The Iran Plans

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.
Click to expand...


I would hope the millitary was coming up with plans. That's their fucking job. Begrudging the Bush administration for this is the same old routine for democrats, though. Bash Bush for planning an attack, then bash him if conflict arises and there is no plan. Even if there was a plan you can bash him for not having a good enough plan.

Brilliant fodder for playing both sides of an issue at which the dems are already experts.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I would hope the millitary was coming up with plans. That's their fucking job. Begrudging the Bush administration for this is the same old routine for democrats, though. Bash Bush for planning an attack, then bash him if conflict arises and there is no plan. Even if there was a plan you can bash him for not having a good enough plan.

Brilliant fodder for playing both sides of an issue at which the dems are already experts.[/QUOTE]
Did you get past the first paragraph? I guess not. Try not to be blindly partisan and actually look at the issues at hand.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I would hope the millitary was coming up with plans. That's their fucking job. Begrudging the Bush administration for this is the same old routine for democrats, though. Bash Bush for planning an attack, then bash him if conflict arises and there is no plan. Even if there was a plan you can bash him for not having a good enough plan. [/QUOTE]

Actually, we criticize the Bush administration because their planning always begins and ends with 'blow shit up'. They're really good at coming up with plans to blow shit up, but after that, their plans tend to be somewhere between 'non-existant' and 'downright insane'.

Their plans for Iran sound a whole lot like their plans for Iraq - we blow shit up, and then, um... We're greeted as liberators! Yeah, that's it...
 
[quote name='Drocket']'blow shit up'[/QUOTE]
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!













...Seriously though, I'm hoping all this goes through peacefully. I heard a story on this on NPR today, and I have a bunch of family in Iran...:whistle2:(
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Did you get past the first paragraph? I guess not. Try not to be blindly partisan and actually look at the issues at hand.[/QUOTE]

I was not criticizing the article, per se, although it is written from a blindly partisan viewpoint against the administration. I was commenting on the issue of "the planning" as a general topic which is guaranteed to be used as sunday show circuit fodder to portray Bush as a warmonger for the umpteenth time, just for daring to think about planning such an atrocity.

If you really want to get in a direct pissing contest, let me know. I'll oblige
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I was not criticizing the article, per se, although it is written from a blindly partisan viewpoint against the administration. I was commenting on the issue of "the planning" as a general topic which is guaranteed to be used as sunday show circuit fodder to portray Bush as a warmonger for the umpteenth time, just for daring to think about planning such an atrocity.

If you really want to get in a direct pissing contest, let me know. I'll oblige[/QUOTE]
This isn't about politics. If high ranking officers in the military are considering resigning over a nuclear issue, this is a major cause for concern. As the quote in the article says, "This is not like planning to invade Quebec." The military plans anything and everything, the military keeps plans updated regularly for invading just about every country in the world. This isn't that at all. That a nuclear first strike is even being considered at all is disturbing. This is not just about Bush, and it really has very little to do with Bush. Its about high level civilians within the Pentagon, senior administration officials in defense and intelligence, and politicians, being a little too eager to launch a nuclear first strike. There are also issues about not briefing the full Congress about your plans, and only talking to those likely to support you, about how attacking Iran at all would probably be a disaster in the long run, about the flawed "we'll be greeted as liberators" thinking being applied to Iran, and about how Russia and China are blocking us from imposing any UN sanctions on Iran. But those are all secondary issues.

I don't want Iran to have nukes. Only a fool would think that getting nukes isn't their #1 priority. And I would be willing to use force to ensure that, as a last resort. Ahmadinejad is an apocalyptic Shiite and batshit crazy, he'll nuke anyone and everyone without regard to the consequences. But a nuclear first strike is completely unacceptable.

If we attack Iran at all, even with just conventional airstrikes, southern Iraq would go up like a powder keg. Most of those Shiites are loyal to Iran. According to a retired four star general: “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.” Hezbollah would go into Iraq and attack us, and there would be major backlash across the Middle East and the Muslim world, even though, in my mind, it would be completely justified to attack. We have to be realistic about the consequences of such an action and do everything within our power to avoid it becoming a necessity.

This situation is not good. Given how Iraq was handled, I don't have a lot of confidence that they'll handle this properly. Even with complete confidence in this administration, this is too important to leave to blind trust. This requires enormous public scrutiny.
 
You have basically said we can't or shouldn't do anything, then.

We should use force to prevent Iran from getting nukes, but then southern Iraq and the whole middle east would erupt like a powder keg. Conclusion: Don't use force, but use it as a last resort.

So what's your answer?

Use force = powder keg

Don't use force = Iran gets nukes and continues to threaten us but from a stronger position

This type of dichotomy, the inability to take a stand and make a decision, is exactly the reason these issues are allowed to escalate to the point of ad infinitum appeasement and constant threat of violence. We've let the europeans take the lead for the last 2 years on the Iran issue and look where it's gotten us. They know damn well everyone is afraid to stand up to them with any real threats of retribution. They've already given us and the UN the finger with no concern for consequences.

