War On Iran and Islam

[a-train]

A great article on why our nation's leaders (puppets of global business interests) are pushing war on Iran:

Web of Debt - Behind The Drums Of War With Iran: Nuclear Weapons Or Compound Interest?

There can be little question as to why the international banks don't like a people who don't believe in interest on loans or globalism.

'Scientists have developed a powerful new weapon that destroys people but leaves buildings standing – it's called the 17% interest rate.' -Johnny Carson

-a-train

[PentiumInside]

A great article on why our nation's leaders (puppets of global business interests) are pushing war on Iran:

Web of Debt - Behind The Drums Of War With Iran: Nuclear Weapons Or Compound Interest?

There can be little question as to why the international banks don't like a people who don't believe in interest on loans or globalism.

'Scientists have developed a powerful new weapon that destroys people but leaves buildings standing – it's called the 17% interest rate.' -Johnny Carson

-a-train

Do you feel that "international banks" have a problem with Islam because they forbid interest?

[a-train]

Do you feel that "international banks" have a problem with Islam because they forbid interest?

Did you read the article? Iran and other Islamic countries are strong nationalists who don't want to borrow from the international banks.

Not included in this article is the fact that Iran is holding oil hostage. Iran knows that it could bring the world economy into crisis. A crisis that would most strikingly effect the globalists.

My opinion? Blow the oil fields now and get it all over with. I would rather have a bicycle and my freedom than gasoline and slavery. Ahmadinejad could be a kook and a terrorist for all I know, but this would be no worse than the globalists. As long as he is their enemy, he is a friend to our freedom.

-a-train

[NeuroTypical]

My opinion? Blow the oil fields now and get it all over with. I would rather have a bicycle and my freedom than gasoline and slavery.

Yeesh a-train. Are you sure you want to advocate violence, global economic disaster, and the resultant deaths of millions of people so cavalierly?

How far will you take your idealism?

LM

(by the way, I'm still waiting for your response to this post.

[PentiumInside]

May I suggest a book for you to read?

Not that it will change your mind or to imply globilization is good, bad, or neither. But I recommend reading The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman.

I am still undecided on the matter ( not like my opinion will mean squat lol) but I like to keep myself informed and educated as much as my lazy spirit will allow and I did enjoy the book.

[a-train]

Yeesh a-train. Are you sure you want to advocate violence, global economic disaster, and the resultant deaths of millions of people so cavalierly?

How far will you take your idealism?

I have little doubt that an Iranian missile attack on the oil fields would bring a tremendous amount of bloodshed upon them, I therefore would not advocate them doing that. But, even if they did, I would NOT advocate a U.S. military response. It would not be a sudden oil shortage that would create the bloodshed and disaster we are talking about. It would be the U.S. response to that shortage that would do the damage. I would rather us pay $10 a gallon than drop bombs on Iran.

Is it too idealistic that the U.S. stop consuming half the world's oil production? Is it too idealistic that we stop shedding the blood of thousands in the name of humanitarianism in order to see corporate gains? Is it too idealistic that we refrain from the use of military force to insure consumption growth?

May I suggest a book for you to read?

Not that it will change your mind or to imply globilization is good, bad, or neither. But I recommend reading The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman.

I am still undecided on the matter ( not like my opinion will mean squat lol) but I like to keep myself informed and educated as much as my lazy spirit will allow and I did enjoy the book.

I read some of it at the book store, but didn't buy it because my neighbor is loaning it to me. It is interesting that you bring it up, because he told me to go over and pick it up tonight.

What do you think? Could you support globalism? Could you give up nationalism?

-a-train

[PentiumInside]

Well thats the thing for me, I don't see us giving up "nationalism" per se. What I don't want to do is compete with the rest of the world with our current education system. Its horrendeous and needs a serious fix and fast. Damn..have to run..we'll continue this tomorrow :)

[a-train]

I think that is the trouble. We are being let on that globalism is not an end to nationalism when it is. It is an idealogical difference.

We no longer go to the Congress and get a declaration of war, we go to the UN and get resolutions that lead to quagmires.

We no longer protect our borders, but we rely on treaties with other nations to do so while millions of illegals walk right in.

We no longer regulate our own consumer safety, but we allow the WTO to do it while lead-based painted toys ship in from China.

