[Sawyer]

(11-27-2014 11:27 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

Iran doesn't have a Central Bank, that is why they will be attacked.

And the lack of a central bank also gives them a social capital feedback loop which makes them extremely dangerous. That is the real nuke that must be stopped. Homegrown social capital. Social capital = interest not being earned. Interest not being earned is the greatest crime in the modern world.

By the way, Iran already has nukes.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Where can I find more info on Iran (and any other countries) not having central banks? I had no idea! Thanks

[Praetor Lupus]

(11-28-2014 02:41 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Where can I find more info on Iran (and any other countries) not having central banks? I had no idea! Thanks

The last time tensions over nuclear talks flared up, alternative news sites such as the Corbett Report had lists of countries without a Central Bank.

Other countries included Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea.

Hmm....

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(11-28-2014 08:15 AM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 02:41 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Where can I find more info on Iran (and any other countries) not having central banks? I had no idea! Thanks

The last time tensions over nuclear talks flared up, alternative news sites such as the Corbett Report had lists of countries without a Central Bank.

Other countries included Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea.

Hmm....

Dunno where that information came from, but all of those countries have central banks ...

Wikipedia: List of Central Banks

According to that list the only ones that don't are:
Andorra, Monaco, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

HSLD

[Sawyer]

I think tHe difference is between a central bank controlled by the people of the country or state like the Bank of North Dakota or a bank controlled by the international "give me control of a a nation's money and I care not who writes its laws" crowd.

[Praetor Lupus]

(11-28-2014 03:35 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

I think tHe difference is between a central bank controlled by the people of the country or state like the Bank of North Dakota or a bank controlled by the international "give me control of a a nation's money and I care not who writes its laws" crowd.

Yes, I was referring to the latter when I listed those countries without. Those were the ones I'd seen, anyway.

[Hedonistic Traveler]

(11-28-2014 08:51 AM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 08:15 AM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 02:41 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Where can I find more info on Iran (and any other countries) not having central banks? I had no idea! Thanks

The last time tensions over nuclear talks flared up, alternative news sites such as the Corbett Report had lists of countries without a Central Bank.

Other countries included Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea.

Hmm....

Dunno where that information came from, but all of those countries have central banks ...

Wikipedia: List of Central Banks

According to that list the only ones that don't are:
Andorra, Monaco, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

HSLD

I'm guessing he was talking about the conspiracy that the Rothschild families run all the world's central banks.

Usually the exceptions are listed as being: China, Russia, Iceland, Cuba, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Hungary, countries that we are supposedly "always at war with".

Obviously the Rothschilds don't actually run all these Central Banks, but most are run by private companies. It's a conspiracy theory that is pretty baseless. Usually supported by the same people who think the most powerful secret group in the world would publicize themselves through music videos.

(11-23-2014 11:37 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Yet most Americans I talk to see to think Iranians are basically savages living in mud huts. My impression is that they are by far the best country in the region for women's rights and generally being free to do as you will.

(11-24-2014 05:53 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Iran is fighting against ISIS.

Isis is funded by our radical allies in the gulf, who are far more extreme than Iran.

Great points. Most Americans seem to be willfully ignorant of what goes on around them.

The most dangerous countries in the Middle East are our allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Saudi sponsors Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism around the world and Israel's existence and expansion provokes anti-Western sentiments around the Middle East.

Iran is only a fundamentalist state because of US interference through overthrowing Mossadegh and propping up the Shah.

Despite all this Iran has no real interest in attacking the US, even after the US supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq which left 150,000 Iranians dead. It's the US, and Israel, that is interested in antagonizing Iran through economic sanctions, an illegal consulate raid, and repeated incidents of very public drone spying.

I really hope we don't go to war them, especially so soon after Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd like to think the average person is smarter than that, and sees that this would just be a repeat of past missteps, and would ultimately cost us even more in lives, money, and prestige than the prior wars.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(11-28-2014 04:46 PM)Hedonistic Traveler Wrote:  

Israel's existence and expansion provokes anti-Western sentiments around the Middle East.

