So I guess this day marks the start of our crusade aganist Iran.

Finally the Bush Administration has woken up!!!!

But it what sense???

Are they after Iran for the same reasons that they are after the failing Saddam Regime???

Well should they be???

What do you people think???

Is it reasonable to say that the Iranian Government is out of line with the laws and rules of international law and authority???

This is not a war aganist the Iranian people. Yet it will be if we pursue it the same way we did with Saddam. In my opinion this is the rising of the underground war that has been going on for over 60 years now. What would be a viable reason for the US or any other country to attack Iran???


Let us explain that.

[Edited on 21-5-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

Originally posted by Abraham Virtue
Finally the Bush Administration has woken up!!!!

But it what sense???

Are they after Iran for the same reasons that they are after the failing Saddam Regime???

Well should they be???

What do you people think???

Is it reasonable to say that the Iranian Government is out of line with the laws and rules of international law and authority???

This is not a war aganist the Iranian people. Yet it will be if we pursue it the same way we did with Saddam. In my opinion this is the rising of the underground war that has been going on for over 60 years now. What would be a viable reason for the US or any other country to attack Iran???


Let us explain that.

[Edited on 21-5-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

What makes you say that were going after Iran now?!?!

Not holding, but harboring. This has been going on for years. Unfortonately, the Bush Administration hasn't taken the tone of factual reality. For all that Bush needs to say is that there is a group called HizbAllah International. Once that word is said, all the gates come open.


Al-Quida and HizbAllah have created a core of terrorist cells called HizbAllah International. This is an joint operation between the Bin Laden Group, and the HizbAllah Armies of Iran. HizbAllah is nothing more then a brutal religious terrorist organization funded, trained, housed, supported, and praised in the high ranks of the cabinets of the Iranian government. This is another hostile regime. Not only to other nations, but to it's own.

Can you agree with that assesment???

Well I think there are other things to worry about but if Bush want to go take over anoter middle eastern country he will. i just don't think we will get support for it though

Originally posted by abstract_alao
Well I think there are other things to worry about but if Bush want to go take over anoter middle eastern country he will. i just don't think we will get support for it though

Bush must make the people understand. Which when we consider W's attempts at doing that, we often fall short of that goal. Who could understand what the Bush Administration was thinking prior to the invasion of Iraq???

I couldn't. It was this exuse, that exuse, this exuse, that exuse, this reason, that reason, and so on and so on.

This cannot be the policy of Bush and his crusade on the other 'Axi of Evil'. For this is no more evil than the evil the Bush plan intends if that is so.

I don't see the US invading Iran in the near future. The seeds of reform have already be sewn there. Iran has a president who recognises that his country has been almost destroyed by the hardline Islamic ayatollahs. The population is sick of the regime and they want out.

Whoever gains control of the Iranian Army will come out the winner in this one. So far they've stayed loyal to the religious leaders but it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that they might jump ship. The Iranian president seems to be consolidating a nice little power base and the church has so far let him get away with it.

Iran is worth watching more for what is happening internally than for any intentions that the US may have externally. Sure they might give them a little nudge now and again, but I see Iran slowly loosening the hold that the ayatollahs have around it's throat by itself.

Originally posted by Leveller
I don't see the US invading Iran in the near future. The seeds of reform have already be sewn there. Iran has a president who recognises that his country has been almost destroyed by the hardline Islamic ayatollahs. The population is sick of the regime and they want out.

Whoever gains control of the Iranian Army will come out the winner in this one. So far they've stayed loyal to the religious leaders but it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that they might jump ship. The Iranian president seems to be consolidating a nice little power base and the church has so far let him get away with it.

Iran is worth watching more for what is happening internally than for any intentions that the US may have externally. Sure they might give them a little nudge now and again, but I see Iran slowly loosening the hold that the ayatollahs have around it's throat by itself.

I couldn't agree more. This is the reasoning behind what could be a very fruitful advance aganist the tyrants of evil and oppression that enslave the world with their bad. This is not about fighting governments. It is about fighting for freedom. The only thing we should focus on is giving and gaining freedom. We need no propaganda, or no reason. Just faith and civility.

I actually believe that there is a pretty good conspiracy theory about Iran.

I think that 7 or 8 years ago, the ayatollahs recognized that their days in power were numbered. They realised that their religious ideology had let them down and that thier long term plans were in serious danger. If your people fear you, you can't hold power over them for too long - eventually they will depose you.

But they also knew that if they jumped and created a free society straight away, they would lose all power and control in the backlash that would follow. So they decided to relinquish most political rights but retain all of their religious power. A more free society, but a stronger church run by the old guard waiting in the shadows. This is a slow process and that is what we are seeing today.

They are gradually setting up the structure for a reformist state.

By doing it this way they keep the US and other interference out, and are able to retain more of the beliefs and power that otherwise might be swept away. The "spiritual leaders" in Iran are far more clever than any of us give them credit for. They are far seeing. They realise how badly they messed up and they need to regroup and rethink Islam before they can present it again. They realised that they can't become watered down like the Christian church in the West or they will never be able to return and gain supreme power.

AV, the US was openly warring with Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. I don't see us "invading" Iran. It would be too much of a hot potato internationally. I do see special ops that are never reported, financial pressure on the Iranian regime applied byt he World Bank and rhetoric from the US to try to scare the Iranians into "working" with us.

Their was also a report in the NY Times regarding the al Quida operatives in Iran this morning.

Attacking Iran would be inappropriate given the events of the Iran/Iraq war as I understand it the reformist movement in Iran is substantial and encompasses a
a majority in those under the age of 30 in that country.

The responsible thing to do is go the Diplomatic route.

I think that Leveller makes a good point. I think that the radical Iranian leaders must realize that they have lost touch with the people. Yet what route are they willing to take to control the minds of these people???

Will it be a propaganda campaign???

Will it be by force???

How will the tables of change turn back in the Iranian leaders hands???

That is a viable question.

Let us answer that.

[Edited on 22-5-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

I believe that Saddam is dead, but will likely be "resurrected" and found to be in either Iran or Syria, and will be used as an excuse to wander through either or both nations, due to thier votes in OPEC far more than any terroristic tendencies either country may have.

Also, it is interesting to note that Iran announced they had NO ties with Al Quaida whatsoever... They are not going to give the US an excuse to cross the border...

AV, I do not think you are at all Pro war I agree with you that the Army of God is an issue with respect to terrorism.

I have to acquaintances that are Iranian and respect them both. The information I have presented is in respect to discussions with them.

Sharon is no Angel, truth is that he was elected into office was very shocking to me (given the reasons why he was one ostracized at one time by the Israeli government for his actions).

US/Iranian relations are very strange these day�s.

You would probably be surprised as the extent of inteligence the Iranians have given the US with respect to Iraq.

Iran is the only country in the world whose military has been exposed to Chemical weapons, my impression is attacking her would be the wrong move.

What is today clear of Al-Quaeda is that it is an agency prepared to kill Moslems to meet its goals and also that are very angry about what happened to Iraq.

Al-Quaeda has made clear how important Iraq was to them (under Saddam Hussein), Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer so what does that imply about Al-Quaeda and those who support them.

"Al-Quaeda has made clear how important Iraq was to them (under Saddam Hussein), Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer so what does that imply about Al-Quaeda and those who support them."---Toltec



Abraham asks>>>>>>>>>>


What is your point???

Are you saying that Al-Quida enjoyed Saddam's rule in Iraq???

To say the very least its apparent that in fact they
did AV.

Otherwise what other explanation is apparent with respect to the actions they have committed recently.

The words of Ayman Al-Jawahri

''Here is Saudi Arabia, where planes are launched from their airports, from its lands. Here is Kuwait, where the heavy armies march from its lands. Here is Qatar, where the command of the campaign is based. Here is Bahrain, the command of the (U.S. Navy) Fifth Fleet remains inside it. Here is Egypt; the marine ships pass through its canal. Here is Yemen, the crusader ships are provided with fuel. Here is Jordan, where the crusader troops are present, and the batteries of the Patriot missiles are erected their to protect Israel.''

Clearly the war with Iraq affected plans which were integral.

What is your view on Al-Quida's position, with respects to the failing Iraqi Regime???

Yeah, it may benefit them in the respects to more American targets, considering the fact that US troops are based there. Yet if Bin Laden got his way in the first place, these US troops would have been replaced by Bin Laden's troops. Do you not see that Bin Laden hates the secular state of Iraq???

2 days ago, 100 VIP's Iranians ( peoples from bizness, politics, medias, sport...etc... ) wrote an open letter to Iran, her peoples and ger leaders, where they say Iran is lead by fanatics peoples who are using faith & religion like perverted control tools, just to stay in power. And if these leaders don't want to change, by their fault, Iran will suffer the same fate as Irak and will be invaded in a short time.

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
2 days ago, 100 VIP's Iranians ( peoples from bizness, politics, medias, sport...etc... ) wrote an open letter to Iran, her peoples and ger leaders, where they say Iran is lead by fanatics peoples who are using faith & religion like perverted control tools, just to stay in power. And if these leaders don't want to change, by their fault, Iran will suffer the same fate as Irak and will be invaded in a short time.

Hopefully the Iranian Movement will be very peaceful and influential to the rest of the world. Let us not forget that Iran held the most recent and largest revolution not even 25 years ago. So for these people to do it again would be remarkable. Let us just hope this is done in a timely and calmly matter.

"Regime change begins at home" might be a nice description of what's happening in Iran. If the populace decide to change the government then great, the only risk is if the ayatollah's decide to grab power back. The problem with that is that there are two different power bases in Iran, religious and secular, neither one would get full support on it's own, which tends to lead to cooperation between the two groups. I like that idea. It's similar to the way monarchy and parliament work in the UK, two forces which were always diametrically opposed being forced to work together so that the country remained united. Actually, we needed a civil war to really concrete that idea, but at least we got there in the end.

The problem with Iran right now is that if the US continue to act aggressively towards the Iranian government two things will happen. a) They'll complete a nuclear bomb. b) The people will become more anti-US which will tend to increase the power of the Ayatollahs.

So basically, the US should just stick their nose right out of it, observe from afar, but not ignore the Iranian regime. If the Iranians want to talk then those talks should happen, just not at the end of a gun.