6th April - Iran?

6th April - Iran? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LadyEllen -> 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 4:40:13 AM)
This was something mentioned in an interview by veteran UK politician Tony Benn earlier in the week. For those who have never heard of him, he has been a prominent member of the UK Labour party (the real one, not the New Labour cabbal) for decades, a government minister in the 70s, is the only person I ever heard of who gave up his noble title to become a commoner because of his political views, and a genuine socialist who has had links with Moscow for a long, long time - and actually talks sense quite a lot of the time. He mentioned, that the view of Russian generals is that Bush is planning to attack Iran at sometime around 6th April. Maybe far fetched, maybe rubbish, but the build up of forces in Iraq is interesting in this regard, and the perhaps pre-emptive capture of British naval personnel too. This isnt like Iraq in my view, where there was no real reason to go in. With Iran there is a real reason to go in - even if we dont believe they could establish a strategic nuclear weapon capability, then their influence in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East provides grounds, and they are it would seem the sponsors of terrorism (or freedom fighting, dependent), whereas Saddam as bad as he was certainly wasnt. There is also the Israeli factor here - will the US act in order that the Israelis dont have to? Would we be seeing in action against Iran, the real reason for Iraq, in that Iraq is a beachhead for the action on Iran? And there is all that black sticky treasure in Iran too..... meanwhile we have them surrounded to the north in Afghanistan, and we have Pakistan which supposedly was told it would be bombed back to the stone age if it didnt help in the general fight, impotent to help its Muslim neighbour too. There is a different scenario here though compared to Iraq in that Iran's friends include Russia and China, in that trading partners are friends and in that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I wonder if we will live to see even more interesting times? E

meatcleaver -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 4:53:37 AM)
Israel can't act without the USA giving it the Ok because it requires security codes. This was what pissed France off when Israel destroyed the nuclear facility in Iraq some years ago, they knew the Israelis couldn't do it without US help. Bush has been telegraphing he wants a military confrontation with Iran so there won't be any surprise there should the US make an attack. But I don't think the US can occupy Iran. It has taken four years and they still haven't occupied Iraq and there are a significant number of friends in Iraq, Iran would be a 100% hostile population. Russia and China would love to see the US bogged down in another conflict, they will be happy to sit on the sidelines and jeer and make what capital they can out of it.

Marc2b -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 7:07:49 AM)
quote: This was something mentioned in an interview... etc. I’ve always believed that this has been about Iran since day one (day one being 9-11). They are the major source of funding and training for Islamic terrorism. A look at a map shows that we have been slowly tightening a noose around Iran, hemming them in from all sides. It’s no wonder that Iran has stepped up it’s nuclear program, those Mullahs have to be quaking in their boots. The troop surge may well indeed be a cover for preparing forces for a strike. Whether we will or not remains to be seen. I believe that if the Republicans had won the mid-term elections we would have struck by now but on the other hand, being a lame duck President does give Bush some freedom of maneuver – he doesn’t have to worry about re-election.

SimplyMichael -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 8:22:49 AM)
People please grasp one very simple concept. "terrorism" isn't a monolithic block. 9/11 was backed by our ALLIES in the ME, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Pakistan. Al Queda is a Sunni organization. Osama Bin Laudin is a Saudi Arabian Sunni. Sunni's consider Shia to be opostates, heritics, and believe they should all be converted or killed. Iran is Shia, as is Iraq. Iran supports Hezzboloah mainly to fuck with Israel from a safe distance. Iran hates Al Queda although they have looked the other way as they traveled from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia. Why? Because the Saudi Government would have shut down Iran's ability to go to Mecca if they didn't work with Al Queda. Iran hasn't struck at the West through terror, they have killed Iranian dissidents in the West but no direct attacks AT ALL.

SimplyMichael -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 8:28:36 AM)
Again, people lack a rather basic grounding in some important facts. When Israel struck the Iraqi reactor, it wasn't a reactor yet, there were no nuclear materials. That ISN'T the case in Iran, those facilities are full of nuclear material and any strike is going to release them and contaminate vast swaths of land. Iran is a pain in the ass but they are not our enemy. They are screwing around in Iraq because we blew it there and somebody has to fix it. You want an enemy, look to our allies in the region. Besides, we can't just strike Iran, we force that country into a corner and we haven't seen hell yet. Iran isn't going to strike us head on, they will have Hezzbolah rain rockets down on Israel, they will send suicide bombers over the border, they will be like a hornets nest. However, if they really want to strike at the West all they have to do is shut down oil exports in the gulf, something they are more than capable of doing. If Bush attacks Iran, his betrayal of America will be complete and hanging as a traitor will be too good for the bastard.

