it would require the Draft to be reinstated, the causalties would far far excede those seen in the Afghan and Iraq wars, and it would result in a severe backlash from Russia and China and not even the most hard-core Zionist US politicians wants to be within a 1000ft of those policies. Which isn't to say the US won't engage in military action against Iran, but a full scale invasion of a country like Iran is out of the question in this day and age.

[Omsk]

full scale invasion of a country like Iran is out of the question in this day and age


If the US cant control Afghanistan,there is no way it could control Iran.(teritory)

[human strike]

This situation is quite simple. The US and Iranian policies are very much directed towards preventing war. Only Israel has any interest in any sort of military conflict, and even then only a small interest - it doesn't want to be stirring too much shit in a region already spiraling out of its control. The most that will happen is an Israeli bombing raid or two, diplomatic and media frenzy, followed by effective crisis aversion, if even that.

[DaringMehring]

On the one hand,

US bourgeoisie knows Iran is a foe who could cause serious disruption to their profits (disrupting oil supply, special forces terror, missile attacks on nearby countries, etc.)

Israel has plenty of sane people who realize that attack on Iran would mean mass death in Israel.

The US military is stretched and the budget is in the red.

On the other hand

Capital's drive for profit means that they can't restrain themselves when there's money to be made from violence.

Israel has a faction of ultra-religious uber-conservative hawks who are small but potentially influential.

So... I don't think anyone can say for sure if there will be war with Iran.

As for it being inter-imperialist... it seems unlikely given US military superiority and nuclear weapon MAD. Probably it would be proxied / limited-engagement conventional, with of course the local populations paying the main price. Maybe in 20 or so years when China's military is more developed, there might be inter-imperialist war of some kind, but MAD is a pretty strong reason why not.

[Ocean Seal]

This situation is quite simple. The US and Iranian policies are very much directed towards preventing war. Only Israel has any interest in any sort of military conflict, and even then only a small interest - it doesn't want to be stirring too much shit in a region already spiraling out of its control. The most that will happen is an Israeli bombing raid or two, diplomatic and media frenzy, followed by effective crisis aversion, if even that.
Not sure if I can fully believe that. For one the US is always looking to control more. If it can control Iran it can destroy any aspirations that China has to enter the Middle East keeping China isolated to sub-Saharan Africa. Russia has nothing to gain in defending Iran so that's out of the question. The United States also has the support over several other war-mongering regimes in the Middle East which it directly controls. Including Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and so on. In fact this could be used to stop the tide of the Arab Spring, by directing anti-imperialist anger into war anger.

And while Iran is prepared to deal with an invasion it simply wouldn't be able to resist US air forces combined with regiments and regiments of Iraqi and Saudi troops.

The United States might still have to worry about other regions, but Iran might be its target of choice being how its tactics in recent times have been divide and conquer, and Iran is more isolated than any other well off oil nation.

The Americans "need" war to fix their economy and destroy embryonic class rebellion in the name of the "nation".

[Os Cangaceiros]

And while Iran is prepared to deal with an invasion it simply wouldn't be able to resist US air forces combined with regiments and regiments of Iraqi and Saudi troops.

Have you been paying attention to what's been happening in Iraq's government recently, in regards to Iran?

[ColonelCossack]

Two things result from capitalist's profits declining; one is, we see more authoritarian sentiment and governments (fascistic, even- after all, fascism is capitalism in decline!)

The other is that the bourgeoisies of different countries go to war with each other, to try and increase the size of their markets etc. So if this economic crisis gets worse, we'll see more aggressive, reactionary populations and governments getting geared up for war, and the bourgeoisie being more interest in the prospect too. There's definitely a long-standing military-industrial complex around, and all the "triple alliance" and "triple entente"-esque style alliances kind of make the idea of a significantly large war look a bit more likely. Somehow, though, I don't think they'll use nukes, unless you get a nutjob who's really crazed. That's just what I've perceived...

Then again, you had those kinds of alliances in the cold war, and most conflicts then were small(ish) proxy wars.

[piet11111]

I do not see war happening with Iran anytime soon.

- Syria is still in place and needs to be taken out before Iran can be tackled and will probably have Hezbollah fighting Israel in support of Iran.
- Iraq is highly unstable and many of its politicians are more aligned with Iran then Washington
- Iran has a lot of influence with Iraqi and Afghan insurgent groups and could have them stir up a massive shitstorm.
- the middle east is too unstable with the arab spring going on they can not trust that pro war governments will be able to withstand public opinion/rebellion
- Iran has a better equipped army then Iraq and appear to be better trained and far more willing to fight and they have prepared for this event for years.
- Iran has made very clear that unlike Iraq they will lash out at neighboring states to destroy their oil infrastructure and close the Hormuz strait.
- Iran has the support of China that has spend billions of dollars in investments and needs the Iranian oil to secure a steady supply something the USA is trying to starve China off.

Syria is the next war on the agenda unless something unforeseen happens.
Syria enjoys Russia's support as they have a navy base that after Libya they can not lose along with billions worth of investments.

Syria and Iran will be a very interesting duo that would be incredibly hard to beat if they manage to keep Russia and China on board politically.

[Ocean Seal]

Have you been paying attention to what's been happening in Iraq's government recently, in regards to Iran?
No actually. What is happening?

[blake 3:17]

From the Guardian:


Iran could face UK military action over nuclear programme, says Hague
Foreign secretary says all options are on table but that aim is to get Tehran round negotiating table over nuclear weapons

Britain has not ruled out military action against Iran but is focused on trying to secure peaceful negotiations, William Hague said.

The foreign secretary insisted all options remained on the table in relation to what he called Tehran's "increasingly dangerous" development of nuclear weapons. But he said the UK was not advocating military action and was instead intensifying sanctions in a bid to bring the Islamic republic to the negotiating table.

"We have never ruled anything out. We have not ruled out any option, or supporting any option. We believe all options should be on the table, that is part of the pressure on Iran," Hague told Sky News.

