What's new

The evil U.S. policy against Iran

King Solomon

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
2,990
Reaction score
0
47154.jpeg


U.S. attack groups may be carrying more than 430 Tomahawk type missles near Iran, many of these missiles were seen during the war against Iraq.

The United States has many explanations for the movements of rheir fleet, consisting of aircraft carriers, submarines, jets, drones and everything else in the vicinity of Iran and the Persian Gulf. However, this seemed worthy of deeper consideration because they are just miles away. I smelled more fraud, lies and machinations of the diabolical than anything else.

Before reading about the abominable Tomahawks in the Persian Gulf, I had read an article by Stephen Gowans who impressed me by his frankness and insight. [1]

The economic policy of Iran has some restrictions regarding foreign investment in areas of strategic interest to the country. Relying on these areas is the state's ability to maintain a regulative supervision on key industries in the country, in transnational industries or other private industries, working in the regime of maximizing profits for the company itself.

Stephen Gowans points out that this is a cardinal sin for the financial industry elites of the United States that depend on free access to sources of opportunity to maximize their profits and economic profits on a truly global scale. Considering that the oil industry is of central importance in Iran, we then have what Stephen Gowans argues the following:

Since bankers, investors, directors, presidents of large corporations and lawyers occupy key positions in American government, and since they fund, as well as contribute to the formulation of policy that will favor those same elites, one can quietly conclude that the main point of the program will be to ensure the profits of the above, as well as collaborating with them.

Here the list is long because it includes the entire branch of the magnificent spider web that makes up the U.S. structural system, hence we must not forget to mention in this context, the military-industrial complex served by or intertwined with the White House and Pentagon. Unfortunately it is true. Iraq and Libya show the concrete consequences of the framework presented here.

Stephen Gowans also points to the fact that this symbiosis, or this mutual dependence between the financial-industrial complex, as well as its military branch, includes other negative consequences.

Then he highlights their requirements including working conditions for poor pay, child labor, no subsidies for basic consumer goods, a shift of distribution of goods favoring elites, as well as the requirement of a privatization of health services and many, many other things to always ensure that the worker remains in the worst conditions.

They are imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran so that their people will be poor, as well as have a short and uncertain life as is the case for workers in the west.

The financial interests involved have no intention of allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran to continue to be a viable social and economic alternative, due to the degenerate machinations of Washington in the Middle East. They have no intention of allowing an economic system based on an Islamic sense of justice, and will ultimately impose their unreasonable profits and unjust strangulation throughout the region if they have their way.

As if trying to bend a population of 70 million people through cruel sanctions were not enough, they are now encircling the country with an arsenal that is best described as apocalyptic.

In the arsenal are aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, attack jets and, in addition to all of that, we still have the infernal 340 Tomahaks previously mentioned.



For a more detailed assessment of the menacing group located in the Persian Gulf war see [2]

References and Notes:

[1] Stephen Gowans, "What's Left: The United States' barbarous policy on Iran " in what's left and GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization on 15/04/2012

[2] News-on-www.strategic culture.org - Strategic Culture Foundation. 04/21/2012



Translated from the Portuguese version by:


Lisa Karpova
Pravda.Ru
 
Much of Mr Stephen claims are useless as Saudi Arabia also nationalizes its industry of strategic importance like oil gas metals gold etc
 
What does US got to loose if (God forbid) it went to war with Iran?

According to my analysis there are only two US bases in region, that can be strategically dangerous to Iran.
1- Iraq
2-Afghanistan
While on both occasions, Iran has supported US invasion.
 
What does US got to loose if (God forbid) it went to war with Iran?

According to my analysis there are only two US bases in region, that can be strategically dangerous to Iran.
1- Iraq
2-Afghanistan
While on both occasions, Iran has supported US invasion.

They will loose because the saudis oil field will go bye bye. and the world economy will crumble.
also their troops will be sent to hell.
 
They will loose because the saudis oil field will go bye bye. and the world economy will crumble.
also their troops will be sent to hell.

Sent to hell, eh? Bahgdad Bob write your material for you?
 
They will loose because the saudis oil field will go bye bye. and the world economy will crumble.
also their troops will be sent to hell.

World economy could be crumbled for few days but Iran will be crumbled for decades or maybe FOREVER.
 
They will loose because the saudis oil field will go bye bye. and the world economy will crumble.
also their troops will be sent to hell.

Where does the oil fields go?

US always benefit from war, on previous occasions they took control of Iraqi oil fields!

BTW...Saudi oil is not only for US it is up for sale in open market, nothing goes out for free.
 
What does US got to loose if (God forbid) it went to war with Iran?

According to my analysis there are only two US bases in region, that can be strategically dangerous to Iran.
1- Iraq
2-Afghanistan
While on both occasions, Iran has supported US invasion.
Didn't expect such a retarded comment from you.

Iran was happy with the Iraq invasion because it was obvious where Iraq would go after Saddam was toppled. Couple the shia majority with the Iranian backed politicians and you would have an Iran friendly country. This same country used to launch chemical tipped scuds at us. The positives outweighed the negatives by a big margin.

Similar story in AFG. The wahabi taliban were destroying AFG and it was in everybody's interest to see them gone, including ours. The long time Iranian backed Northern Alliance was called in to help. A US base is much less dangerous than wahabi terrorists constantly killing Iranians and blowing **** up. In a war situation, Americans would use their air craft carriers not some random runway in the middle of an Afghan village.

In time the US situation will get fixed too.
 
Back
Top Bottom