Iran Iran and then I got blown away - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 11-02-2005, 11:31 AM

Sorry my attempt to be humorous at a very non humorous topic.

This sounds like a country getting ready for war. The more they talk the more they do just shows they are ready for war.

It feeds my belief we went into the wrong country (Iraq) and ignored and let Iran a truly evil regime build up a nice arsenal. Bush was blinded by his hatred for Saddam and has totally let these guys get way too scary and truly powerful. I fear they DO have WMDs and will not be afraid to use them at all.

This could be worse than Vietnam ever was.

Quote:

Iran Removing 40 Ambassadors From Posts By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line government said Wednesday it was removing 40 ambassadors and senior diplomats, including supporters of warmer ties with the West, from their posts in a shake-up that comes as the Islamic republic takes a more confrontational international stance.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced the changes to parliament, saying "the missions of more than 40 ambassadors and heads of Iranian diplomatic missions abroad will expire by the end of the year," which is March 20 under the Iranian calendar.

Mottaki, quoted by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency, did not specify which ambassadors were among those being removed.

But IRNA said they included the ambassador to London, Mohammad Hossein Adeli, one of Iran's top diplomats and a leading member of the pragmatic foreign policy wing that supports contacts with Europe.

The moves give the new government of ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the chance to purge pro-reform figures brought in by his predecessor, moderate Mohammad Khatami, and install its own supporters.

Ahmadinejad has taken a tougher line on a number of issues, particularly negotiations with Britain, France and Germany over Iran's controversial nuclear program. Hard-liners have criticized Khatami's government for agreeing to freeze much of the country's atomic activities during the talks, and Ahmadinejad already has replaced much of the negotiating team with hard-liners.

The new president, elected in June, also generated a storm of international criticism last week when he called for Israel's eradication, saying it should be "wiped off the map."

Tensions with Europe and the United States over the nuclear issue are high after Iran ended part of its freeze on nuclear activities earlier this year, resuming uranium conversion at a plant in Isfahan. Washington accuses Iran of secretly aiming to develop nuclear weapons, while Tehran counters that its nuclear program is for generating electricity.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will review Iran's cooperation on the nuclear issue during a Nov. 24 meeting, and Washington is pressing for Tehran to be referred to the U.N. Security Council, where it could face sanctions for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Sanctions, however, are unlikely.

Iran is sending conflicting signals to an international community concerned about its nuclear agenda, granting U.N. inspectors access to a secret military site but also saying it would process a new batch of uranium that could be used to make atomic weapons, diplomats in Vienna, Austria, said Wednesday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

The diplomats said IAEA experts were allowed to revisit a high-security military site in Parchin as they try to establish whether Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program.

Parchin has been linked by the United States and other nations to alleged experiments linked to nuclear arms. The IAEA had for months been trying to follow up on a visit in January for further checks of buildings and areas within the sprawling military complex as it looks for traces of radioactivity.

Iran also has handed over documents and granted interviews with several senior officials believed linked to black market purchases of uranium enrichment technology, the diplomats said.

Ahmadinejad's victory in June elections sealed the decline of Iran's reform movement and solidified the control of hard-liners over the government. Some Iranians fear Ahmadinejad — a longtime member of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards — will bring back the policies of restrictions at home and confrontation abroad seen after the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

On Wednesday, more than 10,000 demonstrators shouted "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" in front of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran in the largest such demonstration in years.

Hard-liners organize protests at the site annually to mark the anniversary of the Nov. 4, 1979 seizure of the embassy by student militants.

Demonstrators carried a large picture of Ahmadinejad emblazoned with his quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." They burned U.S. and Israeli flags and effigies of President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon. Some wore a traditional Palestinian kaffiyah headdress, symbolizing their readiness to fight Israel.

"We have to continue our confrontation with the United States and Israel. This could help the world get rid of the arrogant powers," the hard-line Jomhuri Eslami daily said in an editorial.

LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/...an_ambassadors

stevo · 11-02-2005, 11:36 AM

more sabre rattling I suppose???

pan6467 · 11-02-2005, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

more sabre rattling I suppose???

I don't think so, I think we don't take them seriously enough and keep marking their threats down as just that, but sooner or later they are going to attack. I fear they are just crazy enough to do it.

