USA Interests: Iran and the Middle East

I for one have preached for a world without any nuclear bombs. I would never advocate development of nuclear bomb by any country. I am all for a meaningful enforcement of NPT. Let be serious, our anger with the Iranian government since 1979 has had nothing to do with their nuclear fuel cycle, or an Iranian military threat to the Middle Eastern nations [Double Vendetta: The Insanity of the Iran Confrontation ]

The video is a good introduction to the issues of Iran and USA-Israel vector to force the USA interests in the Middle East.

The Iranians are not a military threat for USA, France, England, and Germany.

Iran’s military spending is “relatively low compared to the rest of the region,” and of course minuscule as compared to the US. Iranian military doctrine is strictly “defensive, designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities.” Iran has only “a limited capability to project force beyond its borders.” With regard to the nuclear option, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”

Is Iran a threat to Israel?
Facts: Israel has 3 nuclear submarines, donated by Germany, capable to carry nuclear bombs. USA has provided Israel planes capable to carry nuclear bombs. Israel has nuclear bombs and the most sophisticated armaments in the world, thanks to the generosity of US and Germany.

Then why does Israel feel threatened by Iran? A common explanation often offered has been psychological syndrome. A cure for this behavior cannot be another war instigated on behalf of Israel, this time with Iran. In spite of our statements, Iranian nuclear fuel cycle, or state of democracy in Iran, or theocracy are not high priority issues relative to our national interests. What are the USA Interests in the Middle East?

General Petraeus informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2010 that “the Iranian regime is the primary state-level threat to stability” in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, the Middle East and Central Asia, the primary region of US global concerns. The term “stability” here has its usual technical meaning: firmly under US control.

Iranian threat is not military aggression. Iranian deterrent capacity is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with US global designs. Specifically, it threatens US control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II. As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding, control of these resources yields “substantial control of the world” (A. A. Berle).

Iranians have had difficulty to understand one key issue; our national interest in the Middle East is a high priority. Iranians must submit to the US interests in the Middle East [Double Vendetta: The Insanity of the Iran Confrontation ], like under Shah.

Have a Cup of Coffee, the Tea Party has joined the Israel Zionists

The Tea Party has endorsed Israel pre-emptive attack on Iran. Before we start, let us have a cup of coffee, we need to be fully awake and think this through...Israel threatened by Iranian nuclear fuel cycle.

It is true that Iran is a nuclear state, but not a nuclear bomb state . Israel is nuclear bomb State. Then why would Israel feel threatened by Iran? Israel has 200 nuclear bombs. Iran has zero.
However, many nations including Germany, Japan, Brazil, and Iran are among the many nuclear states...NOT a Nuclear Bomb State. All these nuclear states have active nuclear fuel cycle, i.e. they are able to produce fuel for nuclear power reactor for generation of electricity.
The following states are nuclear bomb states: USA, Russia, England, France, China, Pakistan and India. The North Korea tested a very crude bomb a year ago, but she is incapable to deliver it as nuclear bomb either by plane or rocket.

Facts: Israel has 3 nuclear submarines, donated by Germany, capable to carry nuclear bombs. USA has provided Israel planes capable to carry nuclear bombs. Israel has nuclear bombs and the most sophisticated armaments in the world, thanks to the generosity of US and Germany.
What is wrong with the Tea Party to endorse Israel? Black is white & good is bad. Israel an aggressive state who has attacked her neighbors and occupied their territories is good!
Why does Israel feel threatened by Iran? US Secretary of State Clinton boldly had announced that USA will nuclear bomb Iran into oblivion if she attacks Israel? USA already has been treating Israel as an honorary member of the Common Wealth of the United States.
A common explanation often offered has been psychological syndrome. A cure for this behavior cannot be another war instigated on behalf of Israel; Israel had attacked more than once the states of Lebanon, Egypt and Syria. We have fought war on Israel behalf in Iraq, and now Israel instigating another war, this time with Iran.
I am confused even after a cup of coffee. How about you?

US Congress: Authorization for Israel to attack Iran

Please allow all civilized member of our society to know about this Un-American Act.

US Congress is to give the green light for Israel to attack Iran.

Nearly one third of the Republican Caucus in the House of Representatives has introduced a resolution giving Israel a green light to attack Iran. H.Res.1553 declares unwavering support for Israel to “use all means necessary,” to “eliminate nuclear threats” posed by Iran.

The game plan of these Members of Congress was spelled out by John Bolton in the Wall Street Journal just two weeks ago: “Having visible congressional support in place at the outset [of an attack] will reassure the Israeli government, which is legitimately concerned about Mr. Obama's likely negative reaction to such an attack.”

This is the first step necessary to enable war with Iran.

The Obama Administration quietly resisted Congressional efforts to pass unilateral economic sanctions for over a year, before ultimately giving in to Congressional pressure. Now that “crippling” sanctions have been put in place, the far-right wing and Iran-hawks have begun openly advocating for what has always been their ultimate objective: war with Iran.

As we begin to debate war in earnest, we cannot let history repeat itself.

Numerous credible studies have concluded that such strikes would suck the US into the conflict that would engulf the region in war and put so much at risk.

Act.

Source: NIAC, July 2010

Marriage, Adultery: Should prostitution be legalized in the USA?

Christianity considers marriage as a sacrament and not just joining of two people in a social-economic contract. But, in secular world, marriage could at best be defined as a socio-economic contract registered by state and privileged to some legal rights. This contract, let us define it as a registered union of two or more people, may entitle the individuals to inheritance from the union and other rights defined by the union contract and the state.

