America's choices on Iran

by Fred Johnston Mon Sep 29, 2008 15:31

I have no doubt that the US wouldn't take kindly to being refused Shannon, but they should be booted out for the sake of our sovereignty and simple patriotic dignity - though I admit, that dignity is not a word often used in reference to Dail Eireann. There is also the small matter of our being complicit in war crimes but hey, all those war crimes were dealt with in grainy black-and-white History Channel Nuremberg re-runs. We have had our oil rights sold off (I understand that one of the ex-TDs responsible still gets a pension) and it stands to reason that we've sold Shannon in some back-of-the-hand, what-they-don't-know-won't-hurt-them fast one deal from Fianna Fáil, the cowardice of whose ministers beggars belief and approaches the surreal. With regard to Iran - it is interesting how the US recently bullied Ireland and one or two others into accepting India's entry, without having to sign anything about non-proliferation, into the nuclear race; the US, UK and some other European countries are selling nuclear technology to India. So - India good (she has nuclear capability and has NOT signed the non-proliferation treaty); Iran bad (she has no such capability and HAS signed.) Israel hasn't signed either - shock! Horror! For hypocrisy, the US outdoes even Ireland. It's a shameful State, readying to make unending war on the world. There is no moral core there; one senses a country becoming a moral and ethical desert. So where are we in all this? Giving our sad, 'disappointed' TDs extra cash for the loss of their ministerial perks.

by tomeile Fri Sep 26, 2008 16:27

It would be interesting to see the US response if their military was denied facilities at Shannon . It won't be allowed of course - "once you're bought you stay bought " is the rule the mafia lays down to politicians in America and they will apply the same line to here. Republicans I have spoken to say that they have been told by representatives of US intelligence that any militant threat against American forces at Shannon will be answered militarily .
Today’s WSWS website has an article on the Korean reactor .
‘Earlier this month, Secretary of State Rice, who pressed for the six-party talks and a deal with North Korea, rather absurdly declared that the administration’s diplomacy on Iran and North Korea was evidence that it would leave the non-proliferation issue “in far better shape than we found it”.’ See:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/kore-s26.shtml

by reader Thu Sep 25, 2008 17:44

George Orwell stressed that when domestic problems become intense the leaders of a state had best focus on some overseas enemy to get the minds of unhappy citizens off the shortcomings of their own government. In a time of financial meltdown let's start a war with Iran. But, errh... North Korea is threatening to discontinue its abstinence from uranium processing. And supposing green little Ireland decided to halt all foreign military plane stopovers in Shannon? A nightmare for the Pentagon strategists surely.

by tomeile Thu Sep 25, 2008 15:49

I missed out the word "change" in last sentence . Bolton called for either :
“regime change through support of the widespread discontent across Iran with the mullahs” , or “ the targeted use of force against Iran's nuclear program." or “ the targeted use of force against Iran's nuclear program."