« Haddock on the grill tonight | Main | Decameron: `The stone that the builders rejected became a cornerstone.' »

22 September 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Because Western societies are a bigger threat to them.


I think Iranians, how ever fanatical, are not as fanatical as members of certain Protestant Churches in the United States that, in essence, posit that their own salvation lies in the destruction of Israel, the United States, and the world - not necessarily in that order.

I understand that they are real people have the right to vote, but that does not make their views any less extremist.

Furthermore, the fanatical Iranians are not desirous to see the end of Iran just so that they may be saved - they have loyalty to Iran, more than one can say about many in the United States with dubious loyalty to her.

Eric Newhill

It's a common that you'd know if you ever actually read anything about religions and cultures. There are even a few wikis covering it. Look it up. I suspect that you're just some atheist anti-semite.

So you want a world in which everyone is hurling nuclear weapons at each other and where nations are free to attack each other for whatever reason they chose? Where might equals right; a throw back to life circa 2,500 BCE?

I answered Barbara Ann's question. I'll also Col Lang's. My opinion is that the neocons hate Iran so much because Iran won't recognize Israel's right to exist and Iran has made threats to wipe it off the map and Iran is developing the capability to do just that. The neocons seek a Pax Americana. They believe that the American way is the best way. That we are exceptional and therefore have the responsibility to bring peace and order to the world.

I think they don't know how to do what they want to. They are bunglers because they have no military experience and they don't appreciate cultural realities either. I appreciate their sentiments to an extent because I too think that America is the best and the strongest. However, I don't think that what the want to do is possible. We cannot go all Roman on rebellious people. In an interconnected world, the rebels can strike back in ways that rebels could not back in Rome's glory days. And there are the costs.

The UN was supposed to be a means of peacefully solving these kinds of problems, but too fails.

People like you want to call me names and play at being morally superior while secretly hoping for the destruction of a nation that you have deemed unjust. You like Sharia? Iran is not a Lilly white society. How hard would it be for them to just shut up about destroying Israel and recognize its right to exist like any other country? Again, is that the kind of world you want to live in? Where a country can deem another as undeserving of existence? Because once that's the precedent it can be applied anywhere to anyone. Just saying.

Now you can get back to insulting people (me) who present you with perspectives you just don't want to hear. BTW, I'm not advocating for anything. Questions were asked and I'm just explaining, best as I can tell, why things are as they are.

Maybe Col Lang only wants an echo chamber here, but I have more respect than that for him and don't believe it is the case.

English Outsider

I find it difficult to understand the theory of "petrodollar imperialism". There's nothing stopping anyone who sells anything to the States exchanging the dollars received for other currencies.

There are two constraints that give colour to the theory. The first is that many transactions, between other countries, or between the USA and any country, get cleared through New York. This can allow the USA to impose conditions on such transactions, or penalties as a form of sanction, that other countries may find irksome. That is, I believe, the main reason other countries are starting, as you mention, to conduct transactions directly. But they are not so much avoiding the dollar as avoiding New York, or any other financial centre influenced by New York.

The other constraint is that at least until recently it has made sense to hold reserves in a stable currency such as the dollar. That, rather than an alleged agreement between Kissinger and some Sheikh accounts for the fact that vast sums were held in US Treasuries. It's also easier to borrow in dollars because of the deep liquidity of the American financial markets.

So although it may walk like a "petrodollar" and look like a "petrodollar" I maintain it isn't one.

But I'm quite willing to be corrected. Maybe there are other mechanisms in play I don't know about.

What is certain is that "petrodollar" or not, any outside country with any sense should be reducing its exposure to trade and financial dealings with the West as a whole. The whole caboodle looks increasingly unstable and no one with any sense would touch it with a barge pole unless they had to.


There are nearly 200 commenters to Ron Unz's most recent article debunking the narrative that, you assert, demands American support for Israel/Jews.
That article is a follow-on to at least 5 similarly provocative -- or perhaps defiant -- essays, which garnered, in aggregate, well over 5000 participant's comments, many of them adding even more sourced information that is otherwise censored by 'mainstream' gatekeepers.

Your assertion that support for Israel / Jews is "just the way it is," IS, but only as long as gatekeepers can keep people like Ron Unz, the books and authors he sources, and those who read and participate on his webzine, silenced or outlawed or self-censoring.

