Originally posted by DYepes
if the world believed it was in their best interest to destroy the american or european economies in order to make political reforms, i am sure you would be singing a different tune.

exactly
seems to me like since its not his future or life on the line in Iran he would support any measure to destroy theirs

would give you a WATs but a star will have to do

Originally posted by DYepes
sorry buddy you are quite wrong about iran's economy. thats part of the 'free your mind' from baseless propoganda. rationing gas temporarily does not mean your economy is about to collapse.

Baseless propaganda?
North Korea economy is in very poor shape and the Soviet Union caved economically both countries are or did suppress people. Even if Iran's economic problems are overstated you cant painted an rose picture about an country that imports petrol while sitting on top of the thirds world largest oil reserves.

it really is irrelevant anyways how or why you feel that iran's economy needs to be destroyed, because dozens of countries that are trading with them on a regular basis, and signing new energy, technology, and manufacturing deals with them on a monthly basis disagree with that theory.

Indeed there are an couple of factors at work here.
The first is as what was mentioned a lot countries have an trading relationship with Iran. The second factor is that thanks to the Iraq blunder people view the US as having cried wolf one to many times.
So those who disagree with me can rest ease my point of view is hardly going to prevail in terms of real world policy.

if the world believed it was in their best interest to destroy the american or european economies in order to make political reforms, i am sure you would be singing a different tune.

Well when you think about it the above statement makes no economic sense apart from the fact that the likes of China could call in all the loan the US has made from them in order to maintain the current spending rate. I suppose European economy's could be more vulnerable to sanctions. But European countries haven't made statements about wiping there neighbours off the map.

Iran's President's statements was about wiping any invading attack force off the map, after Israel declared they could and would, not Israel itself. Why is this always the final fallback when attempting to justify destroying Iran?

In any case, Germany came pretty darn close in WW2, and America literally wiped two cities in one fell swoop in Japan, and leveled Dresden in Germany, but thats too far back to be relevant I assume.

IMO, once we switch the leadership in '09 (as in the day the newly elected is actually inaugurated) this Iran issue will become a non-issue for the most part. It is also IMO that to be socially responsible in politics the delegates should be dealing with the underlying issues of why Iran percieves us as a hostile threat, and work on it together, rather than bark orders for submission from then, and their neighbors.

Can you believe the US tried to blackmail India from signing an energy deal with Iran by threating to pull out on their nuclear power deals?

IMO, once we switch the leadership in '09 (as in the day the newly elected is actually inaugurated) this Iran issue will become a non-issue for the most part.

While I whole heartedly HOPE you are right, that all depends on "who" gets elected. If its just another puppet (Clinton or Guliani) then I have a strong feeling it will be "business as usual" in the middle east. And while I strongly hope another candidate gets to be in the running (RP) I highly doubt anyone in the upper echelon will allow that to happen.

*Sigh*

Originally posted by DYepes
Can you believe the US tried to blackmail India from signing an energy deal with Iran by threating to pull out on their nuclear power deals?

Yes I can believe it, its called leverageing your position in negotiations. Fact is the UN put sanctions on IRAN. Every country who is a member of the UN is obligated to abide by those sanctions. If no country will hold to the mandates then shut the doors to the UN and let the chips fall where they may. I am no advocate for the UN but if you agree to something then be stand up and abide by the decision the USA included here.

My take on the whole thing is this. The US pretty much bank rolls most of the countries on this rock. No proof needed becasue the US sends out millions in relief to countries every year. If the USA sttoped helping the world many countries would be toast for the taking. So does that give the USA the right to dictate policy ? IMO yes it does, So that being said dont come crying to the US for money and help if you dont want to respect our requests and interests. The door swings both ways dont take our money and help, then cry we are a bully. Seems to me that alot of countries like to bite the hand that feeds them.