We have seen time and time again, especially in the 20th Century, that giving up more power to bigger governing bodies only ruins the end results at the local level. The Framers knew that and organized this country accordingly. We have forgotten that and we have grown our government bigger than anything in history and we are looking to go bigger. But that isn't enough. We need supranational governing bodies to regulate international affairs now and we are building those. They won't work, they will only lead to tyranny and tragedy. The current failures of big government should be plenty proof.

-a-train

[FrankJL]

I thought The Lexus and the Olive Tree was a much better book then The World is Flat, regardless though, any of Friedman's books would do.

[a-train]

So I am checking out these books and Thomas Friedman. It should be noted that he is an open proponent of globalism. He openly advocates the sacrifice of national economic sovereignty to multinational corporations or organizations. As an American, I cannot share this advocacy and uphold the Constitution. As a Mormon, I am radically opposed to it.

See Section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Notice also the commandment: 'renounce war and proclaim peace'.

Of these United States, I plead with our leaders to keep them as declared 'as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.' (Declaration of Independence)

However, of these alliances President George Washington said: 'The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.'

We must never compromise the sovereignty of this nation. To do so is to disregard the sacrifice of blood that purchased it. Take up the question said to be offered by Patrick Henry: 'Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?'

Our legacy of independence is too great to lose in the efforts of keeping up with the Joneses.

-a-train

[pushka]

I guess I'm a fan of Globalisation...

'In the beginning there was the land, and the land belonged to everyone,

Then one day, some bullying men got greedy and said 'this land belongs only to us..not to you across the sea' and so began the battles and wars that began to destroy the land and its people..

Isn't it time we gave the land back to ALL the people of the world...with one shared government, one shared currency, and no more wars and slavery..?'

[WANDERER]

To a certain extent: we all live on the same planet and it's inescapable. But I'd have to say I wear a tin foil hat about the possibililty of having a world president.

[CrimsonKairos]

There can be little question as to why the international banks don't like a people who don't believe in interest on loans or globalism.

Its times like this I'm proud to be an American, the only country where life is so good that people have time to sit around cooking up theories linking money-lovers and anti-jihadism.

God bless America, the greatest country on earth. Ever. Period. B)

[NeuroTypical]

It would be the U.S. response to that shortage that would do the damage. I would rather us pay $10 a gallon than drop bombs on Iran.

I think the most common scenarios involve someone acting against Iran first, and Iran responding by shutting down the strait of Hormuz, thus cutting off 30% of the world's oil supply.

But either way, I'm glad to hear you're not in favor of just blowing up all the oil to force your own preferred vision of the new world order.

Is it too idealistic that the U.S. stop consuming half the world's oil production?

Well, if you define "too idealistic" as "ain't ever gonna happen, no way, no how", then yes - you are being too idealistic. The US will stop consuming half eventually, not because it reduces it's consumption, but because China muscles it's way onto the global stage and starts consuming more than the US.

Is it too idealistic that we stop shedding the blood of thousands in the name of humanitarianism in order to see corporate gains?

If by "corporate gains", you mean "increased chances for global economic stability", or "a stabalizing presence in an oil-rich area of the world", then again, the answer is probably yes - you are being too idealistic. Because the world wants economic stability, and wants the free flow of oil. I understand you consider that black stuff a poison that we could do better without, but there are very few people that agree with you.

Is it too idealistic that we refrain from the use of military force to insure consumption growth?

This is a bit more realistic bit of idealism than your other two. Yes, there are ways to fuel consumption growth in ways other than using military force. I predict you won't be able to buy an incandescant light bulb anywhere within 10 years. I predict our cars will run on something different than straight gasoline or diesel within 20. We might get ANWR opened up sometime in our lifetime.

But if you mean to imply that consumption growth is an evil that must be stopped, you're back into the "too idealistic" realm again.

LM

[a-train]

Its times like this I'm proud to be an American, the only country where life is so good that people have time to sit around cooking up theories linking money-lovers and anti-jihadism.

God bless America, the greatest country on earth. Ever. Period. B)

This is the problem. We are so convinced that these Muslims half a world away are hell-bent on the murder of innocent Americans for virtually no other reason than religious difference that we make fun of those who say otherwise. We believe everything the television tells us no matter how ridiculous it may seem. We don't stop to read up on the issue or wonder if the true tin-foil-hat wearers are scared of the suicidal-jihadist-conspiracy theory.