Whilst superficially true - and I'd argue the expansion bit - you have to admit that those sentiments would still exist - and likely be no less strident - were the State of Israel to suddenly disappear. Saying that the entirety of the hatred in the Middle East towards the West is based solely because of Israel's creation is a gross oversimplification at best.

HSLD

[Hedonistic Traveler]

(11-28-2014 05:33 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 04:46 PM)Hedonistic Traveler Wrote:  

Israel's existence and expansion provokes anti-Western sentiments around the Middle East.

Whilst superficially true, you have to admit that those sentiments would still exist - and likely be no less strident - were the State of Israel to suddenly disappear. Saying that the entirety of the hatred in the Middle East towards the West is based solely because of Israel's creation is a gross oversimplification at best.

HSLD

Yeah, I wanted a better way to phrase that. My point wasn't really to be anti-Israel, more just to point out that our friendship with Israel hurts us more than Iran ever has.

Everytime I see anything about the Israel-Palestine situation in the news I can't help but think what a shitshow that whole region is. The situation is beyond fucked, and like you said nothing would really change that. Israel could pack up tomorrow and the area would still be a clusterfuck.

Personally I thank god I was born 5,000 miles away from all that.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(11-28-2014 05:40 PM)Hedonistic Traveler Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 05:33 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 04:46 PM)Hedonistic Traveler Wrote:  

Israel's existence and expansion provokes anti-Western sentiments around the Middle East.

Whilst superficially true, you have to admit that those sentiments would still exist - and likely be no less strident - were the State of Israel to suddenly disappear. Saying that the entirety of the hatred in the Middle East towards the West is based solely because of Israel's creation is a gross oversimplification at best.

HSLD

Yeah, I wanted a better way to phrase that. My point wasn't really to be anti-Israel, more just to point out that our friendship with Israel hurts us more than Iran ever has.

Everytime I see anything about the Israel-Palestine situation in the news I can't help but think what a shitshow that whole region is. The situation is beyond fucked, and like you said nothing would really change that. Israel could pack up tomorrow and the area would still be a clusterfuck.

Personally I thank god I was born 5,000 miles away from all that.

It hurts the US (I'm Canadian) in that it makes the "Arab street" - if such a thing can actually exist - more angry at American foreign policy in the region. But the hatred there runs far deeper and more diverse than just America's support for Israel. And the United States does actually benefit significantly from its special relationship with Israel.

But I do totally agree with you on the clusterfucked-upedness of that region.

HSLD

[rudebwoy]

The neo-cons have been gagging to attack Iran for years, to get access to there oil.
Russia is aligned with Iran and will intervene if they are attacked, of course China is partners with Russia.
So the sides are set for the upcoming war with Iran (WW3).

Some of you need to lay off the Fox News propaganda.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(11-28-2014 05:55 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

The neo-cons have been gagging to attack Iran for years, to get access to there oil.

And tell us how an American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would lead to Iranian oil being controlled by these "neo-cons?"

(11-28-2014 05:55 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

Russia is aligned with Iran and will intervene if they are attacked, of course China is partners with Russia.
So the sides are set for the upcoming war with Iran (WW3).

There is absolutely no factual basis to suggest that either Iran or Russia would openly confront the US with military action if the US were to attack Iran. None at all. They'd definitely give diplomatic support, sure, but to go to war with the US for the sake of the Ayatollahs? Not gonna happen.

HSLD

[aphelion]

Shit, oil is the last thing we need right now. It's practically being given away.

[Old Fritz]

(11-28-2014 06:26 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 05:55 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

The neo-cons have been gagging to attack Iran for years, to get access to there oil.

And tell us how an American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would lead to Iranian oil being controlled by these "neo-cons?"

