Iran, The real issue, An open discussion

reply to post by SplitInfinity

The Iranian Leadership did more harm to itself when they Violently Cracked Down on Pro-Democracy Protesters than any action the West could have done short of Invasion.

I agree, and our current POTUS did absolutely nothing to support those students. Where were all the human rights advocates in the WH?

reply to post by smokenmirrors


We have been paying off all these little countries surrounding Israel to keep them from attacking Israel or hosting attacks on Israel. Now these countrie's pro Western leadership have fallen like dominos to be replaced by more radical groups. I feel that it's by design from a certain faction within the US and the European International Socialist community. Just an opinion though.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by maxzen2004

 

That is far in the past now with an Computer Savvy, Smart Phone Internet Filter Piercing Iranian Youth...Iran has a population where over 70% of all their people are UNDER THE AGE OF 30 YEARS OLD! Screaming about Israel is not working anymore and neither is portraying the U.S. as THE GREAT SATAN. The VAST MAJORITY of Iranians want Good Relations with the United States as well as a True Democratic Republic Government in Iran.

Dude, so true.

But you see how the following point cuts both ways?

Iran's Leadership has NO PROBLEM sacrificing Thousands of their own Sailors or Troops in the interest of preserving their Power.

Both nations (hell, all nations) probably need to be examining their energy policies, and the military force brought to bear when it comes to securing the crude. We also (we, the people) need to examine how our gut reactions may be leveraged against us.

reply to post by Annie Mossity


The Iranian stuff goes back decades. Let's start with Russia trying to communize Iran. Iran decides instead of communism they want to try this theocracy stuff. The US tries to keep Iran pro US by supporting the Shah. Then some geopolitical globalsts decide it would be better to support the Khomeini in secret. The Iranians get mad at the US for support of the Shah, and the leftists depose the Shah. Some anti -western protesters storm the embassy and take hostages. That takes us through the Clinton admin. The hostages are kept until interestingly, Ronnie Reagan gets elected as POTUS, then suddenly the hostages get released.
Simplified recap

Did I mention Brzezinski was in collusion with Clinton in support of Khomeini and they dumped the Shah?

hmmm seems it was Cyrus Vance who preferred the Shah and Brzezinski preferred Cold War detente. Some sites suggest it was confusion in Carter foreign policy with conflicting opinions.

hahah sorry for the mistake

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

The Iranian Leadership did more harm to itself when they Violently Cracked Down on Pro-Democracy Protesters than any action the West could have done short of Invasion.

I agree, and our current POTUS did absolutely nothing to support those students. Where were all the human rights advocates in the WH?

Yes...this is one of those..Damned if you do...Damned if you don't. I read many posts saying the U.S. should stay out of Iran's Business then those same people vilifying the U.S. when it does help.

It's easy to type words on a computer when you are safe in your home in a country that gives you that right. It is another to say that the U.S. should stay out of Iran's business when they are not the ones who are being beaten and killed over something we take for granted like posting or using a Smart Phone. Split Infinity

Originally posted by Yosemite Sam

Originally posted by nenothtu

Iran may or may not have dreams of re-establishing the Persian Empire, but they aren't after re-establishing a Caliphate. The Caliphate is the goal of Sunnis, specifically Wahabbis like al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. Iran is in opposition to that. It's that whole Sunni-Shia rift thing.

Then I guess it will be a complete shock to you when they take Saudi Arabia.

Depends on which "they" you're talking about. The wahabbis already pretty much own it. Iran has tried a couple of times, and failed so far, but if they ever manage it, then you don't need to worry about a caliphate any more - start worrying about the NeoPersian Empire at that point, even though it'll be too late to worry by then.

.

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I can lobby for that if it's gonna make Iran smile and stop talking tough!

You lobby again ?

Anyone can - it just takes 'nads and determination.

Give the lands taken by force to the true owners. Then let them choose what they want. It is democracy right ?

Where shall we start? First come, first served? get rid of all those Brits in the UK, and give it back to the Celts?

Give Pakistan back to India?

Give Spain back to the Caliphate in Baghdad?

Give Turkey back to Persia?

Where do we start? How far back do you want to go in the milieu of history, reassigning land to previous owners? History is rife with invasions and takeovers, lands being reassigned to new ownership. The Middle East is no different than the rest of the world in that respect,

So how far back do you want to go historically in rearranging maps? Would it not make more sense to deal with the world head on as it stands?

Interesting stuff about the Carter admin and how we got to where we have such bad relations with Iran

When Carter became President he created a special Office of Human Rights which sent a letter to the Shah of Iran as a "polite reminder" of the importance of political rights and freedom. In response the Shah released over 350 Islamic fundamentalist prisoners who would later play roles in the Islamic Revolution and Iran Hostage crisis. Carter also ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop paying religious Mullahs over 4 million dollars in bribes. This monetary support was agreed upon, so the Mullahs would tone down their anti-Shah and anti-Western rhetoric.

The Shah ran a secular government and established excellent relations with the West, which included the recognition of the state of Israel. He also believed in the equality of woman which he expressed publicly in a Barbara Walters interview. These reasons were the heart and soul of the disdain the Mullahs had for him. The Shah was by no means perfect. His secret police force, SAVAK, was infamous for their torture methods. Ironically the fact the Shah ran his government as a dictatorship played a very limited role in his demise.

Facing an Islamic revolution, the Shah appealed to Carter for help. On November 4, 1978 U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called the Shah and said the United States would "back him to the hilt." This would never be the case. Brzezinski insisted to Carter that the U.S. must encourage the Shah to "brutally suppress the revolution". State Department officials believed Carter should reach out to the Revolutionaries in order to smooth the transition to a new government. This was a deciding moment in world history. Carter decided not to take either recommendation and to this very day, the world is suffering the consequences of his indecisiveness.

www.americanthinker.com...

As sometimes said, "The past is prologue".

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


So it is Carter, Clinton and Obama's fault for our situation with Iran. How convenient. Please do tell how Regan, Bush and Bush fostered amicable relations with Iran. You are so obvious in that you really don't care about the OP - yours is simply an attack on democrats. I suppose you think Oliver North is a hero.

CJ

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I can lobby for that if it's gonna make Iran smile and stop talking tough!

You lobby again ?

Anyone can - it just takes 'nads and determination.

Give the lands taken by force to the true owners. Then let them choose what they want. It is democracy right ?

Where shall we start? First come, first served? get rid of all those Brits in the UK, and give it back to the Celts?

Give Pakistan back to India?

Give Spain back to the Caliphate in Baghdad?

Give Turkey back to Persia?

Where do we start? How far back do you want to go in the milieu of history, reassigning land to previous owners? History is rife with invasions and takeovers, lands being reassigned to new ownership. The Middle East is no different than the rest of the world in that respect,

So how far back do you want to go historically in rearranging maps? Would it not make more sense to deal with the world head on as it stands?

.
Bro Pakistan and India were partitioned. Pakistan does not belong to India, India does not belong to Pakistan.

Spain fought and defeated the Moors.

Again, the Ottomans overthrew the Persians.

Now Israel. Israel was forced into the Middle East.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


You know, I think a good historical grounding is important for context, but using facts from 50 years ago as a bludgeon in this conversation is counterproductive.

The reasons for our mutual discontent are far more immediate.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Typical...

I'll let your reply just sit there and fester......................

It's a prime example of why there is never any progress..

ETA: I apologize to the reader for seeing that exchange and for being Kurt but...

Am I alone here?

edit on 18-8-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

No, your not alone. Your right on the money as usual. Thanks for the post, S&F for you.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

So it is Carter, Clinton and Obama's fault for our situation with Iran. How convenient. Please do tell how Regan, Bush and Bush fostered amicable relations with Iran. You are so obvious in that you really don't care about the OP - yours is simply an attack on democrats. I suppose you think Oliver North is a hero.

CJ

First, I am establishing the basis for our bad relations with Iran. And yes, Carter, Brzezinski and Vance did horrific damage.

Also resulting from Carter's abandonment of the Shah was the Iran-Iraq war, which would have never occurred if the Shah remained in power. Over a half million people died during that war, including thousands of Iranians from Sadam Hussein chemical weapons. Hussein continued building his military to avoid future land attacks, which would become the cornerstone for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. This of course became Desert Storm.

The aftermath of Jimmy Carter's Iran policy debacle is still present today. The lives lost, as a result of his incompetence in dealing with Iran before, during and after the Islamic Revolution is far greater than the current turmoil in Iraq. Considering the support insurgents groups in Iraq as well as terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah get from Iran, Carter's mistakes as President are still costing lives all over the Middle East.

www.americanthinker.com...

Beyond the Republican/Democrat thing, I believe Jimmy Carter was the first POTUS to be a member of the shadowy Tri-lateral commission. The TC and the Council on Foreign Relations are pretty much the same thing. Both Republican and Democrat are members of either group.
All of this turmoil set up the wars in the Gulf. After Bush 1( who is on record as saying the NWO will be successful) Clinton carried on sanctions against Iraq.

Here's more

In 1972, David Rockefeller and Brzezinski “presented the idea of a trilateral grouping at the annual Bilderberg meeting.” In July of 1972, seventeen powerful people met at David Rockefeller’s estate in New York to plan for the creation of the Commission. Also at the meeting was Brzezinski, McGeorge Bundy, the President of the Ford Foundation, (brother of William Bundy, editor of Foreign Affairs) and Bayless Manning, President of the Council on Foreign Relations.[24] So, in 1973, the Trilateral Commission was formed to address these issues.

www.globalresearch.ca...


I would mention that McGeorge Bundy is a big name on the Skull and Bones roster. Many Skull and bones members do go on to become CFR. '
Need I mention that Kerry and Bush Jr were both Skull and Bones and ran as opponents in 04?

reply to post by Eidolon23

The reasons for our mutual discontent are far more immediate.

So then, what reasons, be more specific.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Absolutely, no problem.

1. We all (currently) need fossil fuels.

2. The US, Russia, and China are all equally uneasy with each others' designs on oil rich territory, and equally slow to transition to other alternatives.

3. The status quo makes a few people a lot of money.

4. We keep adding more members to the nuclear Mexican stand-off.

reply to post by RimDaas


The point is they were once one country and due to civil strife between muslims and Hindus, they had to partition. What a mess it was. Trying to blend them back together could prove a sticky thing.

reply to post by Eidolon23


China happens to be currently the fastest growing. Oil contracts from Iraq went to China.

So how does this need for oil relate to Iran? Developing nuclear capabilites for energy? You can put that in a gas tank. (at least not yet....I think )

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


True that.

And the pipeline being rammed through the midwest from the oil shale in Canada will be transporting oil that will never see the inside of an American gas tank.

Which is probably why we should use the oil we still have secured to transition to a less volatile means of providing ourselves with power.

Right?

Originally posted by Eidolon23
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

True that.

And the pipeline being rammed through the midwest from the oil shale in Canada will be transporting oil that will never see the inside of an American gas tank.

Which is probably why we should use the oil we still have secured to transition to a less volatile means of providing ourselves with power.

Right?

Quite so, dependence on foreign oil not a good thing in my view. One wonders why they capped all those oil wells a ways back.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


One does.