LadyEllen -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 8:29:24 AM)
Its true enough that the occupation of Iraq is a disaster, indicating that the same would likely result from a similar situation in Iran were a successful invasion carried out. The situation is abysmal in short, with the anticipated reconstruction of facilities and society there having been a failure to date, and the ordinary people now subject to totally random death and violence on a daily basis instead of the more organised and expectable death and violence of Saddam. That much of this random death and violence arises from outside trouble makers taking advantage of the situation, rather than Sunni or Shiite militias having at one another, is often overlooked. In fact its utter chaos along the lines of Beirut in its heyday, with no one safe from anyone else. But, the oil flows. Those with interests in the country become wealthy. That these two factors are so successful by comparison to the disaster otherwise is interesting. Perhaps if one were cynical, one might suppose that their success is by virtue of greater attention being paid to these objectives than to any others, and that failure elsewhere in Iraq to achieve peace and stability is merely an inconvenience at best and irrelevant at worst. Given such a cynical outlook, and that occupation of Iran would result in the same chaotic desperation as we see in Iraq, one might suppose that such a chaotic desperation produced in Iran for the ordinary people of that nation, would be equally irrelevant to the goals of any planned invasion and occupation; oil and the wealth of interested parties being far more important than the safety of the people or the stability of the nation, albeit that Iran would also be neutralised as to its nuclear programme in such a chaotic situation and rendered from 2nd to 3rd world status at a stroke and so made unable to organise any form of resistance to those it regards as its enemy - subject to the capture of its nuclear scientists and technicians and their residence in Guantanamo of course, since left free to roam its just possible that we might have made the world a much less safe place overall by their availability to interested parties and their personal antipathy towards the west as a result of their lives being destroyed by invasion. What strikes me all the time about this war on (Islamic) terror, is that at no point do our leaders ever look at why people are pissed at the west, and whether there is anything we can do to resolve the reasons for their antipathy. Instead we beat them harder and expect them to cow down and put up with whatever we see fit. The problem being, that people dont cow down but resist and fight back whenever and wherever they can. And then we call them evil for not submitting and beat them some more. And so it goes on and will go on. E

babyboyk -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 8:32:57 AM)
the main problem, at the moment, to me seems to be the Russians, because of the current stand off between the UK and Iran, and the negotiations at the UN, the statement had to be watered-down because of the Russians objecting to some of the wording. like, they objected to the service men and woman being imedietly released. whats all that about??????!!!!!!! it has been alleged that Russia has business interests in Iran, need i say more???? i just hope the Russians do not come running when they need our help, after the support they gave us, more like lack of.....

LadyEllen -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 8:38:13 AM)
The problem with Russia re we in Europe babyboyk, is that at any time for any reason or none, they can turn the gas supply off to most of the continent. Militarily and diplomatically, Russia is still strong, but nothing like the threat they were in those terms - their influence is now by way of their control of resources needed in the west, which prevents or at least inhibits the EU as a whole from doing or saying much at all that might displease them. Yet again, its all about our reliance on fossil fuels and who has them. E

babyboyk -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 8:46:08 AM)
it seems that we have to tread on eggshells with international deplomacy, at the moment, given the alleged murder of Litvinenko still hitting the headlines. so it seems to me that even if we want to invade Iran, we need to tread very carefully, perhaps with Isreal as a trojan horse type idea? dont know if it will work, but we tried that in Suez, but that didnt work at all, look were that left us as a world power? international relations is a proper mindfield (pun intended) and you never know who your dealing with, as in Iran, what with the revolutionary guards seemingly unanswerable to the Government

Master96 -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 9:08:12 AM)
What a world we are living at! Yesterday, America was a close friend and gave much help to Arabs and Afghans to fight the Soviets. America supported the same people who now became Al Queda. Sigh We at Jordan don't have oil of our own. We have to pay for oil. While our neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Emirates spoil the American army with free shopping and fuel. And look what happened with Dubai Ports World. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dp_world#Port_security_controversy After that.... Iraqis who found money by stealing through the mess, after Saddam fled, from palaces and museums; came to Jordan and started buying lands and houses. Causing everything to be more and more expensive. As it wasn't expensive for us already. sigh Edited to add: It is weird though... that the Shias who are ruling Iraq now, are friends to the Americans and Iranians!

cyberdude611 -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 9:40:50 AM)
The US wont invade Iran but that doesn't mean the US won't attack Iran. The US will bomb government buildings, suspected nuclear sites, and destroy the government's ability to provide aid and comfort to the Iraqi insurgency. And the US would hope that the pro-democracy population in Iran would then rise up and be strong enough to topple the Ayatollahs. The US may send in special forces to deal with certain areas or incite revolution. But an actual full-blown invasion would be a last resort and wouldnt occur for several years down the line.

thompsonx -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 9:49:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The US wont invade Iran but that doesn't mean the US won't attack Iran. The US will bomb government buildings, suspected nuclear sites, and destroy the government's ability to provide aid and comfort to the Iraqi insurgency. And the US would hope that the pro-democracy population in Iran would then rise up and be strong enough to topple the Ayatollahs. The US may send in special forces to deal with certain areas or incite revolution. But an actual full-blown invasion would be a last resort and wouldnt occur for several years down the line. cyberdude611: I am sure that none of the above would piss the iranians off enough to retaliate....or not. thompson

kiyari -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 9:51:34 AM)
"I wonder if we will live to see even more interesting times?" Yes, and that is the Chinese meaning of "Interesting Times" besides. In my opinion, humans are akin to cockroaches in that you are never going to get 'em all. Consider that by way of reassurance, that some are likely to still be around for the aftermath. "What strikes me all the time about this war on (Islamic) terror, is that at no point do our leaders ever look at why people are pissed at the west, ..." Durned anti-American concept, that. We all know why... they hate us for our freedoms! [8\|]

luckydog1 -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 11:02:42 AM)
People please grasp one very simple concept. "terrorism" isn't a monolithic block. 9/11 was backed by our ALLIES in the ME, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Pakistan. Al Queda is a Sunni organization. Osama Bin Laudin is a Saudi Arabian Sunni. Try to grasp this simple concept...nations are not monlithic blocks. None of your listed nations backed 911 or Al Queda. In fact Al queda is trying to destroy all of those nations. All of the listed nations are helping us fight Al Queda. For some reason Crappy you have the same goal as Al Queda, destroying Egypt, Arabia, the UEA, Pakistan, and other US allies.

NorthernGent -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 11:58:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen With Iran there is a real reason to go in - even if we dont believe they could establish a strategic nuclear weapon capability, then their influence in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East provides grounds, and they are it would seem the sponsors of terrorism (or freedom fighting, dependent), whereas Saddam as bad as he was certainly wasnt. This is beginning take root as a consensus view. Any evidence to support this?

Real0ne -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 12:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 9/11 was backed by our ALLIES in the ME, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Pakistan. Al Queda is a Sunni organization. Osama Bin Laudin is a Saudi Arabian Sunni. Agreed! and i will add that the cia worked with/through bin laden during the russian occupation of afghanastan, and ya know the ole saying, once in the cia always in the cia,, mafia by any other other label.

Marc2b -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 1:01:32 PM)
SimplyMichael said: quote: People please grasp one very simple concept. "terrorism" isn't a monolithic... etc. I’m well aware that Iran isn’t the only player in the Islamic terrorism league but they are the major player. Shia and Sunni may not get along but there is that old saying about the enemy of your enemy being your friend and both the Shia and the Sunni perceive themselves as having a common enemy in the West in general and the United States and Israel in particular. The facts remain that we have spent the years since 9-11 encircling Iran. This is being done for a reason. The mid-term electoral defeat for the Republicans may have given Bush and Co. pause, then again it may not have. Time will tell. You also mentioned that Iran isn’t going to strike us head on. Of course they won’t. In an all out, no holds barred, war with the West they’d loose, and they know it. That’s why they resort to terrorism. Turning off the oil tap won’t do them any good either. They’re not the only supplier of oil and if we can’t get it from them we’ll get it from somewhere else – and if we can’t, that all but guarantees an invasion of Iran. LadyEllen said: quote: What strikes me all the time about this war on (Islamic) terror, is that at no point do our leaders ever look at why people are pissed at the west, and whether there is anything we can do to resolve the reasons for their antipathy. I won’t disagree but I can’t help but wonder why the same doesn’t apply to them as well? Both sides need to understand the other, to truly listen. Both sides need to give a little. Alas, I remain skeptical that it will ever happen. How do you reason with people who think strapping bombs onto children and sending them to blow up other children is a good thing? How do you reason with people who still throw a fit over the crusades (it was six hundred years ago, I think it time for them to get the fuck over it)? You don't see the West whining over the Islamic invasions of Europe (which came before the Crusades). cyberdude611 said: quote: The US wont invade Iran but that doesn't mean the US won't attack Iran. The US will bomb government buildings, suspected nuclear sites, and destroy the government's ability to provide aid and comfort to the Iraqi insurgency. And the US would hope that the pro-democracy population in Iran would then rise up and be strong enough to topple the Ayatollahs. The US may send in special forces to deal with certain areas or incite revolution. But an actual full-blown invasion would be a last resort and wouldnt occur for several years down the line. I agree. This is the most likely scenario we will see.

Real0ne -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 1:13:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Master96 America supported the same people who now became Al Queda. Sigh we just plain created them. Al-Qaeda: A CIA protégé Edited 12 March 2007 Franklin Freeman copyright © the author 2003-7 You may download the article for your own use, and reproduce it, as a whole or in part (but include the full copyright notice), on non-commercial websites The Breeding-Ground and Birth of al-Qaeda The USA, via the CIA, originally backed the Islamic guerrilla resistance against the Marxist regime and Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the late 1970s and 1980s. Its efforts focused increasingly on a hardline faction which was to spawn al-Qaeda in 1987-88. ... http://www.geocities.com/libertystrikesback/afghans.html#birth

meatcleaver -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 1:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen With Iran there is a real reason to go in - even if we dont believe they could establish a strategic nuclear weapon capability, then their influence in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East provides grounds, and they are it would seem the sponsors of terrorism (or freedom fighting, dependent), whereas Saddam as bad as he was certainly wasnt. This is beginning take root as a consensus view. Any evidence to support this? Just shows how effective western propaganda is.

Griswold -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 1:44:28 PM)
That Prius is looking pretty good right about now ain't it? :)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875