(11-28-2014 05:55 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

Russia is aligned with Iran and will intervene if they are attacked, of course China is partners with Russia.
So the sides are set for the upcoming war with Iran (WW3).

There is absolutely no factual basis to suggest that either Iran or Russia would openly confront the US with military action if the US were to attack Iran. None at all. They'd definitely give diplomatic support, sure, but to go to war with the US for the sake of the Ayatollahs? Not gonna happen.

HSLD

Huh? You're saying Iran wouldn't confront the US with military action if they were attacked? Unless, you mean China?

[LouEvilSlugger]

(11-28-2014 01:54 AM)Sawyer Wrote:  

By the way, Iran already has nukes.

Whether Iran has nukes or not, I don't see anything wrong with it, it's a nation of peace that prides itself on traditions of science, rationalism and pragmatism, it has only fought defensive wars in the last 200 years and has consistently supported the creation of a nuclear-weapons free zone in the Middle East. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran has not used chemical weapons and even decided not to use them while it was being used by Iraq against her.

Israel on the other hand with an estimated 80-400 undeclared warheads... 10 wars with several major agressive invasions only in the last 40 years (Lebanon 1976, 1982 and 2006, Gaza 2008, 2014).

[Mekorig]

(11-28-2014 09:37 PM)LouEvilSlugger Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 01:54 AM)Sawyer Wrote:  

By the way, Iran already has nukes.

Whether Iran has nukes or not, I don't see anything wrong with it, it's a nation of peace that prides itself on traditions of science, rationalism and pragmatism, it has only fought defensive wars in the last 200 years and has consistently supported the creation of a nuclear-weapons free zone in the Middle East. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran has not used chemical weapons and even decided not to use them while it was being used by Iraq against her.

And that is why they support some terrorist groups and cells, such as the one how blow up the AMIA in Buenos Aires. Oh right, it was the crypto-zionist!

[Sawyer]

I have no problem with Iran having nukes. I am pro-Iran. I think it may be the last "Christian" country on the planet which is why they are targeted. They aren't targeted because they are a basket case freak show. They are targeted because they retain a sense of national personhood.

I only mentioned Iran already having nukes in that I've heard it from reliable sources and it says more about what the Western media puts forth than the character of Iran. There are accounts on this forum of how decent the Iranian people are. I agree. The Iranians are decent. That's why the US Death Star must destroy them.

Think about everyone in the know knowing that Iran has nukes. And then think about what you are told by the MSM. The West is drowning in a bottomless level of deceit regarding Iran and everything else.

[kerouac]

What would Russia have to gain from starting a war over Iran? Are you equating Putin to someone like Stalin?

Who are their allies? By assuming that Russia would jump in, that is saying that Russia is willing to go all out, and that the US (and its allies) will hold back.

There has to be a realistic reason for everything. I'm sure there's even some rationality (for someone, or some group) to attack Iraq a decade ago, but you have to think about the group in power (ie. Russia's Putin) and whether they'd deem that they would have any chance. I don't think Russia would go all out over Iran. Russia isn't the Soviet Union. The Cold War is over.

The only thing holding back the United States from jumping into Iran, as far as I can see it, is that they don't have the resources (long term capital/man-power/national support) to go all out in Iran. This is why you see the US even bothering to talk with Iran at this point.

Then again, some wonk with actual factual info (government info/classified info) may know way better, and be in a much better position to clarify...

but, as far as I see it, it's not a doomsday scenario unless you have another Cheney/Neo-Con butt-licker in office, or a position of power or considerable influence, to make that sort of decision.

The big je-ne-sais-quoi comes from China. They are obviously moving up in the world stage, but what are they going to do? Are they going to take a stands-off approach, or are they going to rattle their economic stick? And if they do, what effect will that have? You see a lot of (individual) Chinese investment in the US, but where is the institutional/state investment going?

And even, were to say Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson were succesful in convincing the politicians and the U.S. public that fighting Iran is the way to go, are there enough gung-ho supporters of Israel in power to let it be?

