Iran doesn't have nuclear-bombs. But Obama says it does have nuclear bombs like Bush

[marxistsocialist]

HERE IS OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY REGARDING IRAN, WHICH IS A RIGHT-WING ZIONIST POLICY, IN FAVOR OF ISRAHELL:



Iran


The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.
Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Renewing American Diplomacy


The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.
Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

[Led Zeppelin]

This is what I find hilarious about the "mainstream media" in the US. Repeat something often enough and it becomes truth.

It is an objective fact that there is no evidence of Iran seeking to build nuclear weapons. All official sources say this, ranging from the UN "nuclear watchdog" (and quite a reliable dog that is!) to former CIA officials, but when some semi-moronic news anchors repeat the lies of the White House, everyone takes it over as fact.

The irony is especially sweet after what happened in Iraq. I remember watching those very same anchors squirm when anyone criticized them over their conduct during the lead-up to the war in Iraq, "they weren't critical enough", "they took over the ready-made lies of the White House" etc. etc.

And what was their reply? Well there was no way on earth that they could have known! They had to trust their own government! But never again! Next time we'll be on our guard, next time we'll make sure that this doesn't happen....

These people have a political memory span of one day.

[marxistsocialist]

Hey my friend: what i found the most sick and evil satanic sickness is the 1.2 million Iraqui dead people all because of a lie that Iraq had Nuclear weapons and even if it had nuclear weapons, 1.2 million iraqui people dead is a holocaust and genocide. If that is not a holocaust, i don't know what is it.

And you know something? Europe is also guilty as well, so are many latin american nations like Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, etc. who supported Bushs' war against Iraq.

Most capitalist governments are guilty as well of the genocide of 1.2 million dead iraquis. Those 1.2 million dead people are more important than the other problems caused by this war like expensive oil

marxistsocialist



And what was their reply? Well there was no way on earth that they could have known! They had to trust their own government! But never again! Next time we'll be on our guard, next time we'll make sure that this doesn't happen....These people have a political memory span of one day.

[BobKKKindle$]

The premise behind the position you seem to be advocating (as expressed in the title of this thread) is that if Iran intended to develop nuclear weapons or already possessed a nuclear arsenal, the position Obama has chosen to adopt would be justified. However, this is not the correct position to take, as it disregards the double standard adopted by the United States concerning attempts by foreign governments to develop nuclear weapons in response to the danger of imperialist intervention. The United States is the only country which has ever used nuclear weapons against another state, retains control of a large nuclear arsenal, larger than any other country, and is currently engaged in the development of new nuclear arms which would enhance the destructive capability of the United States and hence allow for the extension of American imperial control. Given this threat, and persistent American attempts to undermine the sovereignty of Iran (for example, by situating naval vessels inside Iran's borders without gaining the permission of, or informing the Iranian government) and force Iran into armed confrontation, the Iranian government has a clear right to develop nuclear weapons, a right which should be upheld by all socialists.

[marxistsocialist]

Yeah i agree with u 100%. Let me put it in simple terms. Nuclear weapons is not even a justification to attack anothe country. That's like the police should raid and attack all citizens preemptively who own a guns in their house or car, because according to this preemptive law, many people who have a gun in their possesion *might* use that gun and kill other citizen in the future.

I thought that war-laws stated clearly and openly that the only way a country has a legal right to attack militarily another country is if the attacker country was militarily harassed by another country. I thought that was the only way a country could attack another country, according to international war laws. But it seems to me that maybe international war laws don't work. UN is a corrupted organization and doesn't work at policing the world.

marxistsocialist


The premise behind the position you seem to be advocating (as expressed in the title of this thread) is that if Iran intended to develop nuclear weapons or already possessed a nuclear arsenal, the position Obama has chosen to adopt would be justified. However, this is not the correct position to take, as it disregards the double standard adopted by the United States concerning attempts by foreign governments to develop nuclear weapons in response to the danger of imperialist intervention. The United States is the only country which has ever used nuclear weapons against another state, retains control of a large nuclear arsenal, larger than any other country, and is currently engaged in the development of new nuclear arms which would enhance the destructive capability of the United States and hence allow for the extension of American imperial control. Given this threat, and persistent American attempts to undermine the sovereignty of Iran (for example, by situating naval vessels inside Iran's borders without gaining the permission of, or informing the Iranian government) and force Iran into armed confrontation, the Iranian government has a clear right to develop nuclear weapons, a right which should be upheld by all socialists.