"But we are clearly not calling for or advocating military action. We are advocating meaningful negotiations, if Iran will enter into them, and the increasing pressure of sanctions to try to get some flexibility from Iran."

Western governments, including Britain, have moved to step up sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme, threatening an embargo on vital oil exports. Tehran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz oil shipment route in response.

The prime minister, David Cameron, warned Iran during a visit to Saudi Arabia on Friday that the world would "come together" to ensure the straits remained open.

Hague said: "This is an increasingly dangerous situation that Iran is developing a military nuclear programme. Our sanctions are part of getting Iran to change course and to enter negotiations and we should not be deterred from implementing those."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/15/iran-could-face-uk-military-action

[ВАЛТЕР]

From the Guardian:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/15/iran-could-face-uk-military-action


They know full well Iran won't enter their so called "meaningful negotiations". Iran isn't going to tolerate them dismantling their nuclear program. As for sanctions, they will prove ineffective since the Chinese, Russians, as well as other nations aren't going to obey them.

This is just a pretense for war. It is them trying to make it look like that they have tried everything in their power to get those "crazy Iranians" to listen, but they wont because they want to "blow up Israel."

Christ, international politics are just schoolyard rules taken to the extreme.

[blake 3:17]

From Tony Burman, former head of Al Jazeera English and CBC News:


Burman: Why there will be a war in the Middle East this year
Published On Sat Jan 21 2012Email Print (3)
Rss
Article
Comments (3)

An Iranian woman walks past an anti-U.S. mural painted on the wall of the former U.S. embassy in Tehran on Nov. 19, 2011.
ATTA KENARE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

By Tony Burman
Special to the Star

There will be a war in the Middle East within the next several months, triggered by an Israeli attack on Iran, and this is how it will happen. Like the Iraq war, it will be a fatal blend of political arrogance and near criminal risk-taking, and this should come as no surprise to us because we know the political players. But we should also know that the time to prevent it is running out.

In Iran, the government is reeling from colossal economic and political pressures. There are signs of desperation. Western sanctions over its nuclear program are biting and there is an open power struggle among key government leaders. The murders since 2010 of four nuclear scientists — most certainly masterminded by agents of Israel’s Mossad — are deeply humiliating. With parliamentary elections in March regarded by many as the most important in the history of the Islamic republic, the pressure within Iran to hit back at Israel in some damaging way is inevitable — and this will happen soon.

In Israel, the calculation is also overwhelmingly political. The fractious government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is obsessed with the prospect of a nuclear Iran even if the evidence is still unclear how imminent that threat is. Netanyahu is also driven by his bitter rivalry with President Barack Obama. There is growing speculation the prime minister will trigger early Israeli elections in June to shore up his political position before Obama, as Netanyahu believes, is re-elected in November. He knows his best opportunity to attack Iran will be shortly before the U.S. election when he figures Obama would be politically cornered. But Netanyahu needs a pretext to act in “self-defence” and that is why Mossad is still covertly at work inside Iran. Iran will have to retaliate before Israel can act — and this will happen soon.

In the United States, Obama is caught up in the morass of election-year politics. His likely Republican presidential rival, Mitt Romney, is accusing the president of being weak on Iran: “If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.” The U.S. and its European allies now have a deadline of July 1 to impose a full embargo of Iranian oil. Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, claimed on Wednesday that a decision to launch a pre-emptive strike is “very far off.” But U.S. defence officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to strike Iran — and this will happen soon.

Full article: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1118311--burman-why-there-will-be-a-war-in-the-middle-east-this-year?bn=1

[Threetune]

The path into third world war is unrelenting. And even before the spiralling crisis collapse of the western monopoly system has fully implode and (because still just barely profitable with a ludicrous levels of utterly unsustainable inflationary “quantitative easing” fantasy credit), third world war is well underway, with the main issue in the upcoming presidential election in America are being essentially how much more depraved the American presidency should be, and whether they will need a republican to escalate the aggressive “shock and awe war”, or whether Obama-ism can do it, without breaking completely with its Goebbels lying pretence of “black nationalism” and “feminist” “progress”.

But to the squabbling mess of the primaries and the tea party movement, like the vicious “diplomatic” insult and recriminations among by Euro nations also underlines the desperate uncertainty and loss of confidence in the ruling class everywhere throughout imperialism as the greatest historic failure and disintegration of its profit making system in all history grips it by the throat.
Whichever way it turns, the unsolvable crisis only points towards the catastrophic failure that Marxism Leninist science has constantly warned the working class was inevitable.

“Top dog” imperialist USA needs to step off the warmongering threats to ensure the world stays compliant, feeding it unlimited quantities of natural resources and super profits from the surplus-value extracted from near-slave level plantation and sweatshop labour throughout the third world, despite its total bankruptcy.

But every blitzkrieg intensifies the hatred and resistance of the third world masses to imperialist tyranny, spreading rebellion from “terrorist” insurgency and desperate suicide bombing to the mass upheavals of Egypt and Tunisia.

And despite the deliberate Counter-revolution in Lybia, and Syria, this keeps spreading; now throughout Nigeria, and significantly into Hungary one of the former workers states being slaughtered by the capitalist crisis. The endless euro crisis meanwhile demonstrates the sheer impossibility of getting out of the crisis, every “solution” leading to more problems in a downward spiral.

Rescue of the French Banks by forcing Greeks to pay and you threaten unstoppable sovereign debt collapse and a chain of reaction; don’t bolster them and there is a chain reaction of bank failures. And rebellion either way. German exports need bailouts; German inflation needs imposed “discipline”. Austerity devastates growth but expansion threatens debt failure.

Capitalism has failed and he is using financial failure fears to bully workers into accepting penury. But depression and world war is coming anyway. Let it collapse. Workers have nothing to gain bailing out bankrupt bankers. They should take over factories farms, housing and the banks two – and everything else. It needs a revolutionary leadership – Leninism.

