It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hard Times Help Leaders in Iran Tighten Their Grip

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Hard Times Help Leaders in Iran Tighten Their Grip


www.nytimes.com

TEHRAN, Iran, Sept. 4 — Rents are soaring, inflation hovers around 17 percent, and 10 million Iranians live below the poverty line. The police shut 20 barbershops for men in Tehran last week because they offered inappropriate hairstyles, and women have been banned from riding bicycles in many places, as a crackdown on social freedoms presses on.

For months now, average Iranians have endured economic hardships, political repression and international isolation as the nation’s top officials remain defiant over Iran’s nuclear program.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Link:

www.nytimes.com

[edit on 4-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Interesting report, and a good read.

As Iran's defiance continues to further isolate the country, the often missed side of the growing crisis with Iran, is the effect this isolation has on the Iranian people.

Much like Iraq prior to the beginning of the current war, it is the people not the military or leadership that suffer the most from sanctions imposed by the UN. Worse in the case of the Iranians as it seems their own leaders are exploiting their new-found hardships.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
So why don't we just let them have the nukes? There's no evidence that they'll be any worse off than Pakistan if they have 'em.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
So why don't we just let them have the nukes? There's no evidence that they'll be any worse off than Pakistan if they have 'em.


thats a No No

1. Iran would use that to wipe out Israel and most of the surrounding muslim countries with fallout and even so it has bio and chemical weapons for decades.

2. Iran would give it to terrorists and nuke the US somehow

3. The US wont be able to invade and exploit another country

4. the generals on ATS wont have anything to shout attack to.

5. Israel wont be able to use its leverage on its neigbours anymore.

well that should cover almost everthing people will come up with.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
This seems to be the first sign of Cheney's order to the media to sell the attack on Iran.

What does the NY Times care about barber shops being shut that sell haircuts innappropriate to Iranian culture? Or women riding bikes? I do not endorse either action, but it's not really any of my business what a country does, concerning matters like these.

Much more important to me, are the millions of displaced in Darfur, or the brutal beatings and political oppresion / dictatorship in Zimbabwe, or the sickening crimes committed in South Africa.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
So why don't we just let them have the nukes?


If it were only that easy.

IF the world lets Iran amass a nuclear weapons arsenal, we may as well let Al Qaeda have them if they wish too. And every nation on the planet while we are at it, nukes for anybody and everybody!

The U.S. has no controls over Iran and Israel is threatened by Iran's nuclear program, perceived or real threat? doesn't really matter. The reality is that a nuclear Iran raises instability in the entire region, no matter who we see is the greater threat, it brings an even higher risk of conflict and war, the potential of an all out Arab/Israeli war possibly ending in an unimaginable nuclear holocaust.

The world as we know it will be better off without a nuclear Iran.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
And who would be next to pursue nuclear weapons when Iran gets them? Saudi Arabia? Or maybe Egypt?

Those nations are Muslims but still don't agreed on the successor of the Prophet.

Already you have Saudis thinking about supporting the Sunni insurgents against Shiites backed by Iran. Imagine nuclear weapons included.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
How many nukes do you think any country could get off in todays world, before being internationally shunned, and bombed into oblivion? Not to mention the possibilities of the nukes being neutered shortly after leaving the launch site? To suggest Iran would throw it all away like this, is madness. You must credit them with an ounce of sense, it would be the biggest mass suicide mission ever known to man, and they damn well know it.

Why does everyone seem to think that Iran would get some kind of 3 week stint that would allow them to throw nuke after nuke in any which way they wanted without impedance?

The second Iran obtains a nuclear warhead capability, we'll probably know about it. Maybe not us, but intelligence will. And I don't mean the same "intelligence" that found those WMD's in Iraq.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Pakistan's chock-full of Muslim extremists but still their leaders have had the wisdom to keep the bombs locked away...The very dangerousness of such weaponry means that, if you're smart enough to build them, you're smart enough to keep them in mothballs. If China, Israel, and Russia can keep nukes out of the wrong hands, anyone can.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


Why should we assume that Iran would plan to retaliate or attack with nukes using missiles? They would obviously know what that would mean, and that any such launch is likely to fail, or be ended before reaching a target.

