Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran's Govt. Pushing Its Luck

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iran's Govt. Pushing Its Luck

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...eda/index.html

    Another major terrorist attack on USA and the American people will give the commander in chief a free hand in dealing with Iran, up to and including an invasion to destroy the Islamic government of that country. To hunt down, imprison or kill officials the way we are seeing it in Iraq.

    True, right now the mood doesn't favor anything radical, but the mood may change dramatically. Look how it changed on that memorable September day.

    The U.S. forces in Iraq can be replaced by the new Nato members and by other means. They can be refitted, rested and prepared for surprisingly prompt action elsewhere. Their availability is NOT the problem-I hope the Iranian mullahs comprehend that.
    Last edited by MonsterZero; 12 Aug 03, 21:32.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    The U.S. forces in Iraq can be replaced by the new Nato members and by other means. They can be refitted, rested and prepared for surprisingly prompt action elsewhere. Their availability is NOT the problem-I hope the Iranian mullahs comprehend that.
    No. There is absolutely no way that NATO would hold up under the casualty rate that the US has been seeing in Iraq.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Saudi official in Washington has told reporters Iran is holding several senior al Qaeda leaders in "safe houses."

    Among those in custody, the official said Tuesday, is the terror network's military chief, one of Osama bin Laden's sons and a Jordanian-born terrorist who U.S. authorities have said was behind the murder of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan.

    Iran has not responded to a request by Saudi Arabia to hand over any in the group who are Saudi citizens, the official said.
    Compare with the rather amorphous accusations made against Iraq about hosting terrorists.
    Get the US out of NATO, now!

    Comment


    • #3
      A 'Saudi official'? I think we should invade Saudi Arabia next if we invade anyone.
      "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

      Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MonsterZero
        http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...eda/index.html

        Another major terrorist attack on USA and the American people will give the commander in chief a free hand in dealing with Iran, up to and including an invasion to destroy the Islamic government of that country. To hunt down, imprison or kill officials the way we are seeing it in Iraq.

        True, right now the mood doesn't favor anything radical, but the mood may change dramatically. Look how it changed on that memorable September day.

        So, just like 9/11 put you in a mood to attack a country that had nothing to do with this terrorist attack, another terror act (say by pakistani terrorists) would be a reason to invade Iran ??

        Guess you have to live in the USA to think that this makes sense

        I mean the unproven babble of one person of unknown reputation is enough for you to demand/support a military invasion ??
        "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

        Henry Alfred Kissinger

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kraut
          I mean the unproven babble of one person of unknown reputation is enough for you to demand/support a military invasion ??
          History tends to repeat itself.
          And we are here as on a darkling plain
          Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
          Where ignorant armies clash by night.


          Matthew Arnold

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kraut
            So, just like 9/11 put you in a mood to attack a country that had nothing to do with this terrorist attack, another terror act (say by pakistani terrorists) would be a reason to invade Iran ??

            Guess you have to live in the USA to think that this makes sense

            I mean the unproven babble of one person of unknown reputation is enough for you to demand/support a military invasion ??
            Not saying this whole thing makes sense, just saying that's how it might work out.

            The White House has a list of rougue states. Bush may decide to settle scores with another one if there is public support.

            That's how it happened in Iraq. Everybody knows the weapons of mass destruction was a highly suspicious invasion reason and that Saddam was a local Arab mafioso rather than a global threat, but that's how it worked out. Before 9/11 there was absolutely no support for going against Iraq. After 9/11 there was and Bush took advantage of it fairly quickly.

            Right now there is no support for going against Iran but what's gonna happen tomorrow? If the furious public demands another blood sacrifice Iran may prove to be a most suitable victim. Those mullahs should keep a low profile, not get involved in Al-Quaida safehouses.

            "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
            --Frederick II, King of Prussia

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MonsterZero
              Everybody knows the weapons of mass destruction was a highly suspicious invasion reason and that Saddam was a local Arab mafioso rather than a global threat, but that's how it worked out.
              Yup. The whole Iraq thing feels like a game of Jeopardy where you know the answer but have to guess the question.
              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

              Comment


              • #8
                Based on the information available, I would not support a military effort against Iran at this time. It is unlikely Tehran is providing protection for al-Qaeda operatives. Local sympathizers and religious clerics are the likely perpetrators. If this is the case, there is little the Iranian government could do without inciting harsh opposition.

                Iran poses little threat to American vital interest in the region right now. Efforts to undermine our operation in Iraq is their only real option. It's been unable to rally Arab support to diminish the growing American presence in the region. Attempts to terrorize its neighbors into supporting Tehran's agenda failed in Bahrain, undermining one of Iran's most powerful weapons - regional terrorism. This will continue as long as local governments maintain a close relationship with the US. They might be trying to find security in nuclear weapons. However, the things are more of a curse than a source of protection. Iran's economy is a mess. There is a growing political movement to better relations with the US to ease the money crunch.

                Assuming an overly aggressive posture with Iran has never worked. It won't now. If anything, Tehran will become more defiant. They'll also use that American aggression to unite the Arab world to help undermine American might in the region.

                The best course of action is to use measured diplomacy to ease tensions. We don't need to tell Iran over the news we'll smoke'em if Al-Qaeda launches another attack. Quiet diplomacy can deliver our message without all the noise, making it more acceptable. There's not much terrorists in Iran can do. They need to move about. And if we play our cards right, we can either lure them out by some means, or make them feel unsafe in Iran. Terrorists are quite paranoid. If they saw the US backing down, and trying a more diplomatic approach, it would likely make them question those safety of those "safe houses."

                As for Saudi Arabia, screw'em. The toppling of Saddam Hussein has greatly reduced almost twenty years of military dependency. Once the oil starts flowing in Iraq, SA's importance will drop further. Now the Saudi regeme have no choice, but to confront social and political issues because the king isn't all too confident the US will return. And if we do, it won't be like 1990. When the US sent troops to Saudi Arabia, the regime went to great lengths to portray their acceptance as a great favor. This time around, we'd be the one doing favors.

                Originally posted by Kraut
                So, just like 9/11 put you in a mood to attack a country that had nothing to do with this terrorist attack, another terror act (say by pakistani terrorists) would be a reason to invade Iran ??
                If the Pakistani terrorist are operating out of Iran with the knowledge and support of the Iranian government, then yes, we'd attack them.

                While many Americans felt Saddam was responsible for 9/11, I still believe the motivating factor behind support for war was hatred for the Iraqi leader, and an unwillingness to tolerate his antics.

                Saddam did little to make himself look like a man different from the one who was so evil in 1990. Had he been more proactive than defiant, he might still be in power today.
                Last edited by Deltapooh; 13 Aug 03, 19:05.
                "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                Comment


                • #9
                  The nerve of these Iranians!

                  They want the US to stop supporting anti-Iranian MEK terrorists (the same guys that are on the US state dept list of terrorist organizations - the same group that the Pentagon negotiated a cease-fire with - the same group that was supposed to be disarmed but apparently retained most of its weapons - before they'll hand over anti-American al-Qaeda terrorists.

                  Who do they think they are extorting the US like this?

                  http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0808-04.htm

                  According to a series of leaks by U.S. officials, Iran has offered to hand over, if not directly to Washington then to friendly allies, three senior al-Qaeda leaders and might provide another three top terrorist suspects that Washington believes are being held by Teheran.

                  But its price -- for the U.S. military to permanently shut down the operations of an Iraq-based Iranian rebel group THAT IS ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S OFFICIAL TERRORISM LIST -- might be too high for some hard-liners, centered in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, who led the charge for war in Iraq.

                  Members of this group see the rebels, the Mujahedin el Khalq (MEK), or People's Mujahedin, as potentially helpful to their ambitions to achieve ''regime change'' in Iran, charter member of Bush's ''axis of evil'' and a nation that is believed to have accelerated its nuclear weapons program in recent months...

                  The hawks are backed by the Likud government in Israel, which has been urging Washington to go after Iran since even before the war in Iraq. As soon as Iraq is dealt with, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the 'New York Post' last November, he ''will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do' list''.

                  Pentagon hard-liners, who exert the greatest control over the occupation authority in Iraq, last month authorized the re-birth of the arm of Saddam Hussein's intelligence service -- the Mukhabarat -- that worked on Iran, according to the Pentagon-backed Iraqi National Congress (INC), which is helping in the effort.

                  That was the same unit that worked closely with the MEK under Saddam Hussein.

                  The MEK, which began in the late 1960s as a left-wing Islamist movement against the Shah but broke violently with the leaders of the Islamic Republic after the 1978-79 revolution, was given its own bases, tanks and other heavy weapons by the Iraqi leader during the Iran-Iraq War, all of which it retained during his regime to use in raids against Iran, but also to help Hussein put down unrest, particularly after the 1991 Gulf War.

                  U.S. forces bombed the group's bases in the initial phases of the Iraq campaign earlier this year, but negotiated a cease-fire and eventually a surrender as Washington expanded its control over Iraq.

                  Yet the group has been permitted to retain most of its weapons, remain together, and, despite its listing by the State Department as a terrorist group and Teheran's demands that it be completely dismantled, continue radio broadcasting into Iran.
                  "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                  – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Iraqi Privatization

                    The real agenda in Iraq: the sale of state assets to private companies. That's right, Americans will determine which Iraqi companies will survive and who owns them. Iraqis have no say in the matter. So much for the great crusade to bring 'democracy' to Iraq.

                    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s_030808221110
                    "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                    Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chuck
                      The real agenda in Iraq: the sale of state assets to private companies. That's right, Americans will determine which Iraqi companies will survive and who owns them. Iraqis have no say in the matter. So much for the great crusade to bring 'democracy' to Iraq.
                      Maybe we should freeze all state assets, wait for the Iraqi government to get on their feet, then hand over that process to them. Turning state assets over to private companies is not a bad ideal, if impartial and constructive. Companies that tailored their operations to support the former regime should at least be restricted and restructured.

                      It is troubling nonetheless.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh
                        Maybe we should freeze all state assets, wait for the Iraqi government to get on their feet, then hand over that process to them. Turning state assets over to private companies is not a bad ideal, if impartial and constructive. Companies that tailored their operations to support the former regime should at least be restricted and restructured.

                        It is troubling nonetheless.
                        Yes, we should keep an eye on this development. Right now these companies are owned by the people of Iraq (ie. the Iraqi government). If all these assets get bought up by corporations who have big ties with the RNC the cat is out of the bag so to speak. The Iraqis may not want to be controlled by Saddam but neither do they want to be controlled by Wall Street.
                        "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                        Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MonsterZero
                          http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...eda/index.html

                          Another major terrorist attack on USA and the American people will give the commander in chief a free hand in dealing with Iran, up to and including an invasion to destroy the Islamic government of that country. To hunt down, imprison or kill officials the way we are seeing it in Iraq.

                          True, right now the mood doesn't favor anything radical, but the mood may change dramatically. Look how it changed on that memorable September day.

                          The U.S. forces in Iraq can be replaced by the new Nato members and by other means. They can be refitted, rested and prepared for surprisingly prompt action elsewhere. Their availability is NOT the problem-I hope the Iranian mullahs comprehend that.
                          Most racist post on this forum since its conception. You should be ashamed.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X