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.

 

Clinton: Iran heads toward military dictatorship

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Clinton: Iran heads toward military dictatorship


edition.cnn.com

CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that she fears Iran is moving to a military dictatorship and urged allies to back efforts to help change its course.

Clinton made the comment as she responded to a question about whether the United States was getting ready for military action in Iran during a session broadcast by Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera.

"No, we are planning to bring the world community together," Clinton said at the town hall meeting in Qatar. She warned that United States "will not stand by idly" while Tehran threatens neighbors and world.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
So this is what the US needs to attack them, for them to announce that Iran is now a military dictatorship and action must be taken against them in order to institute a "democracy" in Iran.

This is the same kind of rhetoric that led to the war with Iraq and Afghanistan and comes as no surprise. It seems they will stop at nothing to create a scenario where military force is required.

What are your thoughts ATS? Is the propaganda machine ramping up? Or is just justified rhetoric?

~Keeper

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


While I usually do not agree with our governments definition of "concern", I do; however, agree with this one. It is IRAN, a very dangerous country led by a dictator who is not only in possession of Nuclear Weapons, but waiting for an excuse to use them. The citizens of Iran are split, some supporting him and MANY opposing the government. We have seen Iran's military physically attack and imprison there people. Eventually, the people of Iran will rise against there government and it is going to get very ugly. If I were the president, I would have to seriously consider helping the opposing forces in Iran overthrow their government. Of course, maybe I am wrong, but it is a fact that the region is very unstable socially and governmentally. And the two never mix well..



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


So this is what the US needs to attack them, for them to announce that Iran is now a military dictatorship and action must be taken against them in order to institute a "democracy" in Iran.


How can you read an article, and get the exact opposite from it than what it says?

When asked if there would be an attack, she said No.
No does not equal Yes.

...

I am worried that some news program out there is making a specific part of the population see the exact opposite of reality (unless I am the one that is delusional...that does read NO, right?)



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Iran needs a good false flag operation so it can declare a permanent state of emergency and suspend civil liberties indefinitely. Worked in Nazi Germany and the formerly free USA anyways.

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 15-2-2010 by Crito]



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


So this is what the US needs to attack them, for them to announce that Iran is now a military dictatorship and action must be taken against them in order to institute a "democracy" in Iran.


How can you read an article, and get the exact opposite from it than what it says?

When asked if there would be an attack, she said No.
No does not equal Yes.

...

I am worried that some news program out there is making a specific part of the population see the exact opposite of reality (unless I am the one that is delusional...that does read NO, right?)


I agree, but this is the start of that kind of talk.

They say no, we aren't getting ready to attack, but were bringing the world together to confront Iran. Same thing, exept they don't want to take the whole blame for going to war.

What I am saying is that they always start talking about war in this way, they say the military option is there, but they won't use it, they get other nations involved and inflammed, and then they make assesments such as these to state that the country is not only unstable but moving towards a dictatorship.

And you know the US loves to remove dictators and replace them with Democracies, especially puppet ones in the middle east.

Imagine all that oil..

~Keeper



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





She warned that United States "will not stand by idly" while Tehran threatens neighbors and world.


I dont really know any other way to take that than her saying, 'we dont want to fight, but we will if we need to'



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Imagine all that oil..


That China will also be able to bid for, as they did in Iraq, and actually won the larger deals.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
There are other countries in the world run by dictatorships. Why is clinton just talking about Iran.

the war wheels keep on a turning.....




posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 



Why is clinton just talking about Iran.


Perhaps the fact that Iranian's are the most westernised people in the Middle East.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 
They are western looking. I don't know what HC was talking about. What the article didn't say, was that it is the Ayatollah who is Commander-in-chief of the military, not the President,(who is elected by the people) so in effect it has been a dictatorship anyway.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 15-2-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


With all due respect I must disagree. Since Khomenei's death there really hasn't been a "true" supreme leader for Iran. The IRGC has slowly backed the Mullah's and the subsequent Supreme Leader, however the Supreme Leader since his death has not had the absolute blind support that Khomenei garnered. Thus the IRGC has consolidated it's power, money and forces behind the scenes. She is correct. The Supreme Leader may have the last say on domestic and civil matters but the IRGC has the final say on everything else now. If the loyalists honestly realized this the mullahs, Ahmed-j, AND the Supreme Leader would lose popular support, hence the IRGC is propping up the spiritual leaders. IRGC does WHATEVER it wants becasue it protects the beareucrats and spiritual leaders. Step out of line and you get paid a visit by one of thier homemade militias. That is why all the hub-bub in the foreign policy circles about nuclear weapons. While the front is for nuclear energy, the IRGC is actively pursuing a more rigid and robust program that coincides.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by djvexd]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by djvexd]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by djvexd]



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


Hi DJ, I have made a similar post, enlarging on that in the other thread. Here I am simply talking about the constitution. My concern is for the ordinary people, like myself, not governments and power players who always overimpose on others for whatever reason.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Well, there are some disparities with regards to how Iran is portrayed in the western media as evidenced by this recent ATS thread.

Who to believe? I'm not certain. I don't know the real situation in Iran...nor do I think I know the real situation in the USA. I am certainly more familiar with the situation on this side of the hemisphere and I don't trust much of what I am told over here. On the other hand I just don't know what I can trust from Iran.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   


When asked if there would be an attack, she said No.
No does not equal Yes.

You might have forgotten about something really important...

Politicians, especially those who's name is CLINTON lie, A LOT.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join