The union of two people may not be registered by the state and still could have legal rights. One fundamental demand for the union may be impositions for providing the cost of care would a child is created during the union; this is a consideration irrespective of the duration of the union. In a union of a male and a female, law would impose cost of care on the male. The male could be the genetic father, but also could not be the one. Should all union contracts have a clause to eliminate this imposition of the cost of the care "child support" if the genetic relationship is not validated? Should all children be tested at birth not only for some inherited diseases, but also the genetic linkage to the caretaker "often father"?

Do you feel emotionally more at ease if the union of a male and female was a marriage and blessed as sacrament? Has adultery created both psychological and social difficulty in our modern society? If adultery is an accepted practice, then should the name “marriage with connotation of a ”sacramental practice” be replaced with the word ‘Union” in the contract? In our society free from the religious constrains, should prostitution (a service for pay) be legally available? This action, like many European societies, would allow safety of sexual encounter by medical-legal licensing of prostitution? Are we living in a society full of hypocrisy by accepting adultery, but pronouncing prostitution as a sinful act?

Capital Punishment and Adultery: a perspective on Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions

Join the discussion on this topic at:
Forums » Des Moines » Religion » Capital Punishment and Adultery: a perspective on religions


Imposition of death for Iranian woman for adultery, facing death by stoning has created a repulsive reaction in the Western Societies. I am repulsed by killing of any person irrespective of any justification a State or government may offer. I could only surmise on Muslim religion; I would think their rules are based on the Old Testament, a common standard for Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. I find imposition of death by state-religion using any method to impose death to be barbaric and unacceptable being Koran or the Old Testament.
‎
However;the question of sex, religion, state and church is relevant to our Western societies. Could our society apply punishment using the Old Testament standard for judgment and law in our societies?
The following sections of the bible (the Old Testament) define the punishments for committing adultery:
Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Proverbs 6:32 "But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself." He destroys himself by being put to death as shown above.
Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the whore, she profanes her father: she shall be burnt with fire." Why should only a daughter of a priest get burnt to death if she profanes herself? Why can't this law apply to all daughters?
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." Similar sections in the Old Testament also can be identified for homosexuality.

However, adultery is considered a recreation in many western Christian societies. Fathers are not sure the children they had supported and cared for were conceived by someone else. Some children are suspicious that the man they have called “dad” may be just a benevolent caretaker. Is this an issue of morality or social contract? As a social contract, a father is obligated to support his children. Is genetic linkage between a man and a child the only prerequisite for fatherhood? Many adopt children and love and care for them.

Are the Old Testament rules for adultery, homosexuality, and capital punishment irrelevant for our modern societies? Is the influence of the Old Testament on our life practically speaking dead in the secular Western societies?

We should eliminate the capital punishment in the Unites States.

Post publication addition:
Christianity considers marriage as a sacrament and not just joining of two people in a social-economic contract. But, in secular world, marriage could at best be defined as a socio-economic contract registered by state and privileged to some legal rights. This contract, let us define it as a registered union of two or more people, may entitle the individuals to inheritance from the union and other rights defined by the union contract and the state.

The union of two people may not be registered by the state and still could have legal rights. One fundamental demand for the union may be impositions for providing the cost of care would a child is created during the union; this is a consideration irrespective of the duration of the union. In a union of a male and a female, law would impose cost of care on the male. The male could be the genetic father, but also could not be the one. Should all union contracts have a clause to eliminate this imposition of the cost of the care if the genetic relationship is not validated? Should all children be tested at birth not only for some inherited diseases, but also the genetic linkage to the male caretaker?

Do you feel emotionally more at ease if the union of a male and female was a marriage and blessed as sacrament? Has adultery created a psychological and social difficulty in our modern society? If adultery is an accepted practice, then should the name “marriage with connotation of a” sacramental practice” be replaced with the word ‘Union” in the contract?In our society free from the religious constrains, should prostitution (a service for pay) be legally available? This action, like many European societies, would allow safety of sexual encounter by medical-legal licensing of prostitution? Are we living in a society full of hypocrisy by accepting adultery, but pronouncing prostitution as a sinful act?

Can USA be an honest broker in the Middle East?

Should we be pro-American Americans?
There is no way to reconcile the Petraeus need for the nations in the Middle East to cooperate with US in Afghanistan so long as Israeli burden hangs on our Administration. It is all dependent on our government ability to project a Pro-American posture over those of Pro-Israel. Can we sacrifice our interests in the Middle East for the price of being an extension of Israel's foreign policy?

Chris McGreal, The Guardian, Monday 5 July 2010, in the article US questions its unwavering support for Israel concludes: "Consensus forming in Washington that Israeli government is abusing support with policies seen to be risking US lives."
Pro-Israel position has been: Russia must stop selling defensive weapons to Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and the like. These defenses would make harder for Israel to bomb Syria and Iran.
Pro American position has been: Maybe we could also stop selling arms to Egypt and Saudi, Israel, and too many other nations to mention. But our Congress burdened by Pro-Israeli supportes would not allowed this limitation to Israel.

Pro American position has been: We could also stop arming Israel with our latest offensive armaments and ships and planes capable to carrying nuclear bombs. We could have stopped Germany donating nuclear capable submarine to Israel.

Could we be an honest broker in the Middle East? Should we be pro-American Americans?