The Iran MSM and the (I)bush regime don't want you to see

[GrowRebel]

I found this interesting video of Iran ..... so I decided to post it .... people need to see this .... some people just can't comprehend that the people of Iraq and Iran want the same things most people do .... a safe place to live to raise a family .... a good job ..... it's bullshit the way the msm spins things ..... check out the video if you dare .... the illegitimate bush regime are going to start bombing these people and the disruption of another sovereign state will be on our country's head ....


IMAGES OF IRAN YOU WILL NOT SEE ON THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA (http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html)

Enjoy ... :rastasmoke: :noel:

[Psycho4Bud]

Great vid.....there is NOTHING wrong with Iranian people, it's thier leaders and the direction that their taking. Openenly calling the holocaust false, calling for the destruction of Israel, "another sovereign state ", recruiting over 15% of it's population for martydom........quite the list.

I'm sure MOST of the Iranian people are of a different mindset but their not the ones that we need to worry about or that have the potential of launching a future nuke.

It's all quite a shame........looks like that would be a beautiful country to visit.:(

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[medicinal]

Yes, please God, stop this insane regime (Bush-Cheney) from destroying another country and killing thousands of innocent people. Can anyone besides me see how insane they (Bush-Cheney) are. This nuke propaganda is just that, propaganda! Guess what, Iran has a very large oil reserve also, is the light coming on yet? We need to overthrow this insane regime that is running this country at this time, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach! If we took a sane approach to the Tehran government and appealed to the Iranian people for peace, the people would change their government much like we must change ours. Leaders that are warmongers have no place in charge of countries, any countries!

[mrdevious]

I think it's an excellent video since people find it all-to-easy to paint some generalized, evil face on a country, condemning millions of people for the policy of their political leaders. It's not so easy to hate all those people and mentally separate them from the rest of us, when you actually have to look them in the face and see the many many ways that make them, as human beings, very similar to us.

But, that being said, Psycho4Bud is still pretty much right. I hate to see wars, I hate that so many innocent people have to die, but if it's the only way to stop a madman from slaughtering millions more with nuclear weapons then it has to happen. I would preferre that they keep it to aireal and naval strikes on military instalations to minimize civilizan casualties, and I don't think they could support a ground invasion anyway. The most plausible course of action would probably be to overthrow the government with western-friendly rebel factions as we did in 1953. I don't actually think it was justified in 1953, but the strategy was sound.

And yes, I know people are seeing Iraq all over again, but that's really not the case. Amadimajad openly hates the Jews and the west, he's had a history of military-domination ambitions, and if you look at the way he's carryin out his "peacefull nuclear ambitions", it's obvious those ambitions are anything but peaceful. He's made a point of booting out 38 nuclear inspectors, shutting out the rest of the world, refusing to acknowledge UN demands, and has accumulated 3,000 of those parts necessary to make a nuclear warhead in one facility (sorry, can't remember what they're called).

Psycho4Bud, while I greatly respect you and your intelligence, this is where our opinions part ways. I think Iraq is a bullshit war because it was a strategically stupid move. Most people against the war give reasons regarding innocent lives, and I'm pissed off about those lives because they didn't need to be lost, but the main reasons I'm against the Iraq war are on a bigger scale.

1. The US shouldn't have rushed into Iraq before finishing their inspections, or properly equiping their troops. Many troops died simply because they couldn't get the proper armour, equipment, vehicles, and helmet padding for a long time.

2. Rushing in before they could find justification discredited the US in the eyes of the world. Because they found no weapons of mass destruction, millions more muslim youth were sucked into Alqaeda's propoganda that the US is trying to destroy Islam. Even the CIA estimated recruitment rates for terrorist organizations jumped by 18,000 members after the Iraq invasion. Saddam Hussein and Osama Binladen openly hated each other, and this war is the best thing that could have happened to alqada for gaining justification and recruitment.

3. this drawn-out Vietnam type war (even Bush admitted that) has cost us over $300 billion and tied up masive amounts of US forces. Those forces and funds could have been used to finally defeat the Taliban, who is now stronger than ever. Now, we have massive impending NUCLEAR threats from North Korea and Iran. Russia has been supporting Iran by supplying them with armaments, equiping their airforce, and recently sold them $5 billion in missiles (maybe that was Syria, not sure, but it's still bad). With threats coming from Iran and North Korea (VERY strong military powes), and potentially Russia and Syria, we can't stand to tie up our forces in a pisspot dictatorship like Iraq who was an enemy of these nations and would have kept them in check. Sometimes the enemy of us can still be used to our advantage against against our more dangerous enemies.