Without any research at all, we call it crazy: the idea that Iranian opposition to American and British influence could be founded on our CIA operations which included the overthrow of their elected government in 1953. We imagine that Operation Ajax which was nothing more than proof that U.S. and British government both had corporate interests higher on their priority list than democracy, humanity, or ethics at all, has nothing to do with it. We imagine the fact that the west, instead of buying oil from the Iranian democracy in peace, overthrew their government with bribery and bloodshed to take their oil profits and give it to British Petroleum (commonly known for its BP gas stations), an enterprise financed by World Bank, has nothing to do with the problem.

It was not until 1979 after tough economic times in Iran (gee, I wonder why) that the Iranian Revolution took place. If you read, you can see the extravagant Anniversary of the Persian Empire which is said to be the most lavish party for heads of state in the 20th Century, took place shortly before the revolution and was cited by the revolutionaries as evidence of corruption in western entanglement. During it, western foreigners had an exclusive banquet costing millions (maybe hundreds of millions) while the economic situation of Iran gave way to starvation in the region.

In 1979, after the bloody revolution, the U.S. protected the exiled Shah and Iranians took U.S. hostages with a demand for his exchange so he could be brought to trial. The hostages were ultimately released although the Shah was never delivered.

Now the British and U.S. governments play the card of moral superiority because of civil rights issues and inequalities extant in the infant democracy of Iran. The younger generation there desires westernization while older folks remain highly nervous about western influence.

Can we blame these elders? The west has a bad history of violence, deceit, bribery, and general tyranny with these people. Is a war with them going to improve our situation? Do we really think that the people there are now hell-bent on bringing a nuke to NYC or DC? Perhaps they will if we continue to militarily force the middle east to support western business as the U.S. and Britain have done for decades.

What sounds more ridiculous:

Iranians in a democracy their people fought and died for, living in an economy of dire circumstance because of western sanctions, are more interested in blowing themselves up to kill people over religious difference and in an effort to ruin democracy in the world, rather than feeding their families and protecting their own democratic homeland?

or

American and British authorities who have already demonstrated a total disregard for Iranian democracy and prosperity seek (as they have always) to embolden international corporate interests with deceptive, coercive, violent, or whatever other means necessary?

Who is really wearing the tin-foil-hat?

-a-train

[a-train]

Question:

Is it too idealistic that we stop shedding the blood of thousands in the name of humanitarianism in order to see corporate gains?

If by "corporate gains", you mean "increased chances for global economic stability", or "a stabalizing presence in an oil-rich area of the world", then again, the answer is probably yes - you are being too idealistic. Because the world wants economic stability, and wants the free flow of oil. I understand you consider that black stuff a poison that we could do better without, but there are very few people that agree with you.

Are you saying, that as a Mormon, you feel perfectly at ease, advocating bloodshed in order for western oil companies to continue the greatest gains in history?

Perhaps you think that these gains through bloodshed give way to 'increased chances of global economic stability'. What economist can I look to for support of the notion that murderous robbery gives way to 'increased chances of global economic stability'.

Let's add the LDS lense. On whom do we rely for 'increased chances of global economic stability'? Uncle Sam? Iran? The UN? Who gives us our daily bread? Who is the world's True Provider? The LORD is our only Provider, and we, as Mormons know that He doesn't offer stability to robbers.

I am not trying to insult you. I am not making fun of you. I am not judging you. I'm not trying to be snappy or demonstrate a superiority. I am only asking you to dig a little deeper and find out what is going on. We Mormons don't need to be led about with falsehoods to bloodshed.

I want us to ask ourselves if we as a nation have raised a standard of peace to the world (D&C 98:34). If we have not, we are the enemies who will be delivered into the hands of others.

-a-train

[a-train]

I guess I'm a fan of Globalisation...

'In the beginning there was the land, and the land belonged to everyone,

Then one day, some bullying men got greedy and said 'this land belongs only to us..not to you across the sea' and so began the battles and wars that began to destroy the land and its people..

Isn't it time we gave the land back to ALL the people of the world...with one shared government, one shared currency, and no more wars and slavery..?'

This isn't a shared government that is being advocated by the globalists. Do we really think that allowing the tyrants who are the main source of robbery, slavery, and bloodshed on this planet to rise to global power will somehow end war and slavery?

-a-train

[PentiumInside]

openly advocates the sacrifice of national economic sovereignty to multinational corporations

Thats incorrect.

And I personally don't really care what reasons people think they might have for hating the US. They can get over it.

