Guest bluex_v1 Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/015623.html Has there been a quiet foreshadowing of the next conflict to come — a foreshadowing lost or downplayed by the single-focus American media as it covers the contentious Presidential campaign? It looks that way. The issue is Iran which is emitting increasing rumblings amid a generally aggressive tone towards the United States that it intends to go full-speed ahead on its nuclear program — and develop long range missles. Note this item in World Net Daily: Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-range “strategic missile†and delivered it to its armed forces, saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even the “big powers.†Iran’s new missiles can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia, according to weapons and intelligence analysts. This essentially would mean it is on the verge of being a major power. More: “This strategic missile was successfully test-fired during (the recent) military exercises by the Revolutionary Guards and delivered to the armed forces,†Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani was quoted by the state-run radio as saying. The missile is believed by intelligence analysts to be an updated version of the Shihab-3, improved with the help of the North Koreans. So “the enemy of your enemy is my friend†is in play here… The news comes shortly after Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards staged military maneuvers near the border with Iraq, seen as a signal to Washington Tehran is prepared to fight back against any attempts to prevent the development of a nuclear reactor that could be used to make weapons-grade plutonium. There has been talk the U.S. could want to find some way to stop that reactor from being either built or completed. And some of the speculation has centered on perhaps the Israeli taking care of this pesky problem for Washington for two reasons: in Israel’s own interest and as a de factor U.S. surrogate. The Iranians are well aware of U.S. and Israeli desires to nip their program in the bud: The radio said Shamkhani refused to give details about the missile for “security reasons,†but said Iran was “ready to confront all regional and extra-regional threats.†Shamkhani last month said Iran was working on improvements to the range and accuracy of the Shihab-3 in response to Israel’s moves to boost its anti-missile capability. Today’s announcement came days after Israel said it was buying from the United States about 5,000 smart bombs, including 500 one-ton bunker-busters that can destroy 6-feet-thick concrete walls. Analysts say such bombs could be used to destroy Iran’s nuclear reactor before it goes online. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor before it went “hot.†Iran may be only weeks or months away from activating the reactor. The 2,000 pound “bunker-buster†bombs are part of one of the largest weapons deals between Israel and the U.S. in years. The bombs include airborne versions, guidance units, training bombs and detonators. They are guided by an existing Israeli satellite used by the military. In addition to the 500 one-ton bunker-busters, the purchase includes 2,500 other one-ton bombs, 1,000 half-ton bombs and 500 quarter-ton bombs. Funding will come from U.S. military aid to Israel. On Tuesday, Iran defied the International Atomic Energy Agency by announcing it is producing uranium hexafluoride, the material for centrifuge enrichment. Kurtis Cooper, a U.S. State Department spokesman, declared: “Although Iran has repeatedly asserted that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes and its pursuit of uranium enrichment technologies are to fuel a planned civilian power program, Iran will have no peaceful use for enriched uranium for many, many years. … The rush to convert 37 tons of yellowcake into feed-stock for centrifuge enrichment has no peaceful justification. … Thirty-seven tons of yellowcake is not a test. It is a production run.†Iran and North Korea are going to be major challenges to the next administration. The challenge Iran poses to U.S. policy makers is not simply because of test firing missles that can terrorize Europe (and the realization that if they can develop these they can develop missles that have an even longer range…that can perhaps go as far as New York or Washington DC.). It’s spills into other troublesome areas as well, plus it reflects an overall problem the U.S. has faced in dealing with this militaryily strong and sophisticated country since the fall of the Shah of Iran. Also consider: —A New York Times report citing classified intelligence reports in January 2002 that Iran purchased US-built Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and turned them over to a Lebanese-based terrorist organization. —Iran last month virtually daring the U.S. or Israel to try and interfere with its programL: TEHRAN (Reuters) - A senior Iranian military official said Sunday Israel and the United States would not dare attack Iran since it could strike back anywhere in Israel with its latest missiles, news agencies reported. Iranian officials have made a point of highlighting the Islamic state’s military capabilities in recent weeks in response to some media reports that Israeli or U.S. warplanes could try to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities in air strikes. Iran last week said it carried out a successful test firing of an upgraded version of its Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile. Military experts said the unmodified Shahab-3 was already capable of striking Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf. “The entire Zionist territory, including its nuclear facilities and atomic arsenal, are currently within range of Iran’s advanced missiles,†the ISNA students news agency quoted Yadollah Javani, head of the Revolutionary Guards political bureau, as saying. “Therefore, neither the Zionist regime nor America will carry out its threats†against Iran, he said. An attack on Iran “could only be carried out by angry or stupid people. For that reason, officials of the Islamic Republic must always be prepared to counter possible military threats,†Javani said in a statement, ISNA reported —This analysis by Steven Weisman in the New York Times which reads in part (and is worth reading in its entirety): With a violent insurgency mounting in Iraq, the Bush administration hardly has time for another crisis overseas. Yet a barrage of warnings from Washington about Iran seems likely to erupt into a confrontation with the Tehran government, perhaps before the end of the year. American anxiety is focused not simply on Iran’s apparent efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. There are also signs, administration officials have said, of support by Iran for the insurgency in Iraq, which officials fear could grow if the Tehran government is pressed too hard on its nuclear program. A parallel concern in Washington is Iran’s continued backing of Hezbollah, which the administration and the Israeli government say is channeling aid to Hamas and other groups responsible for attacks on Israeli civilians. Israel also warns that Iran’s nuclear program by next year will reach a “point of no return,†after which it will be able to make a bomb without any outside assistance. Complicating the American response to all these concerns, the Bush administration is in considerable disagreement with its allies over how to handle the situation without making things worse. Britain, France and Germany are warning that a confrontation could backfire, and that positive incentives as well as punishments need to be presented to Tehran, at least at some point down the road. Threatening sanctions, such as a cutoff in oil purchases, for example, is not viewed as credible or likely to get much support, European officials say. European views cannot be dismissed, especially after the trans-Atlantic discord on Iraq, administration officials say…. So once again a threat perceived by the United States and Israel may face demands by European allies to go slow, wait, and negotiate. Given Iran’s accelerated testing schedule,threatening pronouncements and growing threat, it’s unlikely that after the November elections any U.S. administration or Irsael will feel it has the luxury to go so slow. If you follow any of the Iraqi blogs, you'll find plenty of evidence and even more hearsay that Iranians and Syrians are involved in the current insurgency. We aren't fighting against Iraqi insurgents there, we are fighting elements of the greater middle east. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tannji Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Iran, despite having a repressive government, has not initiated any act of violence, OUR government on the other hand has done vast irreparable damage and is responsible for the death of hundred of thousands of Iranians. So who is the threat, us or them ? http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=362 http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/st_terror/iran.htm http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1996/212.htm Iran has done a decent job in establishing plausible deniability, but is listed in several estimates as perhaps the greatest contributor to terrorism world-wide. Here is a very interesting read on the US's position regarding Iran, its nuclear pursuits, and terrorism. http://www.state.gov/t/vc/rls/rm/24494.htm Iran's attempts to explain why it needs an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle are simply not credible. We are being asked to believe that Iran needs to have the ability to mine, process, and enrich uranium for reactors that do not yet exist and that it is necessary to support its domestic power needs. Yet Iran does not have enough indigenous uranium resources to fuel even one reactor over its lifetime. Moreover, it burns off enough gas at its wellheads to generate electricity equivalent to the output of four Bushehr-type reactors. Finally, and most importantly, if there were truly "peaceful and transparent" reasons for Iran's acquisition of these technologies, why would Iran hide these activities from the IAEA? In fact, the IAEA only learned of the many hidden Iranian nuclear facilities when the rest of the world heard about it in the press leading to a rigorous IAEA investigation that revealed a range of Iranian nuclear safeguards violations and failures. We and many other countries, fear the consequences of waiting for another press report to further reveal the extent of Iran's attempts to develop a nuclear weapon. Even in the light of these disclosures and in the face of IAEA inspections, Iran has