International conflict is a fine game of chess. The simple reason that Iraq is unfriendly and we hate saddam, is not justifcation enough.

[mrdevious]

[COLOR="Blue"] Guess what, Iran has a very large oil reserve also, is the light coming on yet?


This type of reasoning has always bothered me, and definately puts a blackmark on liberalism as a whole. People are drawing conclusions based solely on certain consistancies. Specific geographical regions and their resources (the middle east) are going to have specific geographical cultures. Such cultural consistancies are bound to produce similar governments, and therefor similar regions with enemies.

I see far too many people, both right and left, instantly drawing the conclusions that agree with their presuppositions with little to no evidence. In the far-left case, it's stuff like this. Hitler burned down the Reichstag to justify war, so that consistancy is now PROOF that 9/11 was an excuse to go to war. In your case, medicinal, Iran has oil an so BAM, that's PROOF that the war has to be about oil no matter what the political or military situation is. Just because a country has oil, that doesn't excempt them from all other wrongdoing.

[HinduKush83]

I would be more afraid of the Bush/Cheney regime then Iran anyday. The US is more of a danger to world peace with those neo-cons in office. They are hellbent on bring an "American world" to the world filled with materialism and exploiting where people have to shop at one store and people are either with the government or against it. No in between.

I agree that Iran's government is filled with crazy Islamic theologians and that it should make a transition to a free secular democratic society, but it should not be done at force. There is still debate whether or not Iraq's current government was elected by the PEOPLE of Iraq..or if it is just simply a puppet state of the US much like Vichey France was after the Nazis took France in World War II, or the post WW2 Soviet communist satellite states in Eastern Europe. Japan is a big puppet state of the US..and Israel is the biggest puppet state of the US. Israel is the poster boy for puppet states.

But I warn the Americans that it would be a very grave mistake to attack Iran in any way. They would do their initial strikes in the air and that would take out the infrastructure, but a ground invasion would be pointless and it would just be another BIGGER Iraq...and look how the Americans are doing in Iraq right now. Not so good...but thats just liberal left media!!! You would have hundred of soldiers being killed in the first day of the ground invasion, but a lot of Iranian soldiers will invade Iraq and slaughter the Americans there and a lot of Iraqis would support that. Iran has a million man standing army. Thats probably why Bush sent more soldiers over there. Weird. One thing is clear is that the majority of Arabs want the US presence OUT and for the US to stop babying Israel.

Remember..it was the Americans who nuked Japan in WW2..and the US was the only nation to use nukes in warfare.

Lets pray we do not use nukes again.

[medicinal]

In your case, medicinal, Iran has oil an so BAM, that's PROOF that the war has to be about oil no matter what the political or military situation is. Just because a country has oil, that doesn't excempt them from all other wrongdoing.
__________________
Ok, just tell me why we're not in Darfur Or a myriad of other countries that have no oil, dealing with ruthless Dictators. I think you'll have to agree, the only reason we are in the Middle East at all is to protect our oil rights (Big oils rights). Spin all you want, but thats the real reason and if you can't see this, then I guess you're a Bushie, or an oil Baron. To think we're in the middle east on a beneficial mission to save the Iraqi people is the most naive view one could have. For crying outloud, weve slaughtered somewhere between 50,000 and 800,000 depending on who's counting. Do a Google on US and Mideast oil and check it out. There were oil deals made under the table with the puppet government before we invaded and installed them. I don't believe everything I see on Google, but the obvious is still obvious!

[Gatekeeper777]

Makes me wonder when bush looks into the mirror if he runs away yelling he saw a terrorist.

[Psycho4Bud]

Ok, just tell me why we're not in Darfur

Briton named as buyer of Darfur oil rights

A millionaire British businessman, Friedhelm Eronat, was named last night as the purchaser of oil rights in the Darfur region of Sudan, where the regime is accused of war crimes and where millions of tribespeople are alleged to have been forced to flee, amid mass rapes or murders.
The disclosure was greeted with outrage by human rights campaigners. "From a moral point of view these people are paying a government whose senior members may end up in front of the international criminal court for war crimes," Simon Taylor, director of Global Witness, said yesterday.
Briton named as buyer of Darfur oil rights | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1503470,00.html)


Chinaâ??s oil ties to Sudan force it to oppose sanctions

BEIJING, Oct 19, 2004, 2004 (IPS) â?? Chinaâ??s thirst for oil is jeopardising the countryâ??s ambitious drive to be seen as a trustworthy world power and its recent attempt at the United Nations Security Council to thwart sanctions against Sudan has only made matters worse, some diplomats say.

Beijing is already at pains fighting accusations that its explosive economic growth is partly to blame for the run-up in world oil prices. Now, the growing threat of United Nations sanctions on Sudan and Iran, which between them supply 20 percent of Chinaâ??s oil imports, puts Beijing in an awkward situation of having to choose between safeguarding its investments and protecting the countryâ??s international image.

Last month, the Chinese government barely managed to water down a U.N. Security Council resolution, which threatened to halt Sudanâ??s oil exports if it did not stop the atrocities in the Darfur region where pro-government Arab militias are terrorising the regionâ??s population.
SudanTribune article : Chinaâ??s oil ties to Sudan force it to oppose sanctions (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article6057)

France opposes UN Sudan sanctions

"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.


France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur
BBC NEWS | Africa | France opposes UN Sudan sanctions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm)


Britan, France, China.......all backing their own lil' groups in order the get that Black Tea. France, China, Iraq..........food for oil.......they do have a history.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[mrdevious]

Goodmorning medicinal. Sorry to take so long to ge back to you, things have been... lets say "hectic" in the past few days for me.

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Ok, just tell me why we're not in Darfur Or a myriad of other countries that have no oil, dealing with ruthless Dictators. I think you'll have to agree, the only reason we are in the Middle East at all is to protect our oil rights (Big oils rights). Spin all you want, but thats the real reason and if you can't see this, then I guess you're a Bushie, or an oil Baron.[/QUOTE]

I'm definately not a Bush supporter, in fact I think he's one of the worst presidents out there since Nixon. His international, domestic, and social policy are grossly one-sided and innefective in my humble opinion.

But, I do own a big oil company and frequently have sex with beautiful women in large piles of money ;) .

You are right though, why aren't we more concerned with some of the horrible genocidal dictators and generals in Africa? Why do we instead go into Iraq, a nation that was merely unfriendly to the U.S. and didn't pose an immediate threat, especially when there are real threats out there like North Korea? My personal opinion is:

The US people generally hate saddam hussein. If 'ol George wants to go down in history for toppling a dictator and liberating a nation, what could be a more popular and remembered cause? As he said at the beginning "they will great us as liberators". I think he expected to topple saddam, liberate a nation quickly and easily, and gain an ally in the middle east to counter other hostile nations from the region. One thing we know is that the CIA manipulated intelligence, and outright lied in thier reports, to give justification for this invasion. Bush of course was quick to believe whatever supported his predisposition toward the man who fought his daddy and mocked his country.

Instead, he ended up pissing off the whole muslim world by convincing the youth over there that terrorist propoganda is true, and the US does indeed want to whipe islam off the face of the earth. What better justification than hundreds of thousands of your people (including friends and family) being slaughtered by American bombs, soldiers patroling your streets, American companies taking over the oil production, a massive diversion of military resources, and above all a war that was justified on what the world now considers a lie. Georgie fucked up big time.


To think we're in the middle east on a beneficial mission to save the Iraqi people is the most naive view one could have. For crying outloud, weve slaughtered somewhere between 50,000 and 800,000 depending on who's counting.

Absolutely, hundreds of thousands have died in the name of a war based on false pretenses, and most likely now another Vietnam. and people wonder why some muslims are pissed off at us... I know if the US invaded my country, filled my streets with soldiers, and blew up half my family and friends, I'd probably have a bone to pick with them too.


Do a Google on US and Mideast oil and check it out. There were oil deals made under the table with the puppet government before we invaded and installed them. I don't believe everything I see on Google, but the obvious is still obvious!


US oil companies undoubtedly made big prophets from this war, but all that means is that they saw an advantageous situation and took advantage of it, like any smart business man. When you launch an invasion of an oil-filled country, companies aren't going to just pass up such a huge opportunity because it might look it was their incentive in the first place. There's no way big oil COULDN'T grab up the resources, regardless of the reasons for the war.

Now does this mean that oil had nothing to with the war in Iraq? Probably not. I'm guessing that oil interests played some role of encouragement for this invasion, but there's no reason to believe it was the sole reason. All it means is that a situation was taken advantage of, whether or not it's the core reason for invasion is unproveable. That's all I'm saying, is that you can't declare "proof" over such circumstances, because there's no evidence to suggest it was anything but crafty business deals. There hasn't been a war in history where a company hasn't seen an opportunity and profitted from it.

Have a good one!

[Psycho4Bud]

and most likely now another Vietnam.

Just about, Hanoi Jane is already getting ready to rub her snapper on a IED to prove her loyalty. :buzz_saw:

Have a good one!:jointsmile: