I generally like to think positively, but as a realist, I do expect a massive widening of the war - most likely to Iran, but it could be to any of the other countries that the Bush criminals have made it clear they want to attack...

This is just sickening. The main reason, of course, is that Iran is some massive threat to the US - even though there is absolutely no way that Iran could ever mount a force that would be able to invade this nation.

So, what do the politicians do? Scare. They're getting nukes!! They'll bomb us. They're crazy!!

But does anyone in the mainstream media ever ask the real questions? of course not.

Why is a country with thousands of nukes claiming that it's illegal to have nukes? hmmmmm.....

That's my rant on the issue. If you're open to some further reading, this article makes some clearer points on the issue than I:

"Speaking of Iran" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in order to control our own population. Keep us scared and our elites can do whatever they want for their own benefit. I can't think of any other nation that has always had to have and enemy in order to justify it's own existence. After Iraq it is obviously Iran. After Iran how about Saudi Arabia or Syria or Pakistan or France or Germany. We won't be happy till we have invaded every country on the planet. Our leaders in the White House scare me a lot more than any others on this planet. Does every generation of Americans have to go through the same shit?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm convinced President Bush will order the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilties in 2008,-for three reasons.

First, he has no concept of military leadership, the result of being commissioned in the Air National Guard without any officer training whatsoever.

Second, by his own admission, he makes decisions based on gut instinct, without using the best minds and information available.

Third, Shrub is a born-again Christian who believes he’s on a mission from God to spread freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East.

The volatile combination of those character traits will, I believe, cause him to order a preemptive strike against Iran next year. Only the Pentagon can stop him – specifically, Marine General Pete Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

The big question then becomes, will Gen. Pace act like an American patriot instead of a White House lapdog and declare the Oval Office order unconstitutional – i.e. an act of war without the approval of Congress?

We had all better pray he does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You make the sweeping statement, that "right wing wants to attack Iran." Perhaps you can find some people who fill your bill, however, I'm probably "right wing" and have no desire to see our country involved with fighting Iran, nor do any of the people I know who you would label "right wing". You are making a straw man. Right wing, and all Americans, want to see America be protected from the nut leading Iran who threatens to use Nuclear weapons to bring about the 2nd coming of some prophete. Isn't it reasonable to see him as a threat?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheney, Wolfowitz, Fieth, Rumsfeld, etc. etc. were the architects of a neo-con think tank, known as The Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

If you don't know about PNAC, then you don't know that 9/11 was AN INSIDE JOB! Once you learn about PNAC and their vision of America's future, the facts that disagree with the official 9/11 myth all fall into place.

Read David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" to learn the inside scoop about how the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran were all planned BEFORE Bush's 2000 selection, and they knew they needed a cataclysmic attack on the US homeland in order to fool Americans into doing so. Also, read Nafeez Ahmed's "War on Freedom."

To understand that these men's realization that 9/11 was an inside job have the support of high level military and intelligence experts, view PatriotsQuestion911.org.

Also, youtube "9/11 Mysteries" and "$20 Bucks" to learn of the physics of the 9/11 attacks, and how the official story of 9/11 is impossible and unbelievable.

We've been lied to from the beginning. The invasion of all the oil rich nations was preplanned by PNAC, the 9/11 attacks were preplanned by PNAC. Until America demands the truth about 9/11, we will all be ignorant victims.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

with 93 BILLION more of our tax dollars- so just which 'right-wing' are you talking about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I recently commented on the fact that 100 democratic senators, essentially "capitulated", appeased, as class whores, to the class thugs, the Republicans, once again "betraying" the democratic principles, universal standards for class standards and Corporate Fascism, with its imperial polciies. Keith Olbermann uses just these same words to describe the wholesale failure in his Commentary on MSNBC: The Enitre Government Has Failed Us on Iraq.

The problem with that generally excellent commentary, transforming the empirical, neutered links, of class Liberalism, by linking this generic corruption and generic betrayal to institutions, and ideology, is that the logic shoudl extend not just to Iraq, but our foreign policies, and our Corporate structure, with its class ideologists, apologists, as general failures. Olbmerman correctly goes after the Corporate Media, not only Bush, but also the Democrats for their "shameful" appeasement, using the "Neville Chamberlain moment", as the historical analogy.

The analogy goes to the heart of the failure, that middle layers, transformed, corrupted as class elites, by an oligarchy, becomes not an individual failure, but an institutional failure, that applies to all levels where class elites serve Corporate interests and imperial polices. Superficial History as taught by our safe History Books, tries to portray the capitulation of Neville Chamberlain to Germany's fascist Corporate policies, and Hitler, financed by industrialists, as an individual failure, by a diplomat, when in fact many middle class elites appeased Hitler's fascism, Corporate imperialism so long as he only went after the disfigured, deformed Bolshevik revolution, against Stalin, in his warmongering efforts to invade Russia.

Keith Olbermann correctly applies this to the wholesale corruption of and by its class elites, which he calls an "entire failure" of our government. He lashes out at Nancy Pelosi, and Reid, including the Democratic presidential candidates, who "surrender", "compromise" their claimed democratic standards for Corporate imperial goals. He correctly calls this "Neville moment" an instiutional process, class process, when he states "The Democrats have merely streamlined the process."

Actually the class liberals have a long history of both betrayal and generic corruption, generic failure, that did not just happen with their capitulation for war in Iraq and now warmongering in Iran. The corrupt "bourgeois" middle class whores, such as the new forms of elites: Equal opporutnity whores, whether race, like Barack Obama, or gender, like Hillary Clinton, are just carrying on the same corrupt class principles when the French revolution was betrayed, by warmongering against Iran, routinely in front of AIPAC, its Israel lobby, and the 100 senators who voted with Bush proves they are War criminals, while pretending opposition to war in Iraq. The revolutionary liberals were transformed into class Liberals, by allowing the commercial classes to put property rights over universal democratic standards, inserting its oligarchy into a class state, when Napoleon passed the class laws, the Napeolonic Code of Order, which negated the social principle of a fully developed middle class, without class masters, linked to the nation state as the mechanism for international revolutionary standards. Instead it was transfomed into the class nationalism of a class state, and the first capitalist empire, and thug who marched into Europe and Russia, Napoleon himself. He betrayed the Enlightenment, hence the movement to reclaim these universal values in the Post Enlightenment, by Marxist, democratic revolutionaries. Bottom line Class corrupts, through betrayal, and is itself a generic corruption and institutiional failure, still not learned by class liberals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For the record, folks... she is awaiting TRIAL.

Something Bush has done everything he can to avoid for all the people he is illegally detaining in Quantanimo.

If these tyranical monsters think THEY are justified one iota in attacking because of THIS, they are out of their minds. They have done as bad or worse to numerous people already.

Do YOU really trust the guy who wants to be able to do these same things to YOU.. an American Citizen... to actually care about this woman all the way around the world?????????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sy Hersh does give us some reason for hope, when he reports that an order to attack Iran will likely be met with serious resistance by US military officers.

However, Bush's team has been doing everything possible to use covert methods to start a war for several years now, as well as using military exercises in the Gulf to provoke an incident - another Vietnam-era Gulf of Tonkin. The current military exercises are probably aimed at this.

Democracy Now reports this:
Gates: Gulf Exercises Not Intended as “Show of Force”
The call came as the U.S. denied claims a massive display of aircraft in the Gulf Coast is meant to intimidate Iran. The ships are set to conduct a series of drills over the two weeks.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "It's not intended as a show of force. It patently is a show of force just because that is a lot of ships and clearly a lot of military power. But the intent is pure and simple, an exercise, where we saw the opportunity to take advantage of the confluence of these three ships, two carriers and the MEF to have the opportunity to exercise together."