[blahpid]

Yeah i agree with u 100%. Let me put it in simple terms. Nuclear weapons is not even a justification to attack anothe country. That's like the police should raid and attack all citizens preemptively who own a guns in their house or car, because according to this preemptive law, many people who have a gun in their possesion *might* use that gun and kill other citizen in the future.

I thought that war-laws stated clearly and openly that the only way a country has a legal right to attack militarily another country is if the attacker country was militarily harassed by another country. I thought that was the only way a country could attack another country, according to international war laws. But it seems to me that maybe international war laws don't work. UN is a corrupted organization and doesn't work at policing the world.

marxistsocialist
I agree with you. As far as rules are concerned the U.S has no right whatsoever to just attack any country it pleases. But it is not the only country defying rules, and it won't be the last time a country decides to encroach boundaries, *despite* rules. The whole problem with the U.S is that they decide to travel across oceans and continents to make their presence felt. The UN basically has no powers, it depends on the U.S for most of its funding and troops. Also, the U.S government hardly acknowledges the presence of the UN. The American constitution states that a majority of congress has to vote in favor for a war against another country. The last time the Congress voted FOR a war was ww2. And yet we have had so many other wars after that, the decisions taken by the reigning president and his cronies.

The safety and use of nuclear weapons poses a huge threat to the world because, in the twenty first century we are faced with 'terrorism'-the result of collectively corrupt governments. These extremists aren't like..ARE NOT the revolutionaries of last century whom we have come to admire, for their causes and determination, but they believe in destruction for the sake of it. Revolutionaries like Che had a vision, a goal for unity among nations, for equality! We live in the time of car bombs, building blasts, and suicide bombs. I believe that in our era, the cause is for hatred. Perhaps if a revolution had succeeded, we would not be in the situation we are in with terrorists killing the innocent and corrupt governments fanning the flames which has already burnt a big hole.

[ashaman1324]

times have changed no doubt.
and i think well return to the era where revolutionaries like che guevara, fidel castro, etc... were admired, because they were admired to this day, and tomorrows revolutionary leaders will follow in the footsteps of those they admire, not those who only want to destroy.
and for the record, i dont think all of todays revolutions just turn out to be bloodbaths, look at nepal.

[JimmyJazz]

These people have a political memory span of one day.

Yep.

[ComradeOm]

Yeah i agree with u 100%. Let me put it in simple terms. Nuclear weapons is not even a justification to attack anothe country. That's like the police should raid and attack all citizens preemptively who own a guns in their house or car, because according to this preemptive law, many people who have a gun in their possesion *might* use that gun and kill other citizen in the futureAnd what if there was a person amassing a stockpile of military hardware in your neighbourhood? What if this person was widely considered to be unsound, a crackpot with crazy ideas? Would you be comfortable with this?

End of the day this is Iran that we are talking about. It is not the mad theocracy that it is often portrayed as in the Western media but is is nonetheless a highly reactionary state that is hostile to worker interests and governed by a religious elite. Given its past behaviour, and the obvious prestige associated with the nuclear club, I would frankly be astonished if Iran were not trying to develop these weapons

Now I'm not particularly happy that the US maintains such a large nuclear arsenal but that's too late to change. However I do not want to see Iran of all nations acquiring such devastating weapons


I thought that war-laws stated clearly and openly that the only way a country has a legal right to attack militarily another country is if the attacker country was militarily harassed by another countryIncorrect. I'm unaware of anything in the original Hague Treaties that states this and the principle (if it did exist) has certainly been obsolete since the London Charter of 1945

[Comrade Stern]

iran has clearly stated it wants to wipe israel off the face of the earth... and clearly supply militant extremist groups all over the middle east that are a threat to many countries... iran should clearly not have its hands on any weapons of the nuclear type...

[Plagueround]

iran has clearly stated it wants to wipe israel off the face of the earth... and clearly supply militant extremist groups all over the middle east that are a threat to many countries... iran should clearly not have its hands on any weapons of the nuclear type...

I've heard that the "wipe off the face of the earth" thing was a mistranslation and he was merely stating the country should not exist...I don't know how true that is so I won't adamantly defend it. Can you give examples of clear support for militants that threaten anything but US troops occupying invaded lands? I don't know of any.

What has the United States done to justify having nuclear weapons?

Well, besides actually using them on someone.

[BobKKKindle$]

iran has clearly stated it wants to wipe israel off the face of the earth... and clearly supply militant extremist groups all over the middle east that are a threat to many countries... iran should clearly not have its hands on any weapons of the nuclear type..Far from being "threats" to the populations of neighboring states, these "extremist" groups command the support of large numbers of ordinary workers and other people who have suffered under the burden of American (and, by proxy, Israeli) imperialism, as groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have always had a leading role in the military struggle against the threat of imperialist occupation (as shown by the successful struggle conducted by Hezbollah against the invasion of Lebanon by the IDF in 2006) and also provide important services such as healthcare to local communities who would otherwise be denied access to these services. These groups may not be socialist (as is clear from Hezbollah's stance on homosexuality and other issues concerning the rights of oppressed groups) but they are still the center of anti-imperialist activity and as long as no popular socialist alternative exists, all socialists who oppose imperialism and uphold the right of workers to remain free from the violence of military occupation by an imperialist power should offer unconditional support to these organisations and yet also strive to develop socialist organisations which will eventually be able to take the place of islamic groups and combined the struggle against imperialism with a class-based program which recognizes the need to overthrow capitalism. This was the position adopted by the SWP in 2006 as soon as Israel initiated the war with Lebanon.

As stated above, the president of Iran never suggested that Israel should be physically eliminated, but even if this was what he said it would be foolish to assume that his statement implied a genuine desire to physically destroy the Israeli state, because the Iranian government is aware that the destruction of Israel is simply not a realistic possibility given the military support Israel currently receives from the United States and the military implications for Iran if war did break out due to an Iranian act of aggression. The alleged statement was widely promoted by the bourgeois media to whip up hostility against Iran in preparation for an invasion, without considering the fact that states use this kind of language all the time to create the illusion of a tough stance when in reality government officials recognize the inevitability and importance of dialogue and other non-violent means of conflict resolution.

[ComradeOm]

Can you give examples of clear support for militants that threaten anything but US troops occupying invaded lands? I don't know of anyHezbollah (sponsored by Iran) refuses to recognise the state of Israel. They are not alone in this. Indeed I have to ask whether you believe that terrorism in the Middle East did not exist prior to 2003?


I've heard that the "wipe off the face of the earth" thing was a mistranslation and he was merely stating the country should not exist...I don't know how true that is so I won't adamantly defend itThe actual phrase used was "wiped away". A slightly less melodramatic statement but essentially the same sentiment, ie the removal of Israel from the geopolitical map

[Plagueround]

Hezbollah (sponsored by Iran) refuses to recognise the state of Israel. They are not alone in this.

Refusal to recognize a state they are constantly at odds with is not terrorism. Both sides are constantly killing one another and their civilians, and calling one a terrorist organization and one a state is biased, especially given the history of how that state was formed.


Indeed I have to ask whether you believe that terrorism in the Middle East did not exist prior to 2003?

Oh really? I thought it was a paradise! :rolleyes:
Certainly terrorism exists, but you need to view it from a position other than "arabs bad, israel good".


The actual phrase used was "wiped away". A slightly less melodramatic statement but essentially the same sentiment, ie the removal of Israel from the geopolitical map

That doesn't imply total annihilation.

[ComradeOm]

Refusal to recognize a state they are constantly at odds with is not terrorismCorrect. Of course detonating bombs on buses because you reject the existence of the state of Israel is terrorism


Certainly terrorism exists, but you need to view it from a position other than "arabs bad, israel good"When did I saw that? You asked whether Iran supported militants that threatened anything but US interests. The answer is yes

You, and many others here, have to stop viewing the world from a position of "America bad, everything else good". That means excusing the ridiculous and bigoted position that Israel has no right to exist or should not exist


That doesn't imply total annihilation.At the very least it implies the complete destruction of the state of Israel. More sinisterly, Ahmadinejad is no Marxist and he does not distinguish between a state and its people. His remarks can easily be construed as a threat to 'annihilate' the Israeli people and the 'Zionist threat' to Islam

[BobKKKindle$]

ComradeOm, you didn't respond to any of my points - please do so.

The fact that Hezbollah does not recognize Israel's right to exist does not automatically mean Hezbollah is a "terrorist" organization or that socialists should not support Hezbollah when they conduct military operations against the Israeli state. Rejecting Israel's right to exist in a position shared by many socialist organizations and is based on the fact that no ethnic group has the right to demand a state which exists to protect their interests at the expense of other ethnic groups which, in the context of the Israel, means the Palestinians who inhabited what is now known as Israel prior to the creation of the Israeli state.

Hezbollah does use attacks against civilians, and it is true that other pro-Palestine organizations have even used suicide attacks. However, this is primarily because these organizations and the Palestinian movement as a whole does not possess the military hardware which is available to Israel, and so often have no choice but to resort to what many people see as barbaric attacks which do not discriminate between civilians and members of the armed services. Israel can claim the support of the most powerful military power in the world and so has the luxury of using modern fighter planes and tanks to maintain the occupation and terrorize the Palestinian population. The difference between the actions of Israel and the Palestinian movement is that when attacks are conducted against the Israeli state, they are part of a legitimate struggle against the oppression of a colonial power, whereas attacks by Israel are designed to maintain a brutal system of occupation which undermines the rights of the Palestinian people.

[Plagueround]

Correct. Of course detonating bombs on buses because you reject the existence of the state of Israel is terrorism

Right. So is launching missles into soccer fields where school children are playing and blowing them to pieces (Israel did this a few months back). The idea is not that Israel is a noble and peaceful state that bravely defends against crazed Arab militants. These two sides have been constantly at war (without declaration) for decades and both have committed terrible, terrible acts.


When did I saw that? You asked whether Iran supported militants that threatened anything but US interests. The answer is yesYour statements clearly have a pro-Israeli lean to them. If this is not the case, you need to clarify. As for the question about Iran, it was a genuine question and not baiting.


You, and many others here, have to stop viewing the world from a position of "America bad, everything else good". That means excusing the ridiculous and bigoted position that Israel has no right to exist or should not existIsrael as it exists now, does not have the right to exist. A non-secular state that gives equal rights to everyone that lives in those lands, does. If you think I'm siding with Iran on this, you're absolutely wrong. I'm telling you both sides are wrong, yet you seem to insist that somehow that means support for Iran and it's actions rather than making an attempt to at least understand the conflict's origins. If you think I'll automatically condemn America and side with everyone else, then I've either given the wrong impression or you're reading into something that isn't there.


At the very least it implies the complete destruction of the state of Israel.Like many things politicians across the world say, it can mean many things. I can point to things both the ring wing candidates running for president have said that imply destruction of Iran.


More sinisterly, Ahmadinejad is no Marxist and he does not distinguish between a state and its people. His remarks can easily be construed as a threat to 'annihilate' the Israeli people and the 'Zionist threat' to IslamYou won't get any defense of a politican from me, only rejection of the idea that either side is doing the right thing.

[ComradeOm]

Right. So is launching missles into soccer fields where school children are playing and blowing them to pieces (Israel did this a few months back). The idea is not that Israel is a noble and peaceful state that bravely defends against crazed Arab militants. These two sides have been constantly at war (without declaration) for decades and both have committed terrible, terrible acts.

Your statements clearly have a pro-Israeli lean to them. If this is not the case, you need to clarifyAgain you are putting words in my mouth. Show me one pro-Israeli statement that I have made. Point out one post (in my entire time on this board) where I have suggested that Israel does not practice state terrorism. If you can't do this then I suggest that you stop accusing me of supporting Israeli terror tactics

What you, and many others on this board, appear to have is a bad case of what we in Ireland call 'whataboutism'. That is, a refusal to respond to a charge without making counter-accusations at an opposing party. Witness your response to my, very obvious, declaration that blowing up buses is a terrorist tactics, you construct a strawman argument concerning Israelis blowing up children!

You want clarification? Fine. I am anti-Iranian in that I strongly disagree with the ideology and practices of the Iranian state and Ahmadinejad himself. That does not automatically translate into a support of Israel or the US and I do not condone the aggressive or imperialist actions of either nation

Now can we please accept that Hezbollah is a militant organisation sponsored by Iran that threatens more than "US troops occupying invaded lands"? That was after all my original point


Israel as it exists now, does not have the right to exist. A non-secular state that gives equal rights to everyone that lives in those lands, doesA "non-secular state"? Do you mean an Islamist or Jewish state?

I would expect that as communists we would all support the destruction of all bourgeois states. However Ahmadinejad is no Marxist and in the context of Arab-Israeli relations the existence of Israel is a national question. Hezbollah continues to call for the 'obliteration' of Israel and a restoration of the 1948 Palestinian borders. Now I don't particularly care for Israel but I recognise that there are several million Jews living there who, in accordance with the right to self-determination, have the right to live there and to their own state


Like many things politicians across the world say, it can mean many things. I can point to things both the ring wing candidates running for president have said that imply destruction of IranPlease do. Both candidates have been extremely careful in endorsing Israel at every opportunity. I would very much like to see where either suggests that the "strain of Israel" should be "wiped away"


The fact that Hezbollah does not recognize Israel's right to exist does not automatically mean Hezbollah is a "terrorist" organization or that socialists should not support Hezbollah when they conduct military operations against the Israeli state. Rejecting Israel's right to exist in a position shared by many socialist organizations and is based on the fact that no ethnic group has the right to demand a state which exists to protect their interests at the expense of other ethnic groups which, in the context of the Israel, means the Palestinians who inhabited what is now known as Israel prior to the creation of the Israeli state.First off, Hezbollah, and other organisations such as Hamas, is a terrorist organisation because it engages in terror tactics that deliberately target civilians. I've absolutely no interest in assigning that tag on the basis of beliefs or supposed moral crimes

Now again we come to the difference in terminology. When you are I talk of the state we are typically referring to the government apparatus and associated bodies. As I noted above, not everyone uses Marxist terms and when most commentators, especially in this particular context, refer to the state of Israel they mean the territorial subdivision that is called Israel. The stated aims of Hezbollah and Hamas are not the creation of a new state but a reversion to the 1948 borders. This is reactionary enough but the most extreme and horrifying strain of this thought openly advocates the extermination or forced migration of Levant's Jewish population

That of course does not excuse the sectarian nature of the Israeli state but the simple reality is, as you note in an above post, that there are several million Jews in the region. They are not going anywhere, nor should they be forced to, and the entire question of the "right" of Israel to exist must revolve around this simple fact

As for the position of supporting Hezbollah, often a reflex anti-American gesture, it is one that I strongly disagree with. Its a whole other discussion but I'll say that, while I have no issue with interaction with nationalist elements, I see virtually no common ground between the revolutionary left and political Islam. Our programmes are contradictory and in practice Hezbollah has often proven to be hostile to organised labour and communism. I was nothing short of disgusted with the SWP's second campist stance of unconditional support for Hezbollah. Qualified support is one thing but this was a disgrace

[BobKKKindle$]

First off, Hezbollah, and other organisations such as Hamas, is a terrorist organisation because it engages in terror tactics that deliberately target civiliansThe concept of an Israeli "citizen" is questionable because all Israelis are required to undergo military service for a period of at least two years as soon as they have left school, and almost all Israelis, with a few brave exceptions, accept this legal obligation and the idea that Israel should retain the lands it has gained through aggressive conquest. Rejecting Hezbollah solely on the basis that they conduct attacks against people who are allegedly civilians ignores the reality of the situation, as well as the fact that israel also attacks civilians, often by physically destroying communities which are suspected of harboring resistance fighters.


This is reactionary enough but the most extreme and horrifying strain of this thought openly advocates the extermination or forced migration of Levant's Jewish populationCan you provide sources to show that Hamas and other organizations advocate the "extermination" given that this would basically amount to a repetition of the holocaust? The Hamas charter was published in 1988 and serves as the main ideological platform of the organization, and contains absolutely no mention of a desire or intention to physically eradicate the jewish people who currently inhabit the Levant or any other region. In fact, under article thirty one of the covenant, Hamas suggests the exact opposite by affirming the ability of all religious communities to live peacefully together without mutual antagonism:


The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.
Hamas Covenant (1988) hosted by the Yale Law School (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm)

This is reflected in Hamas' political behavior and the content of their demands, as the spokesperson of Hamas, Khaled Mashall, offered a ten-year truce to Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders, which are not even the same as the borders established under the 1948 UN partition plan. The fact that this offer was made shows not only that Hamas is able to engage in peaceful negotiation without relying solely on the use of violence to extract concessions or indicate their opposition to Israel, the subsequent refusal of the offer also shows that Israel is hostile to any proposal which undermines their ability to maintain the occupation and expand zionist hegemony.

Not only are you factually incorrect, there also appears to be a contradiction in your argument - if Hamas intends to "eradicate" all jewish people, then why would they restrict their demands to the 1948 borders? The 1948 partition plan still allowed for the creation of an independent Israeli state which contained slightly more than half of the total land area even though the jewish people accounted for less than half of the population when Israel was created, and yet the only way for Hamas to accomplish their alleged objective of total eradication would be to take control of the whole of Israel, which, according to you, is not what they want to do.


I see virtually no common ground between the revolutionary left and political Islam.The liberation of Palestine and the whole of the middle east from imperialism is a central part of the SWP's program (as well as the programs of other socialist organizations) and when struggles against imperialism have actually taken place they have often been led by islamist organizations, which clearly shows that there is a convergence of demands, however limited, between revolutionary socialism and what you describe as political islam.

[Plagueround]

A "non-secular state"? Do you mean an Islamist or Jewish state?


My apologies, that was a typo and should say secular. I'll respond to the rest later when I have the chance.

[piet11111]

iran has clearly stated it wants to wipe israel off the face of the earth... and clearly supply militant extremist groups all over the middle east that are a threat to many countries... iran should clearly not have its hands on any weapons of the nuclear type...

ideally nobody should have nuclear weapons at all.

personally i do not think iran's leadership is all that religious and even if they where they are far too comfortable to do anything crazy.
the israeli leadership on the other hand are a dangerous mix of religious nutjobs and nationalists that do have nukes.

my opinion iran having nukes could actually bring some stability to the region both would be in a position where they no longer can attack the other and the threat of nuclear attack might force their population to demand peace.