Clinton: Iran heads toward military dictatorship, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 15-2-2010 @ 01:09 PM by tothetenthpower

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)

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 01:09 PM 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.

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)

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 01:15 PM by TheMythLives

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..

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 01:22 PM 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?)

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 01:42 PM by Crito

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]

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 01:53 PM by tothetenthpower

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

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 02:12 PM by drsmooth23

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'

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 04:57 PM by john124

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.

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 04:59 PM by JanusFIN

Already here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 05:02 PM by grantbeed

There are other countries in the world run by dictatorships. Why is clinton just talking about Iran.

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

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 05:10 PM by john124

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.

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 06:10 PM by smurfy

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]

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 07:29 PM by djvexd

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]

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 08:12 PM by smurfy

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.

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 08:38 PM by Tamale_214

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.

reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 08:43 PM by Vitchilo