As a US Army Infantryman I can say this: I look forward to the day when Jesus comes and fixes the governments of the world so we won't have anymore concerns like this. Until then don't present yourself as an enemy to my nation because I have no issues with sending you to meet him early

[a-train]

Perhaps Friedman only suffers from the accusation of such advocacy and I'll be fine with giving him the benefit of the doubt.

As for those who present themselves as enemies to America, let us not only be aware of those foreign enemies shooting at our troops, but let us be much more aware of those domestic enemies coercing the heads of government in the command of our troops to enter harms way for corporate interests. That is all I am trying to point out.

-a-train

[pushka]

This isn't a shared government that is being advocated by the globalists. Do we really think that allowing the tyrants who are the main source of robbery, slavery, and bloodshed on this planet to rise to global power will somehow end war and slavery?

-a-train

Thanks for clarifying that for me a-train..obviously the 'shared' government that I envisage would not be tyrants advocating robbery, slaverly and bloodshed on the planet..the replacement government would need to consist of humanitarians who value the earth and everyone that lives in it equally..all land would be one, all oil and other sources of wealth would be shared by all, all the foodstocks would be shared by all, there would be no need for poverty to exist in current 3rd world countries..

Unfortunately, I know that this is a mere pipedream, because mankind in general is too selfish to think about the rest of the world instead of just about their own country and its 'friendly' neighbours...

[Guest Malcolm]

I am enjoying this forums more than I thought. I think it would take way to much time to review history so that the exchange remains more lucid and pragmatic but we should try.

The ideological differences between Islamic and Western societies are a impossible to bridge. Their laws, social and political views are rooted (and remain) in the 7th century. It is a world where dialog is not encouraged, tolerance is not a virtue but a weakness, opposing view points are silenced with a gun and those that have them used them to maintain power. These countries have no history of democracy or interest in it. The powerful (and I am referring to brute force) do anything and everything to keep it. This very forum, where we are free to express and share our view points are non-existent and much less tolerated. These are, for the most part, tribal societies where alliance to one's tribe is above any other consideration. Women are considered property and non-fully sanction being, whose lives are available to trade, buy, sell and discard.

For the conspiracy theorists; if oil was the goal of the invasion, why are paying $3.00 a galon five years after the fact? Let's not forget that on 11 September of 2001 they came into our country and in a clear act of war killed 3000 of our citizens in minutes. Before that we had no interestr (and very little presence) in the middle east. The world over buys oil from the Arabs, not just us. They hate everything we are and stand for. Do not forget they blame us (the US) for the existance of Israel. That dates back to 1948 and their gripe begins there.

[NeuroTypical]

Are you saying, that as a Mormon, you feel perfectly at ease, advocating bloodshed in order for western oil companies to continue the greatest gains in history?

I see your effort to characterize the way things are, but I disagree with your characterization and your mindset.

First of all, I don't think I've ever felt 'perfectly at ease' with anything that happens on the global scale, whether bloodshed is involved or not. The geopolitical game involves all sorts of amoral cunning and dirty hardball tricks, favoring those who can apply the right lever at the right time. As the undeniable truth goes: "Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force." It won't be governed by Christ until the millenium. Therefore, there will be good and bad governments and everything in between, but the use of force is a tool in every government's toolbag.

Second of all, God seems to sanction this truth in some ways. Consider the bloody cleansing of the opposition when the righteous Pahoran was restored to his judgement seat in Alma 62. Consider the spy network of Captain Moroni in Alma 43 and 44, which allowed his armies to shape the battlefield such that Lehi could rain death and destruction down upon the Lamanites, forcing them to run across a river into a valley, where Moroni rained even more death and destruction. And he didn't stop until the army was completely routed. The whole thing reads like the history of the first gulf war, and our justification for going back in.

Third of all, capitalist profits can be a result of doing the right thing or the wrong thing. Just identifying that capitalists are making money does nothing to demonstrate the moral wrongness of the action. Nor does it demonstrate that the profit making was the main reason for taking the action.

What economist can I look to for support of the notion that murderous robbery gives way to 'increased chances of global economic stability'.

Again, you attempt to characterize our policies and actions in the middle east as "murderous robbery". Again, I ain't convinced.

Let's add the LDS lense. On whom do we rely for 'increased chances of global economic stability'?

According to the people of Ammon, it was Helaman leading their own sons into battle. From where I'm standing, the LDS lens is that God will help you kill the bad guys, as long as they're bad and you are good and righteous. And Alma 52 tells us that we got to do our own hard work - he's not going to keep us safe while we sit there on our rear ends and talk about how cool it is to never have to kill people.

Who gives us our daily bread?

According to Moses 4 and 5, Genesis 3, and D&C 42, we get our daily bread through our own hard work. God gave us the earth and everything in it to work on - he expects us to act in our own self-interest, not sit there and wait for manna to fall from the heaven.

The LORD is our only Provider, and we, as Mormons know that He doesn't offer stability to robbers.

Maybe not stability, but he sure offers agency to them. And we all know that one group can exercise their agency such that another group suffers.

I find the whole notion that we should not actively be acting in our nations self-interest anti-common sense and anti-scriptural. You do not persuade me. I reject your mindset.

(I'm not insulting you either - just giving you an honest response.)

I am not judging you. I'm not trying to be snappy or demonstrate a superiority. I am only asking you to dig a little deeper and find out what is going on.

You say you're not trying to "demonstrate a superiority", and yet you claim that you are right and I am wrong because you have dug deeper, while I am ignorant of things because I have not. You are judging me. According to your judgement, I'm wrong because you obviously possess the only right there is to be had, and I disagree with you. Truth of the matter is, I've dug just like you've dug - I just come to a different conclusion.

Well, I don't judge you as a person either, but I'm perfectly happy judging your arguement. I judge it lacking, insufficient, and wrong-headed. Taken to extremes, it would be dangerous and suicidal.

I want us to ask ourselves if we as a nation have raised a standard of peace to the world (D&C 98:34).

Interesting thing about 98:34, is that it's followed by 98:35 and 98:36 - the steps we should follow before crushing them into a bloody pulp. Another interesting thing is that 98 is directed towards the Saints in their relationship to their government. It is not talking about foreign policy, it's talking about how we should react to domestic policies. I find the interactions between the Nephites and Lamanites to be much more illustrative of how we should shape our foreign policy. And God talks quite a bit about defending the weak by killing their oppressors, trying diplomacy first - but resorting to the work of death when it fails, and killing to defend liberty.

You asked if I feel perfectly at ease. Most certainly not. But neither do I tremble and faint when hard decisions need to be made.

LM

(none of this post is to be considered a call to attack Iran, btw.)

[pushka]

I am enjoying this forums more than I thought. I think it would take way to much time to review history so that the exchange remains more lucid and pragmatic but we should try.

The ideological differences between Islamic and Western societies are a impossible to bridge. Their laws, social and political views are rooted (and remain) in the 7th century. It is a world where dialog is not encouraged, tolerance is not a virtue but a weakness, opposing view points are silenced with a gun and those that have them used them to maintain power. These countries have no history of democracy or interest in it. The powerful (and I am referring to brute force) do anything and everything to keep it. This very forum, where we are free to express and share our view points are non-existent and much less tolerated. These are, for the most part, tribal societies where alliance to one's tribe is above any other consideration. Women are considered property and non-fully sanction being, whose lives are available to trade, buy, sell and discard.

For the conspiracy theorists; if oil was the goal of the invasion, why are paying $3.00 a galon five years after the fact? Let's not forget that on 11 September of 2001 they came into our country and in a clear act of war killed 3000 of our citizens in minutes. Before that we had no interestr (and very little presence) in the middle east. The world over buys oil from the Arabs, not just us. They hate everything we are and stand for. Do not forget they blame us (the US) for the existance of Israel. That dates back to 1948 and their gripe begins there.

Aww Malcolm, you make the world sound like such a happy place...

[FrankJL]

Who is really wearing the tin-foil-hat?

Something tells me if I needed one, you'd have a few I could borrow

[CrimsonKairos]

We are so convinced that these Muslims half a world away are hell-bent on the murder of innocent Americans for virtually no other reason than religious difference...

Actually, as PentiumInside pointed out, the majority of their hatred towards us is not because we don't worship Allah. Most Muslims/Arabs hate us because we took "their land" and gave a nice big chunk to form the modern state of Israel. Add on to that the fact that we propped Israel up and kept it from certain collapse during the Yom Kippur War (read up on Operation Nickelgrass), and you have several reasons for Israel's enemies to become our enemies.

You don't see the Muslim radicals spouting off against North Korea or China do you? Yet North Korea and China are not Muslim nations. Its not about who you pray to. Its about supporting Israel, an unforgivable sin in Arab and Palestinian eyes.