I'm not that worried, though. One nuclear strike against israel will result in the non-existence of Iran as a habitable property in the middle east.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']This requires enormous public scrutiny.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what it DOESN'T need. The people don't know their asshole even when they can smell it. Leading by public referendum, isn't leading at all.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You have basically said we can't or shouldn't do anything, then.

We should use force to prevent Iran from getting nukes, but then southern Iraq and the whole middle east would erupt like a powder keg. Conclusion: Don't use force, but use it as a last resort.

So what's your answer?

Use force = powder keg

Don't use force = Iran gets nukes and continues to threaten us but from a stronger position

This type of dichotomy, the inability to take a stand and make a decision, is exactly the reason these issues are allowed to escalate to the point of ad infinitum appeasement and constant threat of violence. We've let the europeans take the lead for the last 2 years on the Iran issue and look where it's gotten us. They know damn well everyone is afraid to stand up to them with any real threats of retribution. They've already given us and the UN the finger with no concern for consequences.

I'm not that worried, though. One nuclear strike against israel will result in the non-existence of Iran as a habitable property in the middle east.[/QUOTE]
Ken Mehlman, is that you?

Using force has to be an option but you have to be aware of the consequences and be ready to accept them. Going into this with the "we'll be greeted as liberators" mentality will just be another disaster.

A nuclear first strike is completely insane. If they're bluffing on this, then its a smart move. But if they're really considering this, they're as batshit crazy as Mahmoud Hitler is in Iran.

There are other means which must be pursued first. The UN route doesn't look like its going anywhere. The diplomatic route is probably on its last legs. But there are still other options before you start a bombing campaign. We have people on the ground trying to incite revolts within Iran, thats good. The younger generation in Iran doesn't like living in a strict theocracy. We need to win the "hearts and minds". A bombing campaign won't accomplish that by itself. A nuclear campaign would be counterproductive in that regard, to say the least. The youth in Iran could overthrow this government within a generation, we need to accelerate that process.

Lets not forget that we created this situation when we overthrew their democratically elected government in the 50s with Operation Ajax, when they wanted to nationalize their oil industry. They sure as hell haven't forgotten. We created this situation by rushing in without regard to the consequences. Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Notice that I'm using the overthrow of their government as an example of poor long term planning while advocating a coup in Iran now. The difference is, we overthrew an elected government that was actually acting in their people's best interests. The govenment in Iran is democratic in name only, all the popular moderate candidates were barred from running by the religious leaders, leaving only extremists. The unelected religious leaders can overrule any elected official. A sizable number of people boycotted that election and would welcome regime change. But not at the hands of the American military, direct foreign intervention would galvanize the entire country against us. We have a real opportunity here for regime change but we can't do it like we did in Iraq. And if we nuke them, forget it. By nuking them we'd make Ahmadinejad into a hero. Thats not what we need.
 
great posts and article....

1. Iran currently has 164 centerfuges in action. to enrich enough uranium to create a nuclear weapon you need 1500 centerfuges running for a year straight.

2. Ahmadinejad is really the equivalent to bush in the states in many ways. He is a mere figurehead and speaker, the guy couldn't even organize his own cabinet. He is also very religious (duh) like dubbya, and due to the political situation in Iran people really cannot speakout against him.

3. Ahmadinejad isn't really the man you should fear, although he is the voice he is not a real Iranian politician. Meaning he has no potential fiscal gain from a war with the US. the man who should befeared is Alī Akbar Hāschemī Rafsanjānī. He made millions off the Iran v. Iraq ( iranians say iran v. US) war, by selling weapons to both sides. IMO Rafsanjani is the worlds' richest man the only problem is that no one can trace the guy's money. Think of rafsanjani as the bill gates of the black market, hence those missing warheads in the former USSR that were never found.

4. although Irans current nuclear ambitions are shady do realize that even during the shah's rigime' (when we were buddy buddy with uncle sam) Iran sought nuclear power. Also please consider all the propisitions that Iran has sent to the IEAE one including 24 hour on site access on all Iranian nuclear sites by IEAE officials.

5. I understand the US's fear but I do believe that this fear is also driven by Israel. Its a fact that both GOVERNMENTS do not like each other. Also, Look at energy analyst projections and read up on the depletion myth and you'll realize that Iran only has oil for about another 20-30 years, then we are tapped dry.

6. War with Iran will yield extremely high gas prices and a very hard blow to our economy in the destruction of the straits of Homruz, that controls iranian, kuwaiti, and UAE oil exports.

Lastly although I was born and raise hin the US I am persian and I have will not pick sides, I love both Iran and the US for what they are. Although my listed rant might seem like I hold bias toward Iran my intention was to introduce unknown aspects of this whole matter. I know that I really didn't address anything in the thread, but again just my 2 cents. Also, sorry for any spelling or grammar errors.

thanx
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']2. Ahmadinejad is really the equivalent to bush in the states in many ways. He is a mere figurehead and speaker, the guy couldn't even organize his own cabinet. He is also very religious (duh) like dubbya, and due to the political situation in Iran people really cannot speakout against him.[/quote]

This doesn't really make any sense. Regardless of one's opinion of Bush, it's obvious that he is not a figurehead like Ahmadinejad is (the mullahs have the most power, not him). But obviously it's alarming to Western countries and Israel to hear the rhetoric he keeps throwing out there about wiping Israel off the face of the map, etc etc.

[quote name='AYATOLA']4. although Irans current nuclear ambitions are shady do realize that even during the shah's rigime' (when we were buddy buddy with uncle sam) Iran sought nuclear power. Also please consider all the propisitions that Iran has sent to the IEAE one including 24 hour on site access on all Iranian nuclear sites by IEAE officials.[/quote]

Well, that sure makes me feel a lot better considering Iran conducted covert research into nuclear technology without declaring it to the IAEA like they are bound by treaty to do for 15+ years. I guess since they say now they are going to cooperate (while still not keeping to their agreements) everything will be hunky dory. Guess what, no one -- I mean NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND -- seriously believes Iran is not going for a nuclear weapon.

[quote name='AYATOLA']Lastly although I was born and raise hin the US I am persian and I have will not pick sides, I love both Iran and the US for what they are.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure you love Iran for what it is right now or that you love it for its people and potential, and because it is where your family came from?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']This doesn't really make any sense. Regardless of one's opinion of Bush, it's obvious that he is not a figurehead like Ahmadinejad is (the mullahs have the most power, not him). But obviously it's alarming to Western countries and Israel to hear the rhetoric he keeps throwing out there about wiping Israel off the face of the map, etc etc.[/quote]

I agree with you the mullahs make a lot of decisions, just like cheney and rumsfield make a lot of the decisions IMO. Also, both governments are hostile toward each other, but I have yet to meet an Iranian person outside the Iranian government that hate Jewish people. I have met a lot of people that hate Zionists while visiting Iran. As a matter of fact if you ever get the chance to watch Iranian news (slim I know) you will notice that Israel is referred to as a "Zionist state".



[quote name='elprincipe'] Well, that sure makes me feel a lot better considering Iran conducted covert research into nuclear technology without declaring it to the IAEA like they are bound by treaty to do for 15+ years. I guess since they say now they are going to cooperate (while still not keeping to their agreements) everything will be hunky dory. Guess what, no one -- I mean NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND -- seriously believes Iran is not going for a nuclear weapon.[/quote]

This is a mutual feeling on both sides, and if you wish to talk about IAEA violations Israel is actually at the "head of the pack". Also in the Islamic republic of Iran's short history (even include the shah's regime' if you want) Iran has yet to be the aggressor of war towards any country. Most of Ahmadinejad's comments have been of self defense. I do agree that the guy is a nut case I would say that his foreign relation skills are low. However, I also believe that Bush also lacks in this department (again just my opinion).



[quote name='elprincipe'] Are you sure you love Iran for what it is right now or that you love it for its people and potential, and because it is where your family came from?[/quote]

Considering I have been there on three separate occasions for total of six months through my lifetime and have learned to speak, read and write fluent Farsi' I would say, yes I love Iran. I am not fond of the government, but Iran is not really represented properly in western media. The people and the culture is what I love about Iran and the US.


Oh, and thanx for taking up my points I enjoy other points of view so again thanx
 
[quote name='AYATOLA'] Iran has yet to be the aggressor of war towards any country. [/quote]

Except for founding of Hezbollah and the funding of it, Hamas, and the palestinian Islamic Jihad. The funny thing is that Israel doesn't seem to be issuing statements wanting to erase Iran from the map or consider Iran to be the tumor of the islamic world to be removed. Iran isn't doing this in fear of Israel, they are doing it becuase of a culturally installed hatred of the jewish state as an affront to allah.

Intrestingly enough, the parallels of our societies are better illustrated through our religious beliefs than the seeming similarities of our leaders. Religious fanatics on both sides consider unholy allowances to be a detriment to their own salvation. Just as the nutcases here believe allowing homosexuals to exist will bring the wrath of god to destroy the US, radicals in the muslim world believe allowing Israel to exist will bring the wrath of Allah. Therefore, destroying these "transgressions" against god will serve to purify humanity as a whole.

I know many christians who believe this and I know many arab muslims who follow this logic as well. However, every Iranian I've ever known have been chaldean, not muslim, so I really don't know about their cultural point of view and how it coincides with the muslim "zionists" in the arab world.