Unz forum participants have grown exponentially in a very few short years. In that same time-span, zionist or neocon or whatever-you-call-it efforts to criminalize such communication has also increased: what kind of democratic republic submits to censorship imposed by those whose first loyalty is to a state not the United States?

I learned from harsh experience that tiny cracks in a foundation are the first manifestation that a structure is fundamentally unsound; nothing plumb, square and level can long remain on such a flawed foundation, and tiny cracks seldom disappear -- they get bigger and more destabilizing. Criminalizing exposure of the crookedness of the zionist foundation is not going to make the cracks disappear.

Iran is not the gravest threat faced by Israel and even those American Jews who are united only around the religion of holocaust.
The gravest threat to "that which IS," is something Jeremey ben-Ami conceded several years ago in a talk at Politics and Prose in DC: his children's Hebrew teacher asked him, "What should we tell out children (about Israel's occupation of Palestine)?"
Ben Ami answered, "We should tell them the truth; if we do not, if we lie to them, when they find out, there will be resentment ---"

More and more Americans, Jewish and not, are discovering that they have been lied to.
The more zionists and neocons attempt to criminalize exposure of such lies, the greater will be the resentment.

Eric Newhill

Here we agree. There are religious fanatics everywhere, including in America.

Even the secular humanist social science/polisci people have a substantial set of fanatics among them.

There is what appears to be a twisted Darwinian like urge to believe that one's way is The One True Way and then to impose it on all others, by force if there's resistance; even by extermination of the opposition.

Such people seem to rise to the top to control societies because their inflexible beliefs give them the audacity to do so. Decent thoughtful and respectful people eschew such egocentric audacity. Then there are all of the mindless followers of such leaders. Many people seem to be conditioned to follow confident leaders and tend to be unable to discern confidence based on wisdom and experience and deep thoughtfulness from the loud brash harangues and empty promises of the egotistical fools and fanatics.

How could God have created billions of people/souls who could have never heard about Islam or Christ or Yahweh and who were (or are) therefore doomed to Hell because they lived somewhere where that message didn't reach or in a time before it existed. If God wouldn't do that, then why are we deciding that we need to condemn and kill in God's name? It's all BS, brother. We should all be free to seek our relationship with the higher spirits and Spirit in our own way. If an organized religion is a path that helps someone do that, then fine. But not if that means getting all literal about it and using it as justification to attack "infidels". This applies to atheists as well.

Babak Makkinejad

There is a Judaic Tradition, a Christian Tradition, and an Islamic Tradition. While they may overlap or ech one another here and there, they are separate. Cow Chapter, verse 62 provides an impetus and a basis for an Islamic ecumenism - in my opinion,, but that path was never taken.

Eric Newhill

I say 2 +2 = 7 and you say it = 5. We both call each stupid and both of our honors are insulted. We shoot holes in each other at dawn.

Yes honor is so very important.

English Outsider

Eric - Christian Zionism pre-dated the Holocaust.  It was one strand, I'd guess a fairly minor one in truth, that influenced the British decision to set up what later became the State of Israel.

Zionism itself is of historically recent growth.  Before Herzl, or rather before the late nineteenth century pogroms, it was very much a minority aspiration among Jews.  "Next year in Jerusalem" was a metaphorical aspiration and the idea that it should be fulfilled by physically moving large numbers of Jews to the Middle East was just one of the many oddball notions that are always knocking around on the fringes - it wasn't taken seriously by the majority.

OK, it is now.  Very much so.  And there are now also large numbers of Christian Zionists, or evangelicals inclining to Christian Zionism, in the States.  Plus many Mormons.  So you could argue that even if it's a largely invented cult and one of recent growth, it's one that has such a strong hold on so many people, and those many people influencing the foreign policy of the USA, that it's a secure basis for the continuation of what is becoming a Jewish ethno-state in the Middle East.

It's not.  Jabotinsky et al were on a loser from the start.  What has to be done now is to find some way of enabling the Jewish settlers in Palestine and their descendants to stay in place safely.  That's common sense - we don't want some new version of the Nakba but going the other way.