This deployment of ships has been almost entirely ignored by the US corporate media, though there is this good blog from the Washington Post Early Warning by William M. Arkin

They are also supporting Sunni Islamic fundamentalists all over the Middle East - yes, the ones linked to Al Queda, who'd probably be very happy to fly a few more airliners into US cities - see Seymour Hersh: U.S. Indirectly Backed Islamist Militants Fighting Lebanese Army, May 24 2007

Looks like it's back to the days of Iran Contra - except that the US Congress of today is cooperating with Bush by providing funds for war, meaning the covert Bush team probably don't have to engage in traffiking Afghani heroin to provide funds for the Islamic Sunni fundamentalists - maybe. In the case of the Contras, they raised money by shipping cocaine into the US with the active knowledge of the CIA, Oliver North, and GHW Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The fact is that Obama and Clinton are just as hawkish, shouldn't the Israel lobby's role be considered?

'US not doing enough to stop Iran'
By YAAKOV KATZ

The United States has until now not done enough to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, a senior Defense Ministry official has told The Jerusalem Post while expressing hope that Wednesday's referral of the Iranian issue to the United Nations Security Council would prove to be effective.

"America needs to get its act together," the official said. "Until now the US administration has just been talking tough but the time has come for the Americans to begin to take tough action."

The only real way to stop Teheran's race to obtain the bomb apart from military action was through tough economic sanctions that caused the Iranian people to suffer. "Once the people understand that their government is bringing upon them a disaster will they realize that the [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's regime needs to be replaced," the official said...

While it was complicated to overthrow the current regime in Teheran, "it is not impossible," the official said.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPo st%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1139395573059

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All of these dramatic posts saying that war with Iran is coming soon are nothing but panicked people with no understanding of geopolitics talking to hear themselves speak. There will be no war with Iran - ever.

Bush can't do it, he doesn't have the resources because they're all tied up in Iraq/Afghanistan. The democratic president that is elected in 2008 won't do it and by the time the Republicans get back in office Iran will already have nuclear weapons and they will therefore be untouchable for the rest of human history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amateur terrorist hunting in Florida

One man who certainly hasn't got enough friends is Professor Sami al-Arian. The parent organization of the Intelligence Summit is the
Intelligence and Homeland Security Education Center (IHEC) – which in
turn was once the International Holocaust Education Center (see what
they did there?). IHEC boasts that its "educational research has aided
in the exposure and subsequent indictment of Professor Sami al-Arian"
as well as "other sensitive investigations, which are still ongoing."

Maybe their site needs a bit of updating. It could certainly do with a
little qualification. Professor al-Arian was arrested in 2003 and was
charged with aiding Islamic Jihad in the commission of terrorist acts.
After a ten year investigation into al-Arian's work to channel aid to
Palestinian causes, the FBI claimed to have evidence that he had
assumed the role of Islamic Jihad's "chief of operations" in North
America. Despite an internal investigation into al-Arian's activities
which was carried out by a former president of the American Bar
Association and found him innocent of any offenses which could justify
his removal from tenure, the FBI pressed on. After his arrest in
February 2003, his trial date was set for April 2005, over two years
in the future. Meanwhile, then Attorney General John Ashcroft weighed
in with a public statement identifying al Arian as the North American
head of Islamic Jihad.

As it turned out, when his case came to trial in December 2005, Sami
al-Arian was found innocent on eight out of the seventeen charges held
against him. In the other charges, the jury remained deadlocked 10-2,
also in favor of aquittal – a huge preponderance of opinion which
leans towards his innocence. Yet al-Arian remained in custody, and in
January 2006 submitted a plea bargain. After almost three years in
jail, he agreed to plead guilty on one count of conspiring "to make or
receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the
benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad" while the eight other
charges against him were dropped.

So after three years of detention, according to the St Petersburg
Times "most of it in solitary confinement," Sami al-Arian received
three more years and "expedited deportation." Whatever the truth of
his role in supporting Islamic Jihad, he was no terrorist kingpin, as
the initial charges (and media frenzy) suggested. IHEC and its
"educational research" must be credited with stealing at least six
years of his life.

If that is the greatest success in `terrorist hunting' that IHEC and
Intelligence Summit can produce to sell their services, then it's a
wonder why anybody in the real intelligence services bothers to listen
to them. But competence is not the issue. More than anything else,
IHEC is an ideologically driven money making machine. The ideology of
the War on Terror drives the money making machine, while the money
earned in the process goes straight into funding the intellectual
apparatus for more and bigger wars.

posted at: gnn.tv

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bilderbergers approved an attack upon Iran in March of 2004 already so it's a done deal..!