Quote:

The two moguls said they regretted missing the recent opportunity to buy the Washington Post in order to influence Israel coverage in the American media, which they said was biased, and discussed the prospects of buying the New York Times.

- Jerusalem Post

We, in the public will never know what will happen until it happens, but I personally don't see much rationalization for Russian getting personally involved (but most definitely, peripherally).

[LouEvilSlugger]

(11-28-2014 09:55 PM)Mekorig Wrote:  

And that is why they support some terrorist groups and cells, such as the one how blow up the AMIA in Buenos Aires. Oh right, it was the crypto-zionist!

Just because Iran supports Hezbollah doesn't mean Iran was directly involved in the AMIA bombing. Iran has denied any involvement in the attack and has even vowed to talk with Argentina until the bombing was resolved.

Calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is fallacious. Would you consider Charles De Gaulle's Free French Forces a terrorist group? Probably not. Hezbollah is a legitimate resistance organization that has defended its land against an Israeli occupying force and has consistently stood up to the bloodthirsty Israeli army. Unsurprisingly the only countries that listed Hezbollah as a terrorist group are Israel's close allies (puppets).

[Mekorig]

Amia, Israeli Embassy. heck, for the last one even one of their puppet organizations. Iran denied every tie to the bombings, and even tried to bribe CFK to seal a deal that ended in nothing. Meanwhile we still have 115 dead bodies thanks to Iran`s goverment work.

I have meet iranian people, and yes, most of them are like are described in this forum. But they still keep supporting a regime that funds terrorism. Hope they wake some day and overtrown the theocracy.

[LouEvilSlugger]

(11-28-2014 10:58 PM)Mekorig Wrote:  

I have meet iranian people, and yes, most of them are like are described in this forum. But they still keep supporting a regime that funds terrorism. Hope they wake some day and overtrown the theocracy.

And replace it with what? Decadent and degenerate Western-style democracy?

[Mekorig]

Because a very pure and rigid teocracy is making then so good. Por favor...

[Feisbook Control]

(11-28-2014 09:59 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

I am pro-Iran. I think it may be the last "Christian" country on the planet which is why they are targeted.

[Badamson]

I actually think there is a chance for improved relations with Iran. We're already starting to work with them against ISIS.

Even if war with Iran were a good idea(which I don't think it is,) there just is very little public support for such a war. When Obama and Cameron from the UK wanted to get us involved in Syria, there was a major revolt in congress from both democrats and republicans. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had broad support among both parties and the American public initially(Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry all voted for the Iraq war.) Had we gone to war with Iran in 2003 instead of Iraq the people might have went for it at the time, but that old line of "they're making WMD" just doesn't hold as much sway as it used to. Sure, Iran hates Israel and supports terrorism against them...but so does nearly every country in the middle east, including some of our allies. If they are making nukes, Israel will find a way to stop them.

The neocons have been losing ground the last few years in the republican party. They don't have the same support within the party they did 6 or 8 years ago. Why Obama has been continuing many neocon policies is a mystery to me, but my guess is he just wants to keep some support from some center-right people. He knows the left will support him no matter what so he takes them for granted. Bush did the same thing with conservatives on things like "no child left behind," immigration, domestic spending, etc .

I could definitely see an idiot president try to start a war with Iran, but I'm not sure what the point would be, since occupying the country and putting in a new regime would be an enormous undertaking, as we have seen. The most I could see happening is some covert strike on their nuclear facilities with some deniability. Seems doubtful to me. Even with nukes, Iran could not win a war against Israel without being totally annihilated themselves. Iran just isn't that crazy. Even when they held the American hostages all that time from 79-81, they weren't chopping off heads and shit, even after we sent special forces to try to rescue them.

Well, those are my thoughts on the matter. No war with Iran, unless something drastically changes.

[Chaos]

Meanwhile at the former US embassy in Tehran..