What that "some way" is it's not possible to guess. But it sure as hell isn't the way that's being pursued at the moment.  The reliance on American military supremacy to keep a settler community safe for ever is a foolish as the reliance on British military supremacy to keep the white settlers in Rhodesia safe.  One can assert that as fact, not as a vague prediction.  The militant Zionism we're seeing in action at the moment in the Israeli government, and in a large proportion of the Jewish community in Israel, is exactly the wrong way to go about ensuring a permanent Jewish settlement there.

Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat.  We do our friends in Israel no favours by confirming so many of them in that madness.

Oscar Peterson

"People like you want to call me names..."

"Now you can get back to insulting people (me) who present you with perspectives you just don't want to hear."

Please enumerate the "names" and "insults" you are referring to. There are none in any of my posts.

Your response is utterly incoherent. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you. Are you familiar with the concept of a persecution complex?

But back to the issue at hand. You have still failed to answer Barbara Ann's and my question: With Israel possessing a first and ,almost certainly, a second strike capability, what existential threats are you talking about that Israel is not postured to deal with?

What is your answer? You really don't have one, do you?

Oscar Peterson

Exactly so.

Oscar Peterson

I think that trying to characterize 80 million people as "fanatical" is absurd on its face. Obviously, there are plenty of Iranians with strong faith and a willingness to act on that faith. What constitutes fanaticism vice some other, putatively less threatening expression of faith is so subjective a question that it's almost pointless to try and answer it.

As for Christian Zionism, I find it objectionable on any number of doctrinal and practical grounds. It is ultimately a form of ideological shabbosgoyism that is a profound affront to the dignity of Christianity.

Oscar Peterson


And the best part is that they don't actually have to invest anything. The investment capital is simply provided gratis to them and they get the returns!

Oscar Peterson

Well yes, of course. But the contrast between Arabians of that day and this--Saudi or otherwise--is quite striking.

By the way, I used the italics function in a comment above, and now it's turned everything (that I see) all the way down to the bottom of the string to italic. Everything above is still non-italic. Strange.



When you turn on a feature like italics you have to turn it off at the end of your use of the feature. If you do not it runs on forever like that. I made a straightforward ststement sbout 'Umar. Why the "but?"


Islam never claims that those who have no heard of Islam are going to Hell.

That has been the tradition view of Christians.

Eric Newhill

Yes. I agree with what you say (as I usually do). I think you're downplaying the impact of the Holocaust on the Jewish psyche, but otherwise, yes, that's where we are today.

There must be a process over time to deescalate Zionistic policies. Running around with virtual torches and pitchforks and condemning Israel isn't going to get anything done.

And this is where Iran and the Palestinians' stubborn pride (hatred?) plays a role. Almost everything they do and say indicates that a reverse Nabka is exactly what would happen. So they are not helping matters.


Sheldon Adelson and several other billionaires believe protection and support of Israel is an overriding national interest of the United States. So do many more Evangelical Christians, who believe the book of John the Revelator means they must do everything they can to bring about the conditions the prophet said would be present when Jesus returns. That includes having the Jews regain control of Israel. They seem to ignore as inconvenient the statement that all the Jews will be converted to Christianity, but that's for a different discussion. My interpretation is that they thing they can force the god to deliver The Rapture at their convenience, which should count as blasphemy, but what do I know.


Attempt to buy a tanker load of sweet light Saudi crude with any other currency than the $. Saudis won't sell unless you pay dollars. Saudis won't sell even if you offer Saudi Riyals. Russia Iran and China are not only avoiding NYC and SWIFT they are trading oil in their own currencies avoiding $.
The deal is simple the Saudi leaders only accept $ for their oil and in turn they are allowed to live and live large. As soon as Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq would accept gold for its oil he was deposed.



Oh, bullshit! I know the people who brought us to war in Iraq and their drive for that had nothing to do with petrodollars.



Not to hell, to Limbo in the catholic tradition


Powell and his ilk yes they had little interest in P$.
Cheney and his had a bit more interest in Oil and P$.



You are an experienced oil trader or just an expert on Saudi leadership and Saddam Hussein?



No. this is a fable. Cheney was as much motivated by the neocon ideology as the most crazy among them. Don't try t feed me the usual economic determinist crap.


Sorry, my mistake. You are right.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad