Iran starts to rattle its Saif…

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Russia sees what is going on, realizes that Iran has initiated this whole debacle and does not want to miss out on the lucrative rebuilding cash cow.

Wait, so you mean this has nothing to do with it?

In 1953 Iran's elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies (dubbed "Operation Ajax"). The operation was conducted following the Prime-Minister's nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It reinstated the Iranian monarchy against the people's will, handing power back to former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Following Mosaddeq's fall, Pahlavi grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, under which systematic torture and other human rights violations were known to occur, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After more than a year of political struggle between a variety of different groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini by a revolution.

The new theocratic political system instituted some conservative Islamic reforms as well as introducing an unprecedented level of direct clerical rule. It also engaged in an anti-Western course. In particular Iran distanced itself from the United States due to the American involvement in the 1953 coup, which supplanted an elected government with the Shah's repressive regime. It also declared its refusal to recognize the existence of Israel as a state. The new government inspired various groups considered by a large part of the Western World to be fundamentalist.

In 1980 Iran was attacked by neighbouring Iraq and the destructive Iran-Iraq War continued until 1988. The struggle between reformists and conservatives over the future of the country continues today through electoral politics and was a central Western focus in the 2005 Elections where Conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad triumphed.

en.wikipedia.org...

I can see how the Iranian president could not recognize his insanity, but I fail to understand how observers can fail to see it and then post the innocense of the Iranian government's continued actions and behavior.

Of course they aren't innocent, they don't have an excuse for being extremists, but at the same it's easy to see the factors that come into play. Hopefully, the West will soon notice the Middle East's cry for help as they try to modernise themselves, or perhaps the role of the West in the Middle East is to exploit and subserviate the countries and not really to help them become modernised countries. How much do you trust the intention of your nation in the face of power and money? I know you are aware of the underhanded policies prevalent in the USC. We need to start helping these countries so that we don't have more Irans on our hands in the future, and that does not mean the War is Peace mentality!

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Jamuhn]

Bush will not leave office until Iran is deal with.

His term will be up in 2008 and he will leave. What proof do you have otherwise?

Related story:


Iran requests OPEC to reduce oil production by one million barrels a day to prevent the USA from stock piling too much oil.

Of course, they dont exactly put it that way.

Iran seeks drop in OPEC's oil production www.worldtribune.com...

Iran has pressed OPEC to reduce oil production by 1 million barrels per day.

The United States has opposed any drop in oil production on grounds that it would rise oil prices. OPEC plans to meet on Jan. 31.

Teheran relayed the request for a reduction by 1 million barrels per day in OPEC oil production, now set at 28 million barrels per day.
The ostensible purpose of the proposed reduction is to avoid excessive oil stockpile and would begin in April, Middle East Newsline reported.

This is clearly part of thier preperation effort for sanctions and or war.


Its funny, they deny all possible solutions and offers from basically the entire world to solve the nuclear issue, call for the utter and complete destruction of Israel and the west, and now threaten to block oil from the world if they do something about it.

Irans furture is in their own hands. But one thing is for certain: They are clearly asking for whatever is coming their way...

Its too bad the mostly liberal civilian population of Iran will have to suffer due to its fanatical fundamentalist governments agenda...


[edit on 24-1-2006 by skippytjc]

Originally posted by skippytjc
Irans furture is in their own hands. But one thing is for certain: They are clearly asking for whatever is coming their way...

Its too bad the mostly liberal civilian population of Iran will have to suffer due to its fanatical fundamentalist governments agenda...


[edit on 24-1-2006 by skippytjc]

So you're saying Iran controls the U.S.? How can our government pull the trigger of war otherwise?

Still .000.

Originally posted by marg6043
I agree with you sweatmonicaIdo, the destabilization of Iran did not work, so now final conflict will be done before Bush gets out of power, when US invaded Iraq, Iran was part of the deal but Iraq proved to be a littler bit hard to deal with.

Bush will not leave office until Iran is deal with.

The diplomatic means are part of the strategic game played to make US look to the rest of the world as a fair player.