On the other hand, does Iran really need missiles to deliver and detonate nukes at selected targets possibly in Israel and U.S. positions in Iraq?

No, they could be delivered and detonated by ready, willing and able martyrs from within the region, possibly from Syria and Lebanon. Do you believe a nuke can only be delivered by a missile launch?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by UM_Gazz
 


Having worked closely with missile systems in the past, obviously I don't think it's the only way to deliver a nuclear payload, however it is the easiest and most efficient way, and also the most likely in any given situation.

Do you think the only way to obtain a nuclear device is by Iran's nuclear reactors? If anybody really wants one, I'm sure there's someone out there that can get you some enriched uranium.

We all know what happens when we assume! We assumed Iraq had WMD's, look at how many lives have been lost due to that mess. Or do we now go around the world invading and occupying anyones country who may have a WMD? Why don't we just bomb every country in the world, cos there's a possibility someone in one of them, hell, all of them may attack with a nuke?

A preventative war is the biggest oxymoron I ever heard. It's so ironic, that I feel like headbutting a wall when I hear the phrase. Especially when the intelligence is slanted, twisted, and sexed up to fit someone else's dream of how the world should be.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
A preventative war is the biggest oxymoron I ever heard. It's so ironic, that I feel like headbutting a wall when I hear the phrase. Especially when the intelligence is slanted, twisted, and sexed up to fit someone else's dream of how the world should be.


I wish I could believe enough to agree with the above, however in the case of Iran, if we simply do nothing more, and let Iran do as they wish with their nuclear program, at some point you must know the Israelis will do something to eliminate the nuclear threat, what do we (USA) do then, watch, join them, or?

Also the longer this continues unchallenged the greater the potential of radiological materials and possibly nuclear devices ending up in the wrong hands. Terrorists, insurgents etc.

If the world chooses to step back hoping that diplomacy and sanctions will sort all of this out without any military intervention, fine, so be it. When the inevitable comes no one will be able to bitch about it. In the meantime it will be the Iranian people who will continue to increasingly suffer from the sanctions and their own fanatical leadership.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

Originally posted by uberarcanist
So why don't we just let them have the nukes?


If it were only that easy.

IF the world lets Iran amass a nuclear weapons arsenal, we may as well let Al Qaeda have them if they wish too. And every nation on the planet while we are at it, nukes for anybody and everybody!
"
The U.S. has no controls over Iran and Israel is threatened by Iran's nuclear program, perceived or real threat

The world as we know it will be better off without a nuclear Iran.


hypocracy. the world is better off without a politically/RELIGIOUSLY!!!! manufactured ISRAEL.

I'M TIRED OF THIS ****!!!!

"israel" has NOTHING to do with 'jewishness', and EVERYTHING to do with manipulation of public opinion and the distribution of REAL power(oil at this point in 'the game').

IRAN has every right to make it's own stinking stupid rules, and the rest of the world has every right to KEEP THEIR NOSE OUT OF IT!

maybe i'll eat just two steaks tomorrow. that should help lower my testosterone levels.

p.s. no, virginia, there is no actual 'al queda'. it is a propaganda construct.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a little meat with my inuendos....



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
I wish I could believe enough to agree with the above, however in the case of Iran, if we simply do nothing more, and let Iran do as they wish with their nuclear program, at some point you must know the Israelis will do something to eliminate the nuclear threat, what do we (USA) do then, watch, join them, or?


And if they do, then they isolate themselves from the world, for an unprovoked attack, and probably get bombed into oblivion signing their own death warrant.

Any country choosing to head down the nuclear option path, after what the world witnessed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is asking to be removed from the world. Any citizens supporting nuclear action will wish they hadn't - the effects of the two nukes dropped on these places are still being felt now, and will echo throughout time. I suppose another nuclear detonation on civilians is destined to occur at some point - but whoever does this, will unfortunately not get the chance to regret their actions, and rightly so.

The USA and USSR proved to a lot of people what the "nuclear threat" is all about. It consists of massing warheads up and hovering your finger on the button, waiting for your opponent to do the same. And now we have many countries with the nuke, the game is exactly the same, but with more players. And not one of them, lest they want to remove their country from the history books, would dare do it. By dirty bomb or otherwise, they will be caught, shunned, isolated, and taken off the face of the earth, either with the worlds cooperation (I like to think this is the likely route), or by all out World War 3 with nukes all over the show. And he with the most toys wins, if you can "win" by murdering millions.

We can't stop anybody from having a nuke - and the only way to really keep everybody in check, is by letting everybody have one. Or you are being prejudiced, and unfair, and treating a race, colour, or creed, as higher, or better, than another.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Now lets get to the core of all of this media attention over the Iranian nuclear issue.

Iran has remained defiant, diplomacy for the most part has failed on this issue.

Barring an actual attack on Iranian facilities, what can we do to turn up the heat short of an actual war like scenario?

You use clever news media manipulation, over a period of time you make enough believe that there will be an attack if there is no concessions from Iran. The strain on the Iranian regime is beginning to show as a moderate former leader has won a council position in an Iranian election today.

The Iranian regime is making threats of retaliation, showing that they are at least reacting to the news. Perhaps this pressure is simply a tactic being used to get Iran to the negotiation table?

If this fails then perhaps all bets are off, and war will be likely. What we are witnessing now, especially in the news media is not fully reflected in the actions of the U.S. political arena, and military movements.

All anyone need do to analyze this is read every news report over the last few weeks with Iran in the subject. Perhaps this is a last push of sorts before actually taking the next steps toward military actions.

Either way, for now the threat remains, on all sides.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   


yeah. agreed.

i don't think it's something to wink about, though.

one of these would be more appropriate for a reasoning, compassionate human being:







posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by UM_Gazz
 


Good points Gazz. I have another to add, as an angle from your post.

What if by "turning up the heat" we force Iran into thinking it must make a show of strength? Sabre rattling isn't really good for much except provoking someone/something into doing something.

There's a post here somewhere about the EU asking Texas I believe, into reconsidering its position on the death sentence. It's filled with people telling the EU to "butt out" and "mind its own business" and "since when does the EU get to tell Texas anything". Why is this case any different to that?

So the USA can dictate behaviours to other countries, but refuses to even let another country ask something of them? Isn't there a word for that?

edit: about getting Iran to negotiate, there are many sources that say Iran has been more than willing to talk at many times, and the US has refused/ignored (like Saddam + Iraq)

[edit on 5-9-2007 by adjay]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


I agree with you, browsing around I have noticed already the increasing threads on big bad wolf.

Funny but while the story tells of how bad the Iranians civilians are because of their own government, we are to believe that an attack on that nation by the US is going to make things a lot better.

Who are you kidding here? look at the mess in Iraq and then come back and talk to me about a better Iran after the meaning of Bush/Cheney liberation and democracy style.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

Hard Times Help Leaders in Iran Tighten Their Grip


www.nytimes.com

TEHRAN, Iran, Sept. 4 — . . . The police shut 20 barbershops for men in Tehran last week because they offered inappropriate hairstyles, and women have been banned from riding bicycles in many places, as a crackdown on social freedoms presses on. . . .



Related News Link:

www.nytimes.com



I guess my ages shows, if I heard Queen lyrics in my head when I read the snippet of the article:





. . . .Fat bottomed girls they'll be riding today
So look out for those beauties oh yeah
On your marks get set go
Bicycle race bicycle race bicycle race

Bicycle bicycle bicycle I want to ride my bicycle
Bicycle bicycle bicycle bicycle
Bicycle race . . .


Sorry. Sometimes other cultures make us see the humor in the gulf between us.

[edit: fixed exnews tags]

[edit on 5-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join