Their first wish was for Israel to do it they balked and said no and so it falls to the United States to do the wishes of this vile corrupt cabal of American, European and Israeli bankers for whom so many of the poor and working class will die as David Rockefeller wishes so dearly, being the corrupt lying treasonous murdering thug that he is..

Bush and Cheney will attack Iran, long before we ever gat any Troops out of Iraq..!

The Demo-rat scum like Rahm Emanuel and that worthless bitch Pelosi Harry the stupid shit liar Reid, have doomed us as a major power because once we attack Iran the entire region will erupt and Syria will also act and they have the largest body of water in the Middle East, they can release and drown so much of our army and equipment we will never recover..!

It's right there in Revelation, "The Flood Gates will be opened and never again closed and the Euphrates will run dry.."

Why because the Euphrates will burst it's banks, and flood the central plain all the way to Basra..!

So the Demo-rat scum have doomed us and betrayed America and all for what some greed ridden bankers and that greedy scum bag Cheney, Halliburton and our Dictator G.W. Bush..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What democracy? Please see this link
www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11375
It is foolish to support Ahmadinejad as opposition to Bush and Neo Cons as it was foolish to appease Hitler because he was anti communists. Please be sensible there is a THIRD OPTION.
No to War and No to Appeasement (the longer route to war) just stop pumping oil revenues to the mullahs who use the petrodollars for unimaginable domestic repression, international terrorism and clandestine nuclear program, all three of which we all oppose and want to be stopped. The people of Iran are well capable of bringing about the necessary change. Are you in doubt that the situation in Iran is much more volcanic than the last days of the Shah, when the majority of people were middle class and teachers at least had a decent salary? Now teachers are living below poverty and repression is much more violent and widespread.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thats the problem when you have boys playing WAR/Spy games. Just read an article about the CIA going in to stir the pot in Iran. So what do you expect, Iran picked this woman as a possable spy/pot stirrer. Control the middle eastern oil by hook or crook. You will not find a bigger bunch of crooks than the ones in the White house. Chicken hawks always are the ones to sit back and see how much poop they can throw at the bars of the cage. So long as they do not get any on themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only way to make a worse policy move than invading iraq would be to invade Iran.
We don't have the troops and it would make us very much alone in the world.
Iran was actually moderating untill Bush started with his Axis of Evil nonsense.
I was all for getting the Taliban and the world was behind us, attacking Iraq was crazy and attacking Iran would be insane.
Striking out blindly at enemies is foolish. There are always dangers in life and war has to be the last move made.
We have lost our way when we start invading countries we don't like. We defeated the Soviets without a war and the same pragmatic adherence to American values would have served us well after 9-11, we should have hit the Taliban in Afghanistan hard and Bush,and Rummy shouldn't have let Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora instead of going all Nazi.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I maintain my previous position on this issue - there won't be war with Iran any time soon. The primary purpose of keeping Iran in the news is to support the policy of permanent US military deployment in Iraq and throughout the ME. To this end, the constant message that "Iran is a growing threat" has been working all too well, deflecting attention and discussion from the actual reasons for the occupation. Even articles charging that persons within the administration are itching for war with Iran serve this same purpose, albeit perhaps at a higher political cost. I don't see that an escalation with Iran before Bush leaves office is necessary to solidify the argument that the military needs to stay into and throughout the next presidency, so it simply won't come to pass. There is plenty of oil in Iraq to be had in the next decade or two, with US military support. In fact, a troop drawdown (not withdrawl) starting next Fall is I think more likely, to rest the military and mitigate the possibility of rogue attacks on large concentrations of troops in the region.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author correctly condemns both the imprisonment of the Wilson scholar and the "hard right" for its drumbeat to war with Iran. However, the author has overgeneralized the nature of the US right. Neoconservatives like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the American Enterprise Institute(cited in the article) have been prowar in both Iran and Iraq. However respected intellectuals and analysts associated with Pat Buchanan and Taki's American Conservative as well as the "paleo" conservatives like Tom Fleming, Chilton Williamson, Aaron Wolf and others, some of whom used to write for National Review, strongly oppose both the Iran and Iraq military lust of the neocons and their dimwit President.

There are significant differences between Democrats and even liberals/progressives on the economy, trade, affirmative action and economic versus cultural priorities. Similar divisions exist on the "right". I suspect the author did not intend to lump antiwar conservatives together with the Bush/McCain faction, indeed, the author probably didn't know there is a significant difference.

Bush' poll numbers took a significant dive when conservatives, Republicans and independents got off the Iraq bandwagon. Bush never had the liberal Democrats to begin with anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

George W. Bush: Went AWOL during the Vietnam War and lied about it to get elected.
Dick Cheney: Dodged the draft, never served and bragged about getting five deferments.
Scooter Libby: Dodged the draft and never served.
Donald Rumsfeld: Evaded overseas duty while a Navy instructor pilot.
Paul Wolfowitz: Dodged the draft and never served.

Other noteworthy Republican hawks who NEVER served in uniform, much less saw combat.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
White House Legal Counselor Dan Bartlett
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman
Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie
Former Bush 43 Administrator of Iraq Paul Bremer
UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad
Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
Former Majority Whip Mitch McConnell
Senator Orrin Hatch
Former Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Richard Shelby
Senator Jon Kyl
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
Former House Majority leader Dennis Hastert
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey
Representative David Dreier
Former Representative Tom Delay
Representative James Sensenbrenner
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich
Former Representative JC Watts
Florida Governor Jeb Bush
New York Governor George Pataki
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Jack Kemp
Rudy Giuliani
William Bennett
Bill Kristol
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O’Reilly
Sean Hannity
Ken Starr
Gary Bauer
Ralph Reed

I, Hugh Scott, Vietnam veteran and ex-USAF pilot with a family history of honorable military service going back to 1776, thank all of you for not serving in America’s armed forces. They deserved a lot more than what you had to offer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The worst U.S. vice president in American history, Dick Cheney, who dodged the Vietnam War draft with five deferments, bragged about them and then went on to become the Bush administration's biggest liar, spread more falsehoods in front of the West Point 2007 graduating class.

Mixing fear-mongering with distortions, deceptions and outright lies, the Chicken Hawk made the following statements:

Noting that West Point is 50 miles north of where terrorists struck lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, Cheney said, “Nobody can promise us we won't be hit again.''

"We're fighting a war over there (Iraq) because the enemy attacked us first,'' Cheney claimed, even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to with 9/11.

Continuing the rightwing propaganda, he said, ''The terrorism fight now centers on Iraq because that’s where the enemy has massed.”

Of course, it makes no difference to Cheney that we invaded Iraq four years ago without just cause, enough troops, an adequate peacekeeping plan or viable exit strategy.

With the straightest of faces, Bush’s side-talking sidekick promised that GIs would have "all the manpower, equipment and support it needs" to carry out the troop surge. Again, he omitted important facts -- such as the Army refusing to supply its combat units with the best helmet liner pads and body armor available, in order to save money.

How much more shameful could a White House speech be on Memorable Day weekend? Only if Devious Dub-ya delivered the OOO-RAH rant instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only way to stop Iran from really acquiring a nuclear weapon is to denuclearize the entire region. This would, of course, mean denuclearizing Israel as well. As Israel is know to have about 200 some nuclear devices, countries such as Iran are going to feel they have no choice but to develop these weapons as a form of self-defense. Add to that the American invasion of Iraq. To the Iranians, the American invasion adds to the argument that these weapons are needed to deter the same thing, an invasion, happening to them. Therefore, America's only choice, once again, is to denuclearize the region. As for Iranian use of such a terrible weapon, should we fear them more than Israel with it? Israel reportedly has had plans for the use of such weapons and presumbably, countries like Lebanon and Syria could be struck. So, who should we really fear more? At least with the Iranians, I don't believe they would use these weapons unless they were attacked first. Israel goes along with the American idealogy however, which is to strke your supposed enemies first. This is the real danger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A new arms race will happen if Iran goes nuclear. Iran has already threatened Israel and their glorification of suicide bombing of innocents shows a clomplete lack of respect for human life. Want to see another Soviet style arms race era?? Sorry folks, they are poised on a path to disaster if they proceed with their plans. Face facts.... the WORLD runs on oil. How would you get your sneakers, your clothes, your computers, if the ships and aircraft can't fuel up. Solar power?? Get real. If Iran attacked Israel, you'd better have your AK-47 and a thousand round of ammo, plus a dozen Krugerrands hidden in the house. You'll need it. ALL the industrial nations agree on this point, even the Russian, who will nuke-whore themselves out to anyone......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Were allies during the Shah's rule. Israel has not threatened to exterminate their country. They left Gaza and look what they got. They are in defensive-survival mode. Why would they disarm?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As boring as it sounds, it's about economiks. If Iran starts selling oil in Euros, then the dollar goes south, for good. Then there goes our economy.
Bush, congress, et al, will keep bases permanently in Iraq because it is what is keeping us afloat at this time. If push comes to shove, and Iran actually thinks they can get away with it (selling oil in euros) then that is when the real war will start. It's about preserving the value of the dollar.
The question is, "what value?" they pretty much ruined it by printing money likes it's going out of style, which I guess it is. Now after this housing bubble bursts some more, there won't be much value left in the ameriKan freemarKet eKonomy.

What I want to know is what are we going to do to initiate a change. Are we going to keep living in fear, allowing the 3 headed monster Media, Oilgarchs and Military to continue ruling our country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So who's stopping Iran from selling it's oil in Euros?? Where does this claim come from.?? Diplomatic circles?? Or the internet??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iran has talked for a long time about selling its oil in Euros but most of the world, particularly China, still wants to deal in dollars. At any rate, Israel has constructed illegal settlements, imprisons and tortures Arabs it does not like, has a massive military complex that the economy is dependent on, and its people live in affluence while palestinians live in squalor. To Arabs, Israel is the aggressor who does not want peace. And, they are the ones with the nukes threatening the region.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the problem with hatemongering the right and turning every issue into highly charged partisanship and politicized dirt-slinging: it's all contradicted by the basic element in this story. "Haleh Esfandiari, whom I know, certainly deserves the protest being stirred on her behalf."

Instead of joining with the right's correct position and criticizing the totalitarian rule of the ayatollahs, the left just can't help itself from becoming distracted by their own hatred of the right.

So counterproductive, so insanely partisan, so revealing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill Douglas comment says it all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rise and fall, fortunes and control over society as it is and wont to be is over the flow of Oil. Our deal with Saudi Arabia and other to trade soley in Petro-Bucks is at the core of the pyramid scheme to retain and expand oil as the currecy, in trade for funny-money, bonds and other paper instruments.
Those who dared (Sadam) and most recent players (Iraq and Venezuala) who want to opt for other ciurrencies, such as the Euro, are demonized and form the rational for attack under some pretext to bring them back under the control of Petro-Dollars.
Watch as one by one, nations like Oman, Kuwait, China and Japan swap in the paper for Gold or more tangible goods to broaden holdings and defer risk against the declining dollar, clearly seen in the inflationary rise in the stock markets, a true indicator of the declining dollar to buy the same shares, goods or services next year, under the guise of being worth more somehow.
These are the games banks play, as they tighten the noose of mortgage and credit cards around the necks of downsized American workers, and grant amnesty to cheap labor influxes.
"A poor people can less likely afford rebellion"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Noam Chomski deserves accolades for his criticism of the Israeli policy toward Palestinians but his staunch defence of the pro-Isalei lobby and his efforts in deflecting war opposition toward "Big Oil" and the "military-industrial complex" seem to indicate that he is another neo-con Zionist in liberal clothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Noam Chomski deserves accolades for his criticism of the Israeli policy toward Palestinians but his staunch defence of the pro-Isalei lobby and his efforts in deflecting war opposition toward "Big Oil" and the "military-industrial complex" seem to indicate that he is another neo-con Zionist in liberal clothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]