We know what kind of diplomatic means we are talking about is my way or the highway.

Bush will be crazy to invade Iran, Iran is bigger than Iraq and much more stable as a country with plenty of loyalist to die for the cause and take as many of our soldiers as they can.

Its gonna be interesting to see how the disaster changes the direction of the country. I truly feel it'll be a different America 10 years from now.

is iran crazy? i dont think kuwait, the uae or saudi arabia will accept such iranian aggression and i doubt the US navy or any of irans neighbor navys will allow it...without a response..

and the saudi airforce can reach iran and is more powerful than irans...

[edit on 24-1-2006 by namehere]

Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
Oh please. So when the US picks a fight with someone, that isnt wrong. When Iran defends itself or threatens to defend itself...

defend? what has kuwait, saudi arabia, the uae or qatar done to iran to deserve a blockade from something the UN does?

UN sanctions are justification for aggression on their neighbors?

www.geostrategy-direct.com...

[edit on 24-1-2006 by namehere]

Originally posted by skippytjc


Iran is not only defying the world in regards to its nuclear development, they will use military force to defy any sanctions imposed on it as a result. Iran will use force to keep ALL oil from leaving the gulf, not just their own.

Looks like Iran just wants a fight…I think they may get one.

What would you do if you were in their position? Would you tremble visibly and back down, or would you vigorously defend your nation's sovereignty?

Just a question from the Devil's Advocate.

Originally posted by thermopolis
No but the Iranian navy with its allies "Russia and China" could be a real "challenge"

yea because their governments have bigger investment and interests in iran(sarcasm)......no, neither will help iran in such a provocation on our arab allies next to iran.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by namehere]

China owns a large amount of our DEBT. And China has recently forged an agreement with Iran to supply it with fuel for the foreseeable future. It will have a say in this Iran thing.

Originally posted by BigEasy


What would you do if you were in their position? Would you tremble visibly and back down, or would you vigorously defend your nation's sovereignty?

Just a question from the Devil's Advocate.

if cuba and the UN did what we and the UN are to iran, no, i dont see us blockading mexico, the bahamas, haiti, panama and canada in response

Originally posted by BigEasy
China owns a large amount of our DEBT. And China has recently forged an agreement with Iran to supply it with fuel for the foreseeable future. It will have a say in this Iran thing.

they invest far more with us(most of their trade) than iran...no it wont

[edit on 24-1-2006 by namehere]

Originally posted by namehere

if cuba and the UN did what we and the UN are to iran, no, i dont see us blockading mexico, the bahamas, haiti, panama and canada in response

Who?

That's b/c they don't have the toyz we have.

If they did, we'd just do the diplomacy dance.

Iran is obviously doing everything in it's power to protect it's rights as a sovereign nation, and that includes preparing to defend those rights with all means necassary.

As mainstream western media continues to demonise Iran, to prepare for impending sanctions and military actions, Iran seems to be left with no other chioce but use any piece of leverage it can.

As a habitual backer of the "underdogs", and as a critic of mankinds love for war, i have investigated this issue fairly thoroughly and personally can see where the Iranians are coming from.

As a nation with no track record for militarism or beligerance, the real threat to security i believe is coming from the "coalition of the willing" and Israel.

As evidence for the wests hardline and unwavering attitude towards Iran, people continuosly babble about Iran being a major sponsor of terrorism. Well correct me if i'm wrong, but the overwelming majority of any proven support for "terrorism" would be asociated with the palistinians struggle against israel. This is all a matter of perspective, we all know, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and in the case of palistine, and for that matter the Iranians presidents' comments in regards to Israel, it is universally known that although certain governments might have officially accepted Israel as a legitamate entity....the average moslem hasn't.. This attitude is especially evident in regards to the international double-standards in regards to Israels nucleur arsenal.

news.bbc.co.uk...

So although the west really should have nothing to do with the middle east, as outsiders, we are happy to brand Iran as "terrorists" and as unworthy to have nucleur technology. Whereas the average middle eastern moslem is probably seeing president Ahmadenijad as representing the popular opinion. In other words doing his job.

So my question for you, is Iran alone in sponsoring "terrorism", when the west have a massive track record in interfering and suppressing in the world, especially in the middle east? Do we need to get on topic with state terrorism?

And secondly have Irans dealings with regards to Nucleur technology been less covert than other countries?

Finally, who are we to govern the dealings of a sovereign nation? Are we any better?

Originally posted by kojac
As a nation with no track record for militarism or beligerance, the real threat to security i believe is coming from the "coalition of the willing" and Israel.

Thats a joke right? Iran has no track record of "militarism" or "beligerance"? How can you say you have studied this and actualy type those words?

Its like saying water has no history of being wet.

-They openly support groups like Hamas and Hesbullah

-They send money and weapons into Iraq to support terrorism

-They call for the destruction of Israel and the west daily

-The very revolution they celebrate as a holiday to this day involved dozens of Ameircan hostages held for over a year

If Iran was only interested in nuclear energy as an energy source, why would it refuse to have other nations enrich uranium for them as a solution to the issue? There is only one possible reason they dont want that, its because they want the uranium for weapons.

Actualy, Iran is about the most beligerant nation I can think of.

The diplomatic means are part of the strategic game played to make US look to the rest of the world as a fair player.

Do you have any evidence of this or are you just talking to talk? It seems to be a favorite past time of some posters here.

Actualy, Iran is about the most beligerant nation I can think of.

No kidding. As if telling the world the holacaust didnt happen, while pushing for Isreal's destructions isnt the least bit beligerant.

Sometimes I think people will just back whoever is against the US. Its very sad.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Dronetek]
cleaned up language



[edit on 25-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Belligerent words aren't the same as belligerent actions. Iran can mouth off about Israel all it wants, but they lack any capability to do anything to Israel without being anihilated in the process.

Iran is hardly a peaceful flower of a nation, they have supported terrorists and they have a clear streak of hostility towards the West and Israel. But they lack the capability to seriously threaten either without being assured of their own destruction. All they hype and fearmongering on the planet isn't going to change that.

I must admit as a British/Irish European I find the regular quotation of EU Ministers' 'concerns' by Americans here as if it is in any way supportive or justification for the current belligerent attitude found in so many in the US government over Iran sadly and very deeply laughable.

It is utterly at odds with European public opinion.

European governments and the peoples of Europe may well have certain concerns one can point to over Iran's nuclear program and it's transparency,

but

those 'concerns' are sure as hell are nowhere near the level of concern to be found in the general public of Europe over the blindingly obvious attempt by those in the USA (and their paltry one or two of 'willing coalitionists') to manipulate opinion and crank up the war machine for yet another revolting and disastrous ME war, this time with Iran (and maybe Syria later).

sminkeypinkey said:

concerns

They have said much more than just "concerns" sir. Since you cant use google either, ill quote them for you:

news.bbc.co.uk...

External source
Top EU countries have warned Iran they will cut off talks on the nuclear issue if it goes ahead with plans to resume nuclear activities.

Joint warning

The foreign ministers of France, Germany and the UK, as well as EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, made their warning clear in a joint letter to the Iranian authorities on Tuesday.

"Were Iran to resume currently suspended activities, our negotiations would be brought to an end and we would have no option but to pursue other courses of action," the letter said.

Sounds like a threat to me.

nuclearno.com...

The United Nations and the European Union on Monday warned Iran not to step up its nuclear programme and risk ending more than two years of negotiations between Tehran and the west.

Now the US

news.yahoo.com...

"If Iran takes any further enrichment-related steps, the international community will have to consider additional measures to restrain Iran's nuclear ambitions," he said, without specifying what action the United States wanted.

The messages sound pretty much the same to me. How do you explain your sweeping generalzation the US is froathing at the mouth while the EU is only "concerned"?

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Dronetek]

Iran has not wiped Isreal off the map because they do not have nuclear weapons yet. However they chip away person by person by suporting the very acts of terror that occur in the Middle East.

Iran is preparing to defend itself because i feel that they will launch a pre-emptive strike. They are going to look for an excuse (sanctions) and would not put it past them to take WW3 to the next level.