I really do appreciate your input from the iranian people's position as it adds great insight to our sheltered, and filtered, information sources here in the US.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Except for founding of Hezbollah and the funding of it, Hamas, and the palestinian Islamic Jihad. The funny thing is that Israel doesn't seem to be issuing statements wanting to erase Iran from the map or consider Iran to be the tumor of the islamic world to be removed. Iran isn't doing this in fear of Israel, they are doing it becuase of a culturally installed hatred of the jewish state as an affront to allah.[/quote]
To my knowledge Israel has been urging the US on the Iran issue. Most of the unrest pretaining to Iran in the US is some quote of ahmadinejad being "anti-semitist".

As for the procailmed terrorists orgainzations that are funded by iran I agree, but to be honest I do not like the tactics used by Hezbollah Hamas, and the palestinian Islamic Jihad. Although hezbollah is they only one I know of with a direct link to the iranian govn't (thats beside the point). My point is that those orgainzations are the closest thing to a plaestinian military, I mean besides kids armed with rocks those organizations are all they got in terms of "defenders". It's sad I know, but when one side has a military armed and aided by the US its not considered a wrong doing, this is really what I don't understand? Don't get me wrong the three organizations you have listed target innocence and that is wrong, but innocence seems to be targeted on both sides, is it not? Who is to defend kids with rocks against m4's and m16's? In a very biased way terrorism is the palestinian army, trust me I am sorry to type that, but in the eyes of many mid-easterner's its reasonable point of view.

Israel might not openly say I want Iran off the map, but I could see sharon or sharon-types wanting such a thing. Obviously, neither country will do any wiping off the map IMO (big talk that's all). Although since the possibility is existent, I hope that politics and beliefs don't blind either sides common sense.

As for Iranians being brought up to hate israel, its a yes and no issue. They are brought up to hate the institution and ambition of israel, not its people. There are jewishand christian communities in iran believe it or not.

lastly I am not too clear on this...
[quote name='bmulligan']muslim "zionists"[/quote]
I mean it takes one screwed up muslim to want "Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel". I am guessing that you meant somethin entirely different then what I took from that statement, so if you could, please clarify.

again thanx for the comments and hopefully no one is offended by anything I type.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']I agree with you the mullahs make a lot of decisions, just like cheney and rumsfield make a lot of the decisions IMO. Also, both governments are hostile toward each other, but I have yet to meet an Iranian person outside the Iranian government that hate Jewish people. I have met a lot of people that hate Zionists while visiting Iran. As a matter of fact if you ever get the chance to watch Iranian news (slim I know) you will notice that Israel is referred to as a "Zionist state".[/quote]

Nope, Cheney and Rumsfeld may make persuasive arguments to the president and he may follow their recommendations, but he makes the final decision. Much different from Iran where the mullahs make the decisions, not the "elected" (ha ha) officials.

[quote name='AYATOLA']This is a mutual feeling on both sides, and if you wish to talk about IAEA violations Israel is actually at the "head of the pack". Also in the Islamic republic of Iran's short history (even include the shah's regime' if you want) Iran has yet to be the aggressor of war towards any country. Most of Ahmadinejad's comments have been of self defense. I do agree that the guy is a nut case I would say that his foreign relation skills are low. However, I also believe that Bush also lacks in this department (again just my opinion).[/quote]

Yor response was a classic attempt at changing the subject. I brought up Iran's NPT violations and their non-compliance with the IAEA and their violations of their own agreements with the EU-3 to this day, but you go off and talk about Israel.

And Iran hasn't ordered their military into other countries (except perhaps in retaliation when attacked by Saddam Hussein), but as bmulligan correctly pointed out they fund and otherwise aid terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and probably al Qaeda and other groups. This can hardly be characterized as not being aggressive towards other countries. Not to mention they have leaders going around saying they are going to wipe another country off the face of the map, something that hardly can be characterized as non-aggressive.

[quote name='AYATOLA']Considering I have been there on three separate occasions for total of six months through my lifetime and have learned to speak, read and write fluent Farsi' I would say, yes I love Iran. I am not fond of the government, but Iran is not really represented properly in western media. The people and the culture is what I love about Iran and the US.[/quote]

Yes, my point exactly. I've met some very nice people from Iran, and most Americans have nothing against the Iranian people or culture. The government is the problem and is, frankly, a danger to the world at this point in time.

[quote name='AYATOLA']Oh, and thanx for taking up my points I enjoy other points of view so again thanx[/QUOTE]

Thank you for a civil discussion.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']As for Iranians being brought up to hate israel, its a yes and no issue. They are brought up to hate the institution and ambition of israel, not its people. There are jewishand christian communities in iran believe it or not.

[/quote]

It's my point of view that Israel just wants to be left alone and not have to live under the threat of evey surrounding arab and muslim neighbor wanting their destruction. I don't see them wanting to take over any of these countries, save the territory they legitimately occupy as a result of their winning the arab-israeli wars.