[eyeheartlenin]

I think there's a very distinct possibility of a horrific war with Iran, led by the US and Israel.... Obama could well decide to attack Iran to shore up support for the next election. He'd win some Republican votes and there is no substantive opposition to him within the Democratic party.

I have always thought that George W attacked Iraq mainly as an attempt to ensure his re-election, which, I certainly think, was a deeply immoral choice to have made. And now I am wondering if the Democratic incumbent is considering the same option, unleashing a war against Iran, out-flanking the GOP from the right, to guarantee a second term, in spite of a record poverty rate and an 8.5% unemployment rate.

I read through the war on Iran thread, and I did not see the following story included.


"Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- No one should doubt that President Barack Obama is prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if sanctions and diplomacy fail, the president’s former special assistant on Iran said....

"The administration considers the risks of permitting a nuclear-armed Iran to be greater than the risks of military action, said Ross, who last month rejoined the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a research group...."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-13/obama-ready-to-strike-to-stop-nuclear-iran-ex-adviser-says.html

[Threetune]

I have always thought that George W attacked Iraq mainly as an attempt to ensure his re-election, which, I certainly think, was a deeply immoral choice to have made. And now I am wondering if the Democratic incumbent is considering the same option, unleashing a war against Iran, out-flanking the GOP from the right, to guarantee a second term, in spite of a record poverty rate and an 8.5% unemployment rate.

I read through the war on Iran thread, and I did not see the following story included.

[QUOTE] "Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- No one should doubt that President Barack Obama is prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if sanctions and diplomacy fail, the president’s former special assistant on Iran said....

"The administration considers the risks of permitting a nuclear-armed Iran to be greater than the risks of military action, said Ross, who last month rejoined the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a research group...."[QUOTE]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-13/obama-ready-to-strike-to-stop-nuclear-iran-ex-adviser-says.html

So now we are all awake and switched on to the fact that the American bourgeoisie and their representatives in the White House have only one imperialist agenda. That is, to step-up and intimidate the entire planet.

[eyeheartlenin]

So now we are all awake and switched on to the fact that the American bourgeoisie and their representatives in the White House have only one imperialist agenda. That is, to step-up and intimidate the entire planet.

If I stated something that everyone else already knows, I'm sorry. I just had not seen it in writing before that the Democratic Administration is really prepared to take military action against Iran; I think the Administration's statements bring the US closer to a war against Iran than I had imagined.

I now believe that an election-year attack (and war) against Iran could actually happen, all because the economy's subpar performance is insufficient to guarantee the Incumbent's re-election. We really are the world's misfortune. Heaven help any country that attracts the US government's interest!

[Threetune]

"The most important word in the language of the working class is MAXIST-LENINIST REVOLUTIONARY "THEORY"

[eyeheartlenin]

"The most important word in the language of the working class is MAXIST-LENINIST REVOLUTIONARY "THEORY"

With all due respect, "Maxist (sic)-Leninist revolutionary theory" is a phrase, and maybe it's a phase (you're going through), but it's not a word, at least not in English.

Nice adaptation of the Harry Bridges quote, however. Nice color match, too. Thanks!

[RevSpetsnaz]

I wouldnt worry too much. The most that will happen is a standoff in which neither nation will have the balls to act.

[HixRixWoop]

If Iran are developing a nuclear weapon then I say get in there and destroy it before it can be used. Then again, it would be very ironic of the US to invade another country because of nuclear weapons as they're the only country in the world that has ever used a nuke in warfare.

Russia has said it would create disastrous consequences, if the US did invade I doubt Russia and China would juts sit by and watch.

[blake 3:17]

And now I am wondering if the Democratic incumbent is considering the same option, unleashing a war against Iran, out-flanking the GOP from the right, to guarantee a second term, in spite of a record poverty rate and an 8.5% unemployment rate.

It`s a very real very dangerous possibility. When I garbage above like `I wouldnt worry too much. The most that will happen is a standoff in which neither nation will have the balls to act.` I just think what planet are you on?

The friggin US GAVE permission to invade Kuwait, and then used that as the pretext to start the Gulf War.

Thatcher used the Falklands War to prop herself up domestically.

I find it bizarre when anti-capitalists suggest that wars will only happen when they`re economically or ecologically rational. We live in an insane system founded on exploitation of labour and the theft of land and natural resources.


If Iran are developing a nuclear weapon then I say get in there and destroy it before it can be used. Then again, it would be very ironic of the US to invade another country because of nuclear weapons as they're the only country in the world that has ever used a nuke in warfare.

Then invade Israel. Or India. Or the US.

I hate nuclear weapons and nuclear power passionately. We need to call for the abolition of both. To scapegoat Iran for a weapon they DON`T HAVE is insane.

Edited to add:
With all due respect, "Maxist (sic)-Leninist revolutionary theory" is a phrase, and maybe it's a phase (you're going through), but it's not a word, at least not in English. Fund schools not wars?

[HixRixWoop]

Then invade Israel. Or India. Or the US.

I hate nuclear weapons and nuclear power passionately. We need to call for the abolition of both. To scapegoat Iran for a weapon they DON`T HAVE is insane.


Those nations already have nuclear weapons, the point of this whole thing is to stop countries that don't have them, making new ones. Invading Israel, India or the US would kill a lot of people, invading Iran and striking the main sites and leaving would not.

[Zulu]

if the US did invade I doubt Russia and China would juts sit by and watch.

Russia will just sit by and watch how the oil prices go up... And China can't do anything militarily yet, so it will sit by too.

Iran is pretty much doomed.

[Nomad]

I'm in the Army and orders from TRADOC are to prepare for Pacific/Korean environments. I don't think we'll touch Iran.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I've felt that things will escalate for some time now. It's depressing to realize that neither you nor anyone else has any real power to stop a great catastrophe looming on the horizon.

Oh well. At least I'll have somewhere to go to be safe if the need arises. Plenty of food in the woods.

http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/resource/ShitHitsFanMediumT.png

[eyeheartlenin]

I've felt that things will escalate for some time now. It's depressing to realize that neither you nor anyone else has any real power to stop a great catastrophe looming on the horizon.

Oh well. At least I'll have somewhere to go to be safe if the need arises. Plenty of food in the woods.

http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/resource/ShitHitsFanMediumT.png

Kudos for the wonderful cartoon, Canis! The guy carrying the sack of manure must be preparing for a broadcast by some bourgeois politician (since he's bringing the necessary content for the politician's speech). As the cartoon suggests, it may very well hit the fan and soon. If we still had conscription, there would already be a thriving antiwar movement. Alas!

The other thing I wanted to say was that "Apes on a Pale Blue Dot" is a wonderful expression! It's a pity that, probably, no such organization exists. If it did, I would apply for membership, looking for a place among my fellow simians.

* * *

Oh wow! I got another little green box! I live for that stuff!

[piet11111]

I wouldnt worry too much. The most that will happen is a standoff in which neither nation will have the balls to act.

Except the Americans are strangling Iran economically in a similar way as they did to Japan before WW2.

Iran will have to fight back at one point or be choked to death.

[RevSpetsnaz]

Except the Americans are strangling Iran economically in a similar way as they did to Japan before WW2.

Iran will have to fight back at one point or be choked to death.

I think Iran will turn to China to try to effect the US economy.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I'm starting to think that the west will engage in a Yugoslavia-style bombing campaign against Iran and attempt to crush the Iranians in that manner. The US public won't support another war (at least I hope they won't) however, they won't mind a bombing campaign as long as their pilots aren't dying. Cruise missiles and drones attacks targeting both civilian and military targets will be carried out to try and crash the regime and eliminate Iran as a threat. If they succeed, then out come the patriotic songs and TV shows about how "bravely" their pilots murdered civilians.

However, unlike Yugoslavia, Iran can strike back and already has promised to do so, targeting Israel, Turkey, and pretty much any other nation that it perceives as a threat and is in range of their missiles. We'll see how this plays out, at the least it is an interesting geopolitical situation, at the most it is the pretense for another massive war.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Oh, well speak of the devil...

https://rt.com/news/aircraft-carrier-hormuz-iran-391/

Typical western bullying.


“That’s the reason we maintain a presence in the Middle East,” AP cited US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, as saying in a speech to about 1,700 sailors aboard the USS Enterprise. “We want them to know that we are fully prepared to deal with any contingency and it’s better for them to try to deal with us through diplomacy.”

"If you don't do what I say and give me your lunch money, I'm gonna punch you in the nose!"




In an apparent show of strength, Washington is deploying a second carrier strike group in the Gulf. US officials also confirmed their commitment to maintaining a global fleet of 11 aircraft carriers despite budget pressure to cut the fleet's size.
“That’s the reason we maintain a presence in the Middle East,” AP cited US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, as saying in a speech to about 1,700 sailors aboard the USS Enterprise. “We want them to know that we are fully prepared to deal with any contingency and it’s better for them to try to deal with us through diplomacy.”

Panetta added that the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise is on course for the Persian Gulf – and will steam through the Strait of Hormuz in a direct message to Iran, AP reports.

"We'll continue to make those messages clear. The most important way to make those messages clear is to show that we are prepared, that we are strong, that we'll have a presence in that part of the world," Panetta added.

The USS Enterprise, along with the other six ships in the carrier strike group, will deploy to the Middle East in March. It means the US will maintain two carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf region. The warships are expected to support the country’s battle operations in Afghanistan, its anti-piracy efforts and other missions.

Meanwhile, Iran claims it is not concerned with the move, saying it is a part of routine activity.

"US warships and military forces have been in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East region for many years and their decision in relation to the dispatch of a new warship is not a new issue and it should be interpreted as part of their permanent presence," Revolutionary Guard Deputy Commander Hossein Salami was quoted by the IRNA news agency on Saturday.

Tensions escalated in the Gulf after Iran warned the US that it might block the Strait, which is a major transit route for global oil supplies, if the West places an embargo on its oil exports.

Tehran also urged Washington not to send carriers into the Gulf. In return, Washington said it would continue to deploy its ships in the region.

The USS Enterprise, along with the other six ships in the carrier strike group, will deploy to the Middle East in March. Therefore, the US will maintain two carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf region. The warships are expected to support the country’s battle operations in Afghanistan, its anti-piracy efforts and other missions.

Next week the EU is set to agree an embargo on Iranian oil. The West expects the sanctions to force Iran to suspend the nuclear weapon activities it is allegedly practicing.

[piet11111]

I think will turn to China to try to effect the US economy.

China is also subject to the sanctions the USA will impose on country's that deal with Iranian businesses.

If you buy/sell with Iran you wont do so with the USA i actually think the Americans deliberately did this as a double whammy against China.

The whole goal of western imperialism in the middle east is to gain control over its oil and more importantly deny it to its rivals.

China is made increasingly vulnerable to a oil supply blockade by the USA so that they can dictate China's future on American terms.

[RevSpetsnaz]

China is also subject to the sanctions the USA will impose on country's that deal with Iranian businesses.

If you buy/sell with Iran you wont do so with the USA i actually think the Americans deliberately did this as a double whammy against China.

The whole goal of western imperialism in the middle east is to gain control over its oil and more importantly deny it to its rivals.

China is made increasingly vulnerable to a oil supply blockade by the USA so that they can dictate China's future on American terms.

China can turn to the Middle East or South America for oil, not to mention China owns the US anyways. If anything is done about Iran it will be the through the supporting of the anti-government movement.

[Psy]

China is also subject to the sanctions the USA will impose on country's that deal with Iranian businesses.

If you buy/sell with Iran you wont do so with the USA i actually think the Americans deliberately did this as a double whammy against China.

The problem is that putting sanctions against China would hurt the USA more then China, as most US capitalists depend on Chinese means of production for their source of surplus value.



The whole goal of western imperialism in the middle east is to gain control over its oil and more importantly deny it to its rivals.

China is made increasingly vulnerable to a oil supply blockade by the USA so that they can dictate China's future on American terms.
The problem is China needs oil so American capitalist can profit of means of production in China. So denying oil to China is also denying surplus value to the American ruling class.

[piet11111]

Well the American government wants to undermine China's competitiveness by drastically lowering wages and benefits in the USA.
This way they hope to return America's industrial sector and profits and be less dependent on China.

This is why they push for China to reevaluate its currency knowing that China would lose much of its edge this way because while China has a cheap labor force they are not as productive as American workers and investment in productivity in China would just create more over-production so that wont happen.

The Americans know that in time China will challenge its political and economical hegemony and they will do everything in their power to keep China weak and they will try to dictate China's future on American terms.

This is why they are trying to isolate China and to get control over the country's that provide China with the resources it needs.
And why they are militarily trying to encircle it and remove its allies like Syria and Iran.
They are redeploying troops to the natural oceanic choke-points that China depends on for the transportation of resources like oil.

If the Americans succeed in overthowing the Iranian government and instal a pro-American government they successfully took away 20% of China's daily oil needs and most importantly Iran can supply that oil over land.

[Psy]

Well the American government wants to undermine China's competitiveness by drastically lowering wages and benefits in the USA.
This way they hope to return America's industrial sector and profits and be less dependent on China.

This is why they push for China to reevaluate its currency knowing that China would lose much of its edge this way because while China has a cheap labor force they are not as productive as American workers and investment in productivity in China would just create more over-production so that wont happen.

The Americans know that in time China will challenge its political and economical hegemony and they will do everything in their power to keep China weak and they will try to dictate China's future on American terms.

This is why they are trying to isolate China and to get control over the country's that provide China with the resources it needs.
And why they are militarily trying to encircle it and remove its allies like Syria and Iran.
They are redeploying troops to the natural oceanic choke-points that China depends on for the transportation of resources like oil.

If the Americans succeed in overthowing the Iranian government and instal a pro-American government they successfully took away 20% of China's daily oil needs and most importantly Iran can supply that oil over land.
The problem is American capital can't see past the bottom line, all American capital knows is that its rate of profit is linked to China's ability to continue to industrialize, if China ever stopped industrializing the surplus value world wide would vanish over night as all the commodities China's industrialization process consumes annually would all of sudden have no market and markets are already a wash in unsold commodities. The capitalists that are consciousness of their material condition understand the only thing preventing another great depression is that China is consuming commodities at a rapidly growing rate, the weakness of the US economic stimulus shows the USA is in no position to subsidize world capitalism at the same scale China currently is doing.

[piet11111]

The problem is American capital can't see past the bottom line, all American capital knows is that its rate of profit is linked to China's ability to continue to industrialize, if China ever stopped industrializing the surplus value world wide would vanish over night as all the commodities China's industrialization process consumes annually would all of sudden have no market and markets are already a wash in unsold commodities.

China has a remarkably limited internal market and that is one of its main weaknesses.
Their export driven market demands near slave wages and will leave no room for internal consumption.
Any increase in wages would mean a disaster economically and already China is under threat by its massively expanding workforce.
Anything below 8% growth means that the army of unemployed expands.


The capitalists that are consciousness of their material condition understand the only thing preventing another great depression is that China is consuming commodities at a rapidly growing rate, the weakness of the US economic stimulus shows the USA is in no position to subsidize world capitalism at the same scale China currently is doing.

Expansion from fuckall will always be rapid percentage wise but the reality is that China has a gigantic problem with its property bubble that is ready to implode.
https://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/chin-j04.shtml

[Klaatu]

This all goes back to oil.

The sooner we get off of imported oil, the sooner the potential for war and/or economic collapse will subside from world politics.

[Os Cangaceiros]

No actually. What is happening?

Read the first paragraph of this (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/how-we-lost-the-peace-in-iraq) article, then read some of the comments for further discussion on the Iraq/Iran relationship.

[Psy]

China has a remarkably limited internal market and that is one of its main weaknesses.
Their export driven market demands near slave wages and will leave no room for internal consumption.
Any increase in wages would mean a disaster economically and already China is under threat by its massively expanding workforce.
Anything below 8% growth means that the army of unemployed expands.

China use the same temporary solution the USSR did in the 1950's and subsidize further industrialization through a arms race with the USA as the military can absorb anything industry produces and mop up unemployed workers. Meaning if China ruling turns to military keynesianism they can buy themselves another decade or two.



Expansion from fuckall will always be rapid percentage wise but the reality is that China has a gigantic problem with its property bubble that is ready to implode.
https://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/chin-j04.shtml
Yes it does but that doesn't change the fact that it is in all the capitalists interests for China to keep going as there is no market to replace China if it goes away.

[piet11111]

China use the same temporary solution the USSR did in the 1950's and subsidize further industrialization through a arms race with the USA as the military can absorb anything industry produces and mop up unemployed workers. Meaning if China ruling turns to military keynesianism they can buy themselves another decade or two.

A Chinese military buildup is already underway with the most obvious example being their creation of aircraft carrier groups.
But this just means that sooner or later they will come into a collision with American interests when China starts to use its military for political and economical gains. (like their growing economic ties in Africa)



Yes it does but that doesn't change the fact that it is in all the capitalists interests for China to keep going as there is no market to replace China if it goes away.

China caters to our markets and with the global recession going on they are shrinking.
All the West wants is that China bankrolls our debts.
Some capitalists have an economic stake in China but even that is eroding with Vietnam and Thailand offering even cheaper labor and with the drop in cost for American labor even the USA is becoming more attractive for productive capitalism.
China is taking an ever larger slice of the pie and western capitalism sees that as a threat even if a group of our capitalists profit from China that does not change a thing.

[Psy]

A Chinese military buildup is already underway with the most obvious example being their creation of aircraft carrier groups.
But this just means that sooner or later they will come into a collision with American interests when China starts to use its military for political and economical gains. (like their growing economic ties in Africa)

That is the nature of capitalism, just like how US capitalists supported imperial Japan even after the US government place economic sanctions against Japan as US capitalists wanted a piece of the surplus value that came from Japan's rapid military build up to strike the USA and US capitalists was happy after Peal Harbor as it meant they could sell arms to all sides and get filthy stinking rich regardless of how WWII played out (save for if WWII resulted in a world revolution against capitalism). In the face of high rates of profits capitalists can only see the short term and only care about the short term, this is why West German capitalists even sold East Germany super computers meant to be used against West Germany in the event of a NATO/Warsaw Pact war, they didn't care the commodity they were selling was meant to be used against them.



China caters to our markets and with the global recession going on they are shrinking.
All the West wants is that China bankrolls our debts.
Some capitalists have an economic stake in China but even that is eroding with Vietnam and Thailand offering even cheaper labor and with the drop in cost for American labor even the USA is becoming more attractive for productive capitalism.
China is taking an ever larger slice of the pie and western capitalism sees that as a threat even if a group of our capitalists profit from China that does not change a thing.
The problem is fixed capital of heavy industry, that few investors are willing to pay for new heavy industry to be built in Vietnam and Thailand.

[Rusty Shackleford]

This all goes back to oil.

The sooner we get off of imported oil, the sooner the potential for war and/or economic collapse will subside from world politics.
I dont remember the cause of two world wars last century being about oil.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I dont remember the cause of two world wars last century being about oil.
I'll add in Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, the Bay of Pigs invasion, Mexican-American War, the War of 1812, The US Civil War, etc etc etc

Even if we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the world powers will still come up with excuses to go to war. Or, in modern parlance, "military conflicts."

[blake 3:17]

Or, in modern parlance, "military conflicts." Don't you mean supporting freedom and making the world a safer place?

[blake 3:17]

February 4 has been named a Day of Action against attacking Iran. Events are just being planned. Organizers are suggesting using Facebook as a co-ordinating tool: https://www.facebook.com/events/214341975322807/


Sat., Feb. 4 Day of Action: No Sanctions, No War Against Iran!

The ANSWER Coalition is calling on everyone to join a demonstration or to organize one on the National Day of Action on Saturday, February 4, to demand: “No War on Iran, No Sanctions, No Intervention, No Assassinations.”

The U.S.-led campaign to bring about regime change is escalating. Just today, the European Union announced a complete embargo of Iranian oil. Taken together with the other economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies, this is a campaign meant to impose maximum suffering on the people of Iran by destabilizing and destroying the country’s economy. At the same time, covert action inside the country, including assassinations, sabotage and drone over flights, is intensifying. U.S. military bases surround Iran, while nuclear-armed U.S. aircraft carriers and Trident submarines sit right off its cost.

The pretext for this aggression against another country in the strategic Persian Gulf region is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, an assertion that Iranian leaders have denied. The utter hypocrisy of this charge by the world’s leading nuclear weapons power and its nuclear-armed allies, including Israel, Britain and France, could not be clearer.

U.S. seeks to repeat history

Sixty years ago, the U.S. and British imposed a worldwide embargo on Iranian oil in response to the nationalization of the country’s petroleum resources by the Mossadegh government, the first democratically elected government in Iran’s history. The embargo weakened the government enough so that in 1953 the U.S. CIA was able to carry out a coup, and place the Shah (king) back on the throne. For the next 25 years, the Shah served a extremely brutal agent of the U.S., killing up to 100,000 Iranians in the regime’s notorious torture chambers, and turning the country’s resources over to U.S. oil companies and banks.

Twenty-one years ago the U.S. pushed the UN Security Council a total blockade of Iraq. Thirteen years of sanctions killed more than a million Iraqis and severely weakened the country, paving the way for the 2003 invasion and an occupation which killed a million more Iraqis and killed and wounded tens of thousands of U.S. and other occupying troops.

Now is the time to take action to stop the war that has already started against Iran before it escalates. We hope that you will join us in cities where demonstrations are already scheduled, or organize a protest if one is not yet planned in your city, town or campus.

Partial list of scheduled events:

If you or someone in your area is organizing an event on or around Feb. 4, please provide us with the event details by clicking here so we may publicize it on our website and future emails.

Washington, DC
Saturday, Feb. 4 at 12 noon
White House

Albuquerque, NM
Saturday, Feb. 4 at 12 noon
Assemble at UNM Bookstore
Corner of Central and Cornell

Chicago, IL
Saturday, Feb. 4 at 12 noon
Federal Plaza for march and rally
50 W Adams (Adams and Dearborn)

Los Angeles, CA
Saturday, Feb. 4 at 12 noon
Location to be announced - call ANSWER at 213-251-1025

Minneapolis, MN
Saturday, Feb. 4 at 3pm
Mayday Plaza
301 Cedar Ave. South (at 3rd Street)

Nashville, TN
Saturday, Feb. 4 at 2pm
Gather at Legislative Plaza
6th Ave. between Charlotte & Union

New York City, NY
Saturday, Feb. 4 at 1pm
Duffy Square
47th St. and 7th Ave.

Richmond, VA
Saturday, Feb. 4 at 12pm
Gather at Federal Courthouse
701 East Broad Street

San Francisco, CA
Saturday, Feb. 4 at 12 noon
Gather at Powell and Market for march and rally
(BART to Powell St. Station)

Seattle, WA
Wednesday, Feb. 1
Rally at Westlake Park at 3:30pm
March to the Federal Building at 4:30pm

Tampa, FL
Saturday, Feb. 4 at 12 noon
March on MacDill Air Force Base CENTCOM
7115 S Boundary Blvd.

If you or someone in your area is organizing an event on or around Feb. 4, please provide us with the event details by clicking here so we may publicize it on our website and future emails.

ENDORSED BY: American Iranian Friendship Committee • ANSWER Coalition • Antiwar.com • Bail Out The People Movement (BOPM) • Cindy Sheehan, National Co-ordinator of Peace of the Action • CODEPINK Women for Peace • ComeHomeAmerica.us • David Swanson, Author, “When the World Outlawed War” • Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality-Virginia • Delegation’s Journey through the Islamic Republic” • George Phillies, Editor for Liberty for America • Granny Peace Brigade • International Action Center (IAC) • Karla Hansen, Producer/Director “Silent Screams” • Malcolm X Center for Self Determination • Minnesota Peace Action Coalition • Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS) • Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) • Peace of the Action • Phil Wilayto, Author, “In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace • Ramsey Clark, Former US Attorney General, awarded UN Human Rights Award • Ray McGovern, Veterans for Peace • Refugee Apostolic Catholic Church • SI! Solidarity with Iran • St. Pete for Peace • Twin Cities Peace Campaign • United National Anti-War Committee (UNAC) • Veterans for Peace – NYC Chapter 034 • Waco Friends of Peace • WAMM, Women Against Military Madness • We Won’t Fly • WESPAC Foundation • Workers World Party • World Can’t Wait

[piet11111]

I dont remember the cause of two world wars last century being about oil.

Japan was starved of oil by the USA so they considered themselves already at war with them prior to pearl harbor.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Japan was starved of oil by the USA so they considered themselves already at war with them prior to pearl harbor.
Because Oil was the only resource the Japanese empire was seeking to have control over. Also, i didnt know WWII started when the US got involved.



yes, im being snarky.



seriously though, a resource isnt the sole cause of conflict. Imperialism requires constant growth, and when a nationalist state restricts access of the world market to some resources or even just general commodity trading, imperialist powers have a conniption.

[piet11111]

Because Oil was the only resource the Japanese empire was seeking to have control over. Also, i didnt know WWII started when the US got involved.

WW2 became global with the conflict in asia starting otherwise it would have been a "limited" conflict restricted to Europe and comparable to the napoleonic wars.
And at the time 80% of Japans oil needs was sold to them by the USA and when the USA imposed its embargo on Japan they considered it an act of war.
Without that oil their military and industry would be immensely crippled and extremely vulnerable.



seriously though, a resource isnt the sole cause of conflict. Imperialism requires constant growth, and when a nationalist state restricts access of the world market to some resources or even just general commodity trading, imperialist powers have a conniption.

The oil embargo would have stopped Japans imperialist campaign in Asia in its tracks once their reserves ran dry and would have meant a crushing defeat at the hands of their enemy's.
Had the Americans not imposed that embargo Japan would have been happy just slaughtering the Chinese and leave America to its own devices as they knew a war against them would be a massive gamble.
Hence the need for a massive surprise attack to attempt to destroy the pacific fleet in 1 crippling blow at pearl harbor.

[Rusty Shackleford]

yet even after declaring war on the US they were still able to carry on their war effort?

if the US supply of oil was so vital then why did they then declare war? I mean really.



Regardless, its not just about oil and the whole war was not fought over oil. Yes some of the large strategies revolved around oil like the Battle of the Bulge, the push into the caucus and so on. The main issue was inter-imperialist rivalries. the US slapped Japan and Japan got pissed. to put it in very simple and non-eloquent words.

[blake 3:17]

piet11111 -- I thought maybe you were a little simplistic but


WW2 became global with the conflict in asia starting otherwise it would have been a "limited" conflict restricted to Europe and comparable to the napoleonic wars.
And at the time 80% of Japans oil needs was sold to them by the USA and when the USA imposed its embargo on Japan they considered it an act of war.
Without that oil their military and industry would be immensely crippled and extremely vulnerable.

You think Japan attacked the US to get oil??? Attacking Pearl Harbor would intimidate the US into handing over natural rsources??? WTF?


The oil embargo would have stopped Japans imperialist campaign in Asia in its tracks once their reserves ran dry and would have meant a crushing defeat at the hands of their enemy's.
Had the Americans not imposed that embargo Japan would have been happy just slaughtering the Chinese and leave America to its own devices as they knew a war against them would be a massive gamble.
Hence the need for a massive surprise attack to attempt to destroy the pacific fleet in 1 crippling blow at pearl harbor.

A tiny portion of Hawaii?

[Psy]

yet even after declaring war on the US they were still able to carry on their war effort?

if the US supply of oil was so vital then why did they then declare war? I mean really.

To acquire the oil from the Philippines and raw minerals from China. This is why submarines warfare against Japan worked so well for the USA, Japan depended on freights moving resources from its newly acquired colonies back to the mainland.



You think Japan attacked the US to get oil??? Attacking Pearl Harbor would intimidate the US into handing over natural rsources??? WTF?

Pearl Harbor was meant to knock the US Navy out of the Pacific long enough to drive the British, French, Dutch and Americans out of the Pacific and establish strong puppet governments loyal to the Japanese ruling class.

[piet11111]

piet11111 -- I thought maybe you were a little simplistic but You think Japan attacked the US to get oil??? Attacking Pearl Harbor would intimidate the US into handing over natural rsources??? WTF?

No attacking the fleet at pearl harbor would have destroyed America's ability to fight the Japanese so they could then attack the other colonial powers in the region. (and i just noticed Psy's post)
Without the Americans being able to do anything about it for years to come.


The Japanese still had reserves but in time those would have dried up.
Their whole colonial conquest was driven by their desire to become resource independent from foreign powers.

[Psy]

The Japanese still had reserves but in time those would have dried up.
Their whole colonial conquest was driven by their desire to become resource independent from foreign powers.
Resource independence was the ruling class reaction to their growing crisis of modernity. The Japanese ruling class knew they were very weak, that they had to worry about competing capitalist powers plus the growing labor militancy in Japan as the process of ripping peasants of the land and throwing them into factories while forcing them to pay rent to the old landed aristocracy had made Japanese workers very militant, to the point Japanese ruling class reacted and declared martial law, the Japanese military bureaucracy took over the running of the Japan state and thinking it solved the specter of communism with military might thought they could save Japan from its backwardness the same way.

Yet the contradictions of the Japanese ruling class wasn't solved during WWII, they became more pronounced, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 yet Japan couldn't exploit Manchuria as they couldn't build the means of production in Manchuria due to Japan producing little surplus value for the capital required to exploit Manchuria.

[blake 3:17]

Editorial from the liberal Zionist Haaretz:


Published 01:43 29.01.12Latest update 01:43 29.01.12
Israel is using Iran to sidestep Mideast peace talks
It's hard to understand how a society that has so impressively brought social injustice to the top of the agenda has fallen victim to our nationalist-religious leaders' criminal ploy and the irresponsible opposition's helplessness.

Haaretz Editorial
Get Haaretz on iPhone
Get Haaretz on Android
The deadline the Quartet gave Israel and the Palestinians for submitting their positions on security and borders - Thursday, January 26 - flew by. It's as if it never existed.

The Quartet's plan, which was to bring the parties from the UN struggle to the negotiating table, is about to be relegated to history's graveyard of missed opportunities. The general positions that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu submitted last week through his envoy Isaac Molho during talks in Jordan are a blatant attempt to saddle the Palestinians with responsibility for the negotiations' failure.

Netanyahu might know that his refusal to present a map based on the June 4, 1967 borders and a realistic land-swap proposal is a surefire recipe for a continued freeze in the negotiations. Any rational person understands that a territorial plan of lesser scope and quality than the one the two previous prime ministers, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, presented the Palestinians is doomed to diplomatic failure and deteriorating security. But worryingly, the diplomatic process, whose purpose is to ensure Israel's very existence as a Jewish and democratic state, is being shunted to the sidelines of the political and media discourse.

Netanyahu, with Barak's help, has turned the Iranian nuclear threat into an impressive ploy to distract attention from settlement policy and the perpetuation of the occupation. He has taken advantage of President Barack Obama's preoccupation with the U.S. presidential elections and Obama's fear of the Jewish right.

Rival parties on Israel's center and left have adopted a policy of unilateral disengagement from Palestinian issues. Kadima is busy with infighting, the Labor Party prefers to focus on social issues, and Yair Lapid, the new immigrant to the political arena, has decided that peace is for dreamers.

The death certificate of negotiations based on the two-state solution is a badge of shame for Israeli society. It's hard to understand how a society that has so impressively brought social injustice to the top of the agenda has fallen victim to our nationalist-religious leaders' criminal ploy and the irresponsible opposition's helplessness.

Read this article in Hebrew

This story is by:

Haaretz Editorial

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-is-using-iran-to-sidestep-mideast-peace-talks-1.409738

[Reed]

rt.com/news/us-iran-ww3-chossudovsky-025/



‘War in Iran would mean WWIII’


The military build-up and economic sanctions against Iran are designed to unleash a global war from the Mediterranean to China with unpredictable consequences, warns Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Tensions between Iran and the West are close to crisis level. With massive help from the western media, Iran has firmly become embedded as the root of all evil in the minds of many westerners.

The author of the book Towards a World War Three Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War told RT that “The issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons is a red herring, but this red herring could lead us to a WWIII scenario.” He also recalled all the American military bases with nuclear weapons close to Iran’s borders.

Michel Chossudovsky recalled that a couple of weeks ago, America’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta quite categorically stated to CBS that Iran neither possesses, nor is developing nuclear weapons. Panetta did not rule out that there are still diplomatic means to cut Iran’s Gordian knot.

But considering the US military preparations around Iran, this statement rather looks like a deceptive maneuver.

Last week, EU nations adopted an unprecedented set of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

These include a complete embargo on oil supplies from Iran, and are expected to come into force in July.

“What we are witnessing here is a build-up towards a military confrontation. These sanctions constitute the staging of a military agenda,” feels Michel Chossudovsky. “In turn, we have massive deployment of US military hardware, troops going to Israel to be stationed in Israel, more troops go to Kuwait, [American] naval forces are entering the Persian Gulf.”

Michel Chossudovsky believes that “What the United States wants now, including its allies, is some kind of a green light which will give a human face to a war.”

On Monday, the UN nuclear inspectors started a three-day mission to examine Iran's atomic activities.

Tehran says the talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the first in more than three years, will prove its nuclear program is purely peaceful.

With the visit of the IAEA inspectors, Iran is playing a diplomatic card, believes Chossudovsky. The IAEA is not politically controlled, so once it confirms Iran’s nuclear program has peaceful purposes, this should undermine the aggressive intentions of the West.

The US needs a contrary statement from the IAEA to use this for transition to a new – military – stage in the Iran drama.

“This war has already started. There are drone attacks, there are special [American] forces inside Iran and there is financial warfare,” considers Michel Chossudovsky.

Plans to invade Iran emerged immediately after the invasion of Iraq, Chossudovsky informs, with military preparations begun around 2005, so by now everything should be ready and in place for a full-scale military conflict.

“The WWIII scenario is unthinkable. This war would extend from the Meditarranean to the Chinese border. It could possibly include Russia and China,” Michel Chossudovsky concluded. “We could find ourselves at a very critical crossroads.”

[Ozymandias]

Whether the US goes to war against Iran depends entirely on the significance of the relations between Iran and Russia and China.

Regardless of how much the established order would profit from a war with Iran...The introduction of China or Russia into the conflict would mark economic turmoil of an astronomical scale. China and The United States cannot exist separately. The backbone of the American empire is Chinese labor.

[robear]

I just read a pretty interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today.

"Pentagon Seeks Mightier Bomb Vs. Iran"
By Adam Entous and Julian E. Barnes

"Pentagon war planners have concluded that their largest conventional bomb isn't yet capable of destroying Iran's most heavily fortified underground facilities, and are stepping up efforts to make it more powerful, according to U.S. officials briefed on the plan.

"The 30,000-pound "bunker-buster" bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, was specifically designed to take out the hardened fortifications bild by Iran and North Korea to cloak their nuclear programs."

According to the article the Defense Department has spent $330 million to develop 20 of these bombs, and the Pentagon seeks $82 million to make it more effective.