Ignoring them and responses like that aren't good solutions to this problem, but then neither is a provoking attack or airstrike. Nor do I believe diplomacy will work either.

I don't know what the solution is but it is neither ignoring them or first strike. I fear first strike would give the radical Muslims too much ammo to use that we are going after all Muslim countries.

Willravel · 11-02-2005, 11:59 AM

If they decide to be stupid and make a first move, then we should contain them with long range weaponery (i.e. tanks in Turkmenistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, and battleships in the Arabina and Caspian sea, as well as in the Persian Gulf) put sanctions on goods other than are necessities to life (we cannot ever sanction food, water, medicines, for any reason). We CANNOT make a first move. Not only would it be disrespectful to our allies, but it would (based on our record) mean failure and the deaths of many, many more soldiers.

stevo · 11-02-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I don't think so, I think we don't take them seriously enough and keep marking their threats down as just that, but sooner or later they are going to attack. I fear they are just crazy enough to do it.

Ignoring them and responses like that aren't good solutions to this problem, but then neither is a provoking attack or airstrike. Nor do I believe diplomacy will work either.

I don't know what the solution is but it is neither ignoring them or first strike. I fear first strike would give the radical Muslims too much ammo to use that we are going after all Muslim countries.

Obviously, they've just taken diplomacy off the table, for all intents and purposes. You don't take your west-friendly diplomats away if you intend to be diplomatic toward the west. They are gearing up for something...I guess we'll just have to wait until Israel hits them first and then back them up...

politicophile · 11-02-2005, 01:10 PM

The preferable method of democratizing Iran is to implode the government through internal unrest. Perhaps if a majority-Shiite Arab nation immediately next to Iran were democratized, dissidents would have a leg up on frothing up popular discontent. *wink wink*

If the standard of living in Iraq becomes considerably better than that in Iran, which it probably will... I can see a coup d'etat forming entirely within Iran. A little help from the CIA and Iraqi Shiites who sing the praises of democracy and the Iranian regime will be on very shaky ground.

highthief · 11-02-2005, 01:16 PM

They're gearing up for control of their internal population. I'd bet a week's pay they aren't gearing up for more than that.

ObieX · 11-02-2005, 01:51 PM

Even if Iran made nuclear weapons they still wouldn't be in any position to attack anyone. I wouldn't be worried about them.

This stuff is just a new prez putting his own men into positions. It happens in every country, even the US. The article made it pretty clear that the diplomats their president is removing are not of the same view as he is. They are pro-western somewhat-liberalized folks, and he is very much not. He'll be replacing them with conservative hardliners which he can control easily, and doesn't have to keep much of an eye on.

Besides, who is Iran going to attack? Would they invade Iraq? They would have to face both the Iraqi army and the American Coalition, as well as (i would imagine) quite a few of the countries who didn't join the coalition for Iraq.
Would they invade Israel? That wouldn't be advisable either. They would only be able to do that by air, and that would get them nothing but paperwork to fill out to replace the planes and to file death certificates. Because not only would they have to contend with our air force/navy planes.. and what (if any) air force the Iraqis now have.. but also with Israel's air force which is extremely well trained and sophisticated.

Willravel · 11-02-2005, 01:55 PM

BTW, pan, that was a funny tittle for the discussion.

djtestudo · 11-02-2005, 02:39 PM

It could be argued that by invading the weaker neighbor first, and especially if we succeed in setting up a working, friendly, democratic, Shiite-majority government, it may be EASIER to successfully invade Iran. We will have the ability to invade from Iraq using troops already there, plus we will have an example of a successful government to show the Iranian people.

Rekna · 11-02-2005, 03:17 PM

yeah but if we invade a 3rd arab government we are asking for trouble. Remember the day Bush accidently called the war on terror a crusade? We run the risk of it actually looking like we are running a crusade....

roachboy · 11-02-2005, 04:22 PM

sometimes it helps to do a bit of research about the situation that obtains in a country before you start freaking out--as a function of uninformed mistinterpretation..

an alternative version of this story--within a broader chronological perspective--from the financial times:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/85964a7a-4b...0779e2340.html

this from a left perspective, an analysis of the new government:

http://www.iran-bulletin.org/IB-MEF-...ons_edited.htm

the irony is that this administration sounds an awful lot like the bush administration in the u.s.--different ideological context, parallel kind of politics--however i suspect that this regime will be a bit less willing to lie to its population about war---go figure.

a critique of the nuclear hysteria with reference to iran (check the notes/chase the links--do not rely on this guy's reading of things--see for yourself)

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=11233

pan6467 · 11-03-2005, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

sometimes it helps to do a bit of research about the situation that obtains in a country before you start freaking out--as a function of uninformed mistinterpretation..

an alternative version of this story--within a broader chronological perspective--from the financial times:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/85964a7a-4b...0779e2340.html

this from a left perspective, an analysis of the new government:

http://www.iran-bulletin.org/IB-MEF-...ons_edited.htm

the irony is that this administration sounds an awful lot like the bush administration in the u.s.--different ideological context, parallel kind of politics--however i suspect that this regime will be a bit less willing to lie to its population about war---go figure.

a critique of the nuclear hysteria with reference to iran (check the notes/chase the links--do not rely on this guy's reading of things--see for yourself)

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=11233

Ah, but one of these times the sabre rattling and the nationalistic propaganda will be real as will the military attacks.

I think it should be taken very seriously and prepared for. I don't think ignoring it or trying to understand where it is coming from or blowing it off as idle threats will work much longer.

I am not suggesting we need to go to war tomorrow against them but I do think we should be ready in case they do try something. It would not be hard for them to cross the border into Iraq, where, as much as some dismiss the fact, they do have allies. And it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say if Iran went in Syria may follow from the other side.

And we are in a part of the world where they truly hate us, we have an administration that blew any world credibility and destroyed alliances with its lies, so we may find ourselves very alone.

Isreal can only do so much. If IRan and Syria attacked, Isreal would help but they would have to be careful of Egypt and all the other Muslim countries in tha area attacking them.

This could be a true hotbed and serious conflict someday if we keep ignoring it and laughing it off as nothing.

This is one where there is no answer.

North Korea is easy, compared to this.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-03-2005, 05:51 AM

Our "alliances" haven't been so destroyed that if Iran and/or Syria aggressed against Iraq through invasion where the UN SC wouldn't do anything, hell at the very least the EU would be behind some military involvement, they don't want the Mideast anymore destabilized than it already is.

Saying Iran has allies is weak because they really don't. No regime in their right mind would stand against the US at this point in time, especially if you are siding with an aggressive hard line regime. Any allies Iran has are regional or countries that are 3rd world and couldn't do shit if they wanted too.

Also I think Israel could hold it's own, they have an awfully decorated history when it comes to mopping the floor with the Arabs.

One think you are right about is how there is no easy answer for this.

Willravel · 11-03-2005, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Saying Iran has allies is weak because they really don't. No regime in their right mind would stand against the US at this point in time, especially if you are siding with an aggressive hard line regime. Any allies Iran has are regional or countries that are 3rd world and couldn't do shit if they wanted too.

What if Iran offers the far East some great deals on oil? Wouldn't it be interesting if they pushed up the start of the second cold war? We wouldn't dare take on China now.

BigBen · 11-03-2005, 10:24 AM

China and Iran? You think so?

I hadn't thought of that, but it does make one take stock.

I think that if push comes to shove, the Islamic nations will stand united against a common enemy. Saying that, it means Indonesia is in the game, and now you have another world war.

Our enemy knows how to fight us. One casualty per day, over an indefinite period. Bring in a nuclear threat to really ramp up the tension. You think the IED's in Iraq suck? How about a Nuke to wake up your base. I don't even want to think about it.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-03-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What if Iran offers the far East some great deals on oil? Wouldn't it be interesting if they pushed up the start of the second cold war? We wouldn't dare take on China now.

China isn't at a place where they could successfully, nor want to stand up to us, they have to much at stake at this current place and time; perhaps in a decade. Besides they wouldn't want to alienate themselves from the world community by aligning with some wacko's

11-02-2005, 11:36 AM	#2 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	more sabre rattling I suppose??? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

11-02-2005, 01:10 PM	#6 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	The preferable method of democratizing Iran is to implode the government through internal unrest. Perhaps if a majority-Shiite Arab nation immediately next to Iran were democratized, dissidents would have a leg up on frothing up popular discontent. wink wink If the standard of living in Iraq becomes considerably better than that in Iran, which it probably will... I can see a coup d'etat forming entirely within Iran. A little help from the CIA and Iraqi Shiites who sing the praises of democracy and the Iranian regime will be on very shaky ground. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