I mean it takes one screwed up muslim to want "Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel". I am guessing that you meant somethin entirely different then what I took from that statement, so if you could, please clarify.
Click to expand...

I was using the term Zionism not as it applies to a jewish state, but as a complimentary ambition of the creation of a muslim state encompassing the entire middle east as prophetic inavoidability.

again thanx for the comments and hopefully no one is offended by anything I type.
Click to expand...

Personally, I enjoy someone else's point of view on the subject that is so closely tied to the culture of the Iranian people. Please don't leave, no matter how offended YOU might become.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
And Iran hasn't ordered their military into other countries (except perhaps in retaliation when attacked by Saddam Hussein), but as bmulligan correctly pointed out they fund and otherwise aid terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and probably al Qaeda and other groups. This can hardly be characterized as not being aggressive towards other countries. Not to mention they have leaders going around saying they are going to wipe another country off the face of the map, something that hardly can be characterized as non-aggressive.[/quote]

I'm not aware of Iran ever making attacking Israel part of their policy statement. It's simply the rantings of a man rallying his supports, but also failing to realize he's on an international stage now.

Though I'm aware of no evidence Iran ever aided someone with the express purpose to commit terrorism, like al qaeda. Hamas, hezbollah etc. are liberation movements that engage(d) in terrorism. It's one of the methods they use(d) to achieve those goals, not the only one.

Though Israel also aided Hamas, in an attempt to counter arafat's movement.

It's my point of view that Israel just wants to be left alone and not have to live under the threat of evey surrounding arab and muslim neighbor wanting their destruction. I don't see them wanting to take over any of these countries, save the territory they legitimately occupy as a result of their winning the arab-israeli wars.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of Palestinians declaring war Israel in those encounters. Palestinians have pushed for independence since the fall of the ottomans.

I'm also not aware of any international laws declaring territory gained in war as legitimately gained territory.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Nope, Cheney and Rumsfeld may make persuasive arguments to the president and he may follow their recommendations, but he makes the final decision. Much different from Iran where the mullahs make the decisions, not the "elected" (ha ha) officials.[/quote]

There is an obvious difference of opinion and there is no point in me trying to say "I am right". On paper (which is most important by principle) you are completely right, but I am talking in more of a practical sense. Given the current status of how the American government handles itself and who it serves. What I mean is that the US government currently serves Corporations rather than the American people. I mean the whole idea of lobbying, presidential views and visions are for sale in our government today, and for me that is as bright as day. I don't want to get into all the instances where business has bought decisions in this administration because I am sure you and anyone reading this is fully aware of it. I mean I would rather have a mullah which has some necessity and dependence for the government to work, make a decision. Rather then a businessman trying to get a waterfront villa in the cayman islands, but that's just me.

^^^^what you have just read is me trying to explain my position and not to change the subject. I would rather be wrong and get my point of view across, then be right and not have given a new perspective.


[quote name='elprincipe']Your response was a classic attempt at changing the subject. I brought up Iran's NPT violations and their non-compliance with the IAEA and their violations of their own agreements with the EU-3 to this day, but you go off and talk about Israel.[/quote]

As you can already see your point on me trying to change the subject has taken me by surprise.

If my point was taken for that then allow to apologize right now, because that was not my intention. Bringing Israel into the whole equation was primarily for comparison and not for "subject changing".

Yes, Iran has violated npt's for justified reasons in my point of view. First off the nuclear technology that Iran has implemented is efficient if your Iranian, dangerous if your not on Iran's buddy list. What I mean is that the technology that Iran is using can be used for both energy or bombs by very small adjustments that only 24 hour supervision would notice.

Also, I have yet to see a diplomatic attempt on the US' behalf other than the classic "stop now or we'll bomb the fuck out of you" proposal. If this is the best diplomacy then rest assured it won't work.

To be blunt the EU-3 tried to screw Iran over, with promises of non-interference as long as a peaceful intent and the flow of petro and oil was maintained, but then all the sudden they decided to go back to typical Bush mid-east foreign policy (in yellow above). Outside of nuclear weapons the EU has paid by the removal of billions from European banks that now the mullahs are investing in china.

As for the whole Israel comparison, Israel uses the same technology and has broken many of the same sanctions, rules and regulations that Iran has, but it all boils down to an issue of who you know. In this case Israeli U.S. relations are stable (like always) and with nutcases in the mid-east terrorizing them every other day it will only win US sympathy. The bias is blatant and that is not just. Also it would seem that to have an clout in the world today you need a nuclear weapon, and Iran's young population wants its voice heard, while the mullahs want an insurance policy, a sick win win situation I know. The fact of the matter remains that oil is always headed towards running out, and Iran is look towards its future and not being as ignorant as Saudi, thinking the oil will last forever. In 20-30 yrs Iran is tapped dry and nuclear power is an investment for the long term.



[quote name='elprincipe']Thank you for a civil discussion. [/quote]

Always aiming to please.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not aware of Iran ever making attacking Israel part of their policy statement. It's simply the rantings of a man rallying his supports, but also failing to realize he's on an international stage now.[/quote]

So stating that they want to, and I quote, "wipe Israel off the map" is not endorsing attacking them? You have a strange way of interpreting pretty plain language...

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though I'm aware of no evidence Iran ever aided someone with the express purpose to commit terrorism, like al qaeda. Hamas, hezbollah etc. are liberation movements that engage(d) in terrorism. It's one of the methods they use(d) to achieve those goals, not the only one.[/QUOTE]

Boy are you naive. Who do you think is the main funder of Hezbollah, the terrorist group behind the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 Marines? Here's a nice link for you:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/

And yeah, I know that was a military attack and not terrorism, but that doesn't change the fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist group that has carried out terrorist acts, and Iran is their sponsor.

Oh, and you don't think Iran and al Qaeda are related? Try this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek/

You have a lot to read up on.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']There is an obvious difference of opinion and there is no point in me trying to say "I am right". On paper (which is most important by principle) you are completely right, but I am talking in more of a practical sense. Given the current status of how the American government handles itself and who it serves. What I mean is that the US government currently serves Corporations rather than the American people. I mean the whole idea of lobbying, presidential views and visions are for sale in our government today, and for me that is as bright as day. I don't want to get into all the instances where business has bought decisions in this administration because I am sure you and anyone reading this is fully aware of it. I mean I would rather have a mullah which has some necessity and dependence for the government to work, make a decision. Rather then a businessman trying to get a waterfront villa in the cayman islands, but that's just me.

^^^^what you have just read is me trying to explain my position and not to change the subject. I would rather be wrong and get my point of view across, then be right and not have given a new perspective.[/quote]

Wow. Although I'm hardly impressed with the politicians running our government (overwhelmingly Democrats and Republicans), I have a much different view than you do about our government.

[quote name='AYATOLA']As you can already see your point on me trying to change the subject has taken me by surprise.

If my point was taken for that then allow to apologize right now, because that was not my intention. Bringing Israel into the whole equation was primarily for comparison and not for "subject changing".[/quote]

No big deal. I merely wanted to clarify that because someone else does something doesn't make it right.

[quote name='AYATOLA']Yes, Iran has violated npt's for justified reasons in my point of view. First off the nuclear technology that Iran has implemented is efficient if your Iranian, dangerous if your not on Iran's buddy list. What I mean is that the technology that Iran is using can be used for both energy or bombs by very small adjustments that only 24 hour supervision would notice.[/quote]

So Iran's violation of a treaty that it signed is justified? How? Why is it okay for a country to make a treaty with other countries and then renege on its agreement, even lying about keeping it?

[quote name='AYATOLA']Also, I have yet to see a diplomatic attempt on the US' behalf other than the classic "stop now or we'll bomb the fuck out of you" proposal. If this is the best diplomacy then rest assured it won't work.[/quote]

Well, up to now the US view has been to let the Europeans lead on the diplomacy, so the EU-3 negotiations are basically our attempt. However, we recently tried to get Iran to talk about the Iraq issue, but just today Ahmadinejad refused to have talks.

[quote name='AYATOLA']To be blunt the EU-3 tried to screw Iran over, with promises of non-interference as long as a peaceful intent and the flow of petro and oil was maintained, but then all the sudden they decided to go back to typical Bush mid-east foreign policy (in yellow above). Outside of nuclear weapons the EU has paid by the removal of billions from European banks that now the mullahs are investing in china.[/quote]

The EU-3 tried to get Iran to stop attempting to get nuclear weapons. I fail to see how this "screws Iran over" unless you feel them not having nuclear weapons is getting screwed over. In this case, most countries in the world are screwed over all the time. The real question is, why is Iran so adamant that they need to produce nuclear weapons? And even more importantly, does this potentially give terrorists sponsored by Iran access (heaven forbid) to a nuclear weapon?

[quote name='AYATOLA']As for the whole Israel comparison, Israel uses the same technology and has broken many of the same sanctions, rules and regulations that Iran has, but it all boils down to an issue of who you know. In this case Israeli U.S. relations are stable (like always) and with nutcases in the mid-east terrorizing them every other day it will only win US sympathy. The bias is blatant and that is not just. Also it would seem that to have an clout in the world today you need a nuclear weapon, and Iran's young population wants its voice heard, while the mullahs want an insurance policy, a sick win win situation I know. The fact of the matter remains that oil is always headed towards running out, and Iran is look towards its future and not being as ignorant as Saudi, thinking the oil will last forever. In 20-30 yrs Iran is tapped dry and nuclear power is an investment for the long term.[/QUOTE]

What kind of clout is Iran seeking with a nuclear weapon? Will they give it to terrorists? Develop longer-range missiles that can reach Europe or even the US? Or "just" wipe Israel off the face of the map? Perhaps they want to intimidate the smaller Gulf states, who are VERY nervous about these developments. Or maybe they just want to have it as a hedge against any percieved US threat. But surely you see how the first few possibiities there raise quite a high level of alarm in the US and Europe, not to mention Israel.

I don't know how this got into a discussion on Israel, but as for Israel itself, everyone basically knows they have nuclear weapons and have had them for a long time. One thing that should be noted is they did not break any treaty by doing this because they never joined the NPT. But I will agree with you that the press here sometimes is very slanted towards the Israeli side. In any case, this has little to do with the Iran nuclear issue other than Iranian threats and Israel's concerns about being wiped off the map.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So stating that they want to, and I quote, "wipe Israel off the map" is not endorsing attacking them? You have a strange way of interpreting pretty plain language...[/quote]

I'm not aware of Iran ever making attacking Israel part of their policy statement. It's simply the rantings of a man rallying his supporters, but also failing to realize he's on an international stage now.

Ya, that's what I said before. But you didn't actually address it, and I'd essentially have the same response.

There's a big difference between what I ideally want and what I'd ever try to put into practice.

Boy are you naive. Who do you think is the main funder of Hezbollah, the terrorist group behind the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 Marines? Here's a nice link for you:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/

And yeah, I know that was a military attack and not terrorism, but that doesn't change the fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist group that has carried out terrorist acts, and Iran is their sponsor.
Click to expand...

Though I'm aware of no evidence Iran ever aided someone with the express purpose to commit terrorism, like al qaeda. Hamas, hezbollah etc. are liberation movements that engage(d) in terrorism. It's one of the methods they use(d) to achieve those goals, not the only one.

Again, still relevant. That link is completely worthless, since it does nothing to suggest Iran was funding groups for the purpose of attacking civilians. You linked Iran to a liberation organization, something I acknowledged, that engaged in an attack on a military force.



Oh, and you don't think Iran and al Qaeda are related? Try this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek/

You have a lot to read up on.
Click to expand...

You mean an islamic terrorist visited the largest city, with a metropolitan area containing 20% of the population, in an islamic republic? Say it isn't so.

Though:

U.S. intelligence officials emphasize they have no evidence that the Iranian government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 plot.....

document shows that on Dec. 20, 2000—during a crucial stage of the 9/11 plot—bin al-Shibh applied for a four-week tourist visa to Iran, marking a box stating that his reasons for visiting the country were “tourist or pilgrimage.”
Click to expand...

And the guy who claimed iranian officials discussed the 9/11 plot with an osama's son doesn't seem very credible. Your own government doesn't seem to think very highly of him:

He also claimed that he met with a CIA officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, in July 2001 and passed on a warning to the United States about the forthcoming 9/11 attacks.

U.S. and German authorities have never been able to corroborate Zakeri's claims about the involvement of top Iranian officials, and some officials have questioned his credibility.
Click to expand...

You read way too much into that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Wow. Although I'm hardly impressed with the politicians running our government (overwhelmingly Democrats and Republicans), I have a much different view than you do about our government.[/quote]
I know that there are good people in all governments, but nowadays very few are given the ability tomake a difference. The main problem in my opinion is that the government today is run like a business, because most of the people getting elected are businessmen. The same way I believe state and religion should be seperate, I believe the private and public sector should be as well.



[quote name='elprincipe'] No big deal. I merely wanted to clarify that because someone else does something doesn't make it right.[/quote]
I was really more surprised at myself, and thanx for pointing out what you took so i could clarify myself.



[quote name='elprincipe'] So Iran's violation of a treaty that it signed is justified? How? Why is it okay for a country to make a treaty with other countries and then renege on its agreement, even lying about keeping it?[/quote]
It's not okay by principle, but given Iran's position in the world (not too many friends and running out of oil) Its about maintaining a steady pace to maintain economic stability. I do not expect anyone (even myself) outside of Iran to fully understand Iran's economic situation, or the fact that Iran is slowly being surrounded. Again its an issue of clout.

[quote name='elprincipe'] Well, up to now the US view has been to let the Europeans lead on the diplomacy, so the EU-3 negotiations are basically our attempt. However, we recently tried to get Iran to talk about the Iraq issue, but just today Ahmadinejad refused to have talks.[/quote]

Yes, but even before the whole nuclear ordeal that we currently face Iran was part of the most exclusive club in the world, "The Axis of Evil", I dunno how we got on the US' bad side right from the start of the bush rigime. No likk to anything 9-11, nor any Al-quaeda links . I also agree the talks by the EU-3 are the US' attempt, but again the policy has not changed only the approach. To break it down, in our culture boob's and flash sell everything from beer to politics, but all the flash in world can't sell a mullah. What I mean is that US policy in a fine tailored European Suit won't work.

[quote name='elprincipe'] The EU-3 tried to get Iran to stop attempting to get nuclear weapons. I fail to see how this "screws Iran over" unless you feel them not having nuclear weapons is getting screwed over. In this case, most countries in the world are screwed over all the time. The real question is, why is Iran so adamant that they need to produce nuclear weapons? And even more importantly, does this potentially give terrorists sponsored by Iran access (heaven forbid) to a nuclear weapon?[/quote]
Iran has yet to declare its intent of nuclear weapons, a 99% chance they are part of the deal, but not official. I think Iran is entitled to peaceful nuclear energy, the problem lies in their reputation not their intent (at least yet). The terrorists that you mention have had no attacks on America to mu knowledge. I am not a fan of terrorism, but it seems that many Americans believe that Iran wants to attack the US. Any Iranian will acknowledge and recognize this country's military might and knows better then to just attack pointlessly. However a terrorist organization is completely different. I understand the fear and concern, but fail to see how Iran is to become a bomb factory that will just sell bombs to the highest bidder, believe it or not we also put up with suicide bombers in Iran. When and if Iran declares its nuke arsenal, rest assured that there will be 24 hour IAEA presence and supervision of all aspects of the program.

[quote name='elprincipe'] What kind of clout is Iran seeking with a nuclear weapon? Will they give it to terrorists? Develop longer-range missiles that can reach Europe or even the US? Or "just" wipe Israel off the face of the map? Perhaps they want to intimidate the smaller Gulf states, who are VERY nervous about these developments. Or maybe they just want to have it as a hedge against any percieved US threat. But surely you see how the first few possibiities there raise quite a high level of alarm in the US and Europe, not to mention Israel.[/quote]
The same clout that india sought after finding out pakistan had nukes, or the same clout that makes the US, Russia, China, France, and England "power players" in the UN and global economy. The clout that makes your word heard and listened to by the international community. Iran is leading in innovations in many fields, but due to a weak standing in global politics and economics Iran has not been able to get real business. I completely understand the alarms that are being raised and they are rightfully raised, but i do not like the tone of those raising alarms, nor do I like the message that those alarms have generated.

[quote name='elprincipe'] I don't know how this got into a discussion on Israel, but as for Israel itself, everyone basically knows they have nuclear weapons and have had them for a long time. One thing that should be noted is they did not break any treaty by doing this because they never joined the NPT. But I will agree with you that the press here sometimes is very slanted towards the Israeli side. In any case, this has little to do with the Iran nuclear issue other than Iranian threats and Israel's concerns about being wiped off the map.[/quote]
It really shouldn't be (a discussion of israel), but it is a matter of fact that every reporter that asks any Iranian official anything pretaining to the nuclear program, the "Israel card" will be played, and to some extent rightfully so. The most damaging part is that US Israeli relationship has allowed a lot to slide by for both parties, and it will be damaging to any anti-iranian nuclear arguement. A question, Israel never joined the NPT but was hostile towards many nations that were also hostile to them, but why should such a small country be able to or allowed to not only have one of the largest arsenals of nukes, but to make so many enemies?

Not to discredit attempts at peace but, These are the kind if questions that no diplomat can really answer to the liking of Iranian officials, and that is why this is all so difficult and complicated.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's my point of view that Israel just wants to be left alone and not have to live under the threat of evey surrounding arab and muslim neighbor wanting their destruction. I don't see them wanting to take over any of these countries, save the territory they legitimately occupy as a result of their winning the arab-israeli wars. [/quote]

I completely agree that the Israeli people want to be left alone, but their government is not held in the smae light (for me at least). The people of Israel deserve peace and a right to exist, no doubt. However their government should be advocating the people's wants and needs not their own.


[quote name='bmulligan'] I was using the term Zionism not as it applies to a jewish state, but as a complimentary ambition of the creation of a muslim state encompassing the entire middle east as prophetic inavoidability.[/quote]

Why didn't I see that, then yes Mid-east Zionism exists and yes the same ambition is shown, the difference (to that of Israeli zionism) are two factors. Numbers and Pride, alot more prideful muslims (or to include Iran) prideful Arabs that feel the Mid-eastis their land and they are entitled to it all. I don't know how many know this (not to direct this at you, rather just point out) that Iranians are in no way shape of form arab.



[quote name='bmulligan'] Personally, I enjoy someone else's point of view on the subject that is so closely tied to the culture of the Iranian people. Please don't leave, no matter how offended YOU might become.[/quote]

E-tuff-guys don't scare me, lol

thanx
 
[quote name='AYATOLA'] I don't know how many know this (not to direct this at you, rather just point out) that Iranians are in no way shape of form arab.
[/QUOTE]

I'm sure most here wouldn't know the difference between a Pashtun and a Persian. Arab and muslim have become synonymous in the popular american vernacular, as you already know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top