Originally posted by geemony
My take on the whole thing is this. The US pretty much bank rolls most of the countries on this rock. No proof needed becasue the US sends out millions in relief to countries every year. If the USA sttoped helping the world many countries would be toast for the taking. So does that give the USA the right to dictate policy ? IMO yes it does, So that being said dont come crying to the US for money and help if you dont want to respect our requests and interests. The door swings both ways dont take our money and help, then cry we are a bully. Seems to me that alot of countries like to bite the hand that feeds them.

Many aid packages sent to Third World nations are ear marked (by the US) to fund infastructure contruction and repairs for the US based Multi-national investors. While the population suffers malnutrition and lack of healthcare, the government uses aide money to pave roads through acient forrests to aid in the expropriation of the countries natural resources. Another stipulation of aid money is imports must come from the US, at terms most favorable to the US, shipped in US containers, on US ships, and used for the benefit of those same Multi-nationals mentioned previously. Rarely does the US government send out aid money and relief unless it benefits the investors and multi-nationals, so much for benevolance.

DYepes you have added another spin on the wipe Israel off the map comment anyway moving along I don't want to destroy per say Iran if I wanted to do that would be calling for nukes to be dropped on that country. All I am going to say about the US dropping atomic bombs is that the US was no threat to its neighbours and that the US stayed out of the war until Pearl harbour.

Yeah after Bush leaves office it is very likely that the withdrawl from Iraq and its effects will become centre stage of the US ME policy.

Well in any case, I dont suppose the parties involved have set a due date for the beginning, or completetion of the project?

Are you referring to an withdrawl from Iraq or stopping Iran's Nuclear program as the project ?
Cheers xpert11.

InSpiteOf even thou you don't agree with me I am glad that you understand what I am saying. I have heard several differnt takes on the Isreali comment so forgive me if I don't take them all on board. The Iranian middle class could be the most effected but you have to bear in mind that it is the masses who can effect change in Iran . If Iran's rules were to indulge to much while people suffered from shortages peoples resentment of there leaders will only increase. As for how long it would take Iran to recover after the reforms take place the answer to that is purely speculative but it wouldn't be over night.

Originally posted by xpert11
InSpiteOf even thou you don't agree with me I am glad that you understand what I am saying. I have heard several differnt takes on the Isreali comment so forgive me if I don't take them all on board. The Iranian middle class could be the most effected but you have to bear in mind that it is the masses who can effect change in Iran . If Iran's rules were to indulge to much while people suffered from shortages peoples resentment of there leaders will only increase. As for how long it would take Iran to recover after the reforms take place the answer to that is purely speculative but it wouldn't be over night.

We may not agree on a lot of points, but we still have a good conversation . There still remains two glaring issue with your stance in my mind. If Irans economy is crushed by Western Economic Intervention, 1) who picked up the pieces and on what terms? 2) What good will it do the population to push for political democratic changes when there is no economic democracy?

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
, 1) who picked up the pieces and on what terms?

Well Iran's leaders at the time would have the responsibility of beginning to rebuild Iran's economy.
By terms do you mean the terms under which the sanctions would be lifted ?

2) What good will it do the population to push for political democratic changes when there is no economic democracy?

The greater economic freedoms could or would be tied in with the democratic reforms.

What im trying to say is, if Western powers cripple the Iranian economy, the Western powers will more than likely attempt to dump tonns of foreign capital and investment into iran, privatizing what little public sectors remain after the crash. Often when this happens, the terms of such investment are more than favorable to the investor, leaving much to be desired by the Iranians.

My concern is seeing Iran turn into another Chile or Nicaragua. A zone for US Capital Penetration to rape at will.

Edit to add: With all that in mind, greater economic freedoms could come with political democracy, but dont have a history of doing so when backed by US Multi-national Penetration.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by InSpiteOf]

I'm not interested in increasing US corporate interests profits.
I am interested in Iran in becoming an responsible influence in the region and granting its citizens greater personal and economic freedom.
You can implement Free Market reforms with build in over sights for example an law could be passed that says Iran's national carrier if they have has to be 25% owned by local private firms.