11-02-2005, 01:16 PM	#7 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	They're gearing up for control of their internal population. I'd bet a week's pay they aren't gearing up for more than that. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

11-02-2005, 01:51 PM	#8 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Even if Iran made nuclear weapons they still wouldn't be in any position to attack anyone. I wouldn't be worried about them. This stuff is just a new prez putting his own men into positions. It happens in every country, even the US. The article made it pretty clear that the diplomats their president is removing are not of the same view as he is. They are pro-western somewhat-liberalized folks, and he is very much not. He'll be replacing them with conservative hardliners which he can control easily, and doesn't have to keep much of an eye on. Besides, who is Iran going to attack? Would they invade Iraq? They would have to face both the Iraqi army and the American Coalition, as well as (i would imagine) quite a few of the countries who didn't join the coalition for Iraq. Would they invade Israel? That wouldn't be advisable either. They would only be able to do that by air, and that would get them nothing but paperwork to fill out to replace the planes and to file death certificates. Because not only would they have to contend with our air force/navy planes.. and what (if any) air force the Iraqis now have.. but also with Israel's air force which is extremely well trained and sophisticated. __________________ We Must Dissent.

11-02-2005, 02:39 PM	#10 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	It could be argued that by invading the weaker neighbor first, and especially if we succeed in setting up a working, friendly, democratic, Shiite-majority government, it may be EASIER to successfully invade Iran. We will have the ability to invade from Iraq using troops already there, plus we will have an example of a successful government to show the Iranian people. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

11-02-2005, 11:59 AM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If they decide to be stupid and make a first move, then we should contain them with long range weaponery (i.e. tanks in Turkmenistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, and battleships in the Arabina and Caspian sea, as well as in the Persian Gulf) put sanctions on goods other than are necessities to life (we cannot ever sanction food, water, medicines, for any reason). We CANNOT make a first move. Not only would it be disrespectful to our allies, but it would (based on our record) mean failure and the deaths of many, many more soldiers.

11-02-2005, 01:55 PM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	BTW, pan, that was a funny tittle for the discussion.

11-02-2005, 03:17 PM	#11 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	yeah but if we invade a 3rd arab government we are asking for trouble. Remember the day Bush accidently called the war on terror a crusade? We run the risk of it actually looking like we are running a crusade....

11-02-2005, 04:22 PM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	sometimes it helps to do a bit of research about the situation that obtains in a country before you start freaking out--as a function of uninformed mistinterpretation.. an alternative version of this story--within a broader chronological perspective--from the financial times: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/85964a7a-4b...0779e2340.html this from a left perspective, an analysis of the new government: http://www.iran-bulletin.org/IB-MEF-...ons_edited.htm the irony is that this administration sounds an awful lot like the bush administration in the u.s.--different ideological context, parallel kind of politics--however i suspect that this regime will be a bit less willing to lie to its population about war---go figure. a critique of the nuclear hysteria with reference to iran (check the notes/chase the links--do not rely on this guy's reading of things--see for yourself) http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=11233 __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-03-2005, 05:51 AM	#14 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Our "alliances" haven't been so destroyed that if Iran and/or Syria aggressed against Iraq through invasion where the UN SC wouldn't do anything, hell at the very least the EU would be behind some military involvement, they don't want the Mideast anymore destabilized than it already is. Saying Iran has allies is weak because they really don't. No regime in their right mind would stand against the US at this point in time, especially if you are siding with an aggressive hard line regime. Any allies Iran has are regional or countries that are 3rd world and couldn't do shit if they wanted too. Also I think Israel could hold it's own, they have an awfully decorated history when it comes to mopping the floor with the Arabs. One think you are right about is how there is no easy answer for this. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-03-2005, 10:24 AM	#16 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	China and Iran? You think so? I hadn't thought of that, but it does make one take stock. I think that if push comes to shove, the Islamic nations will stand united against a common enemy. Saying that, it means Indonesia is in the game, and now you have another world war. Our enemy knows how to fight us. One casualty per day, over an indefinite period. Bring in a nuclear threat to really ramp up the tension. You think the IED's in Iraq suck? How about a Nuke to wake up your base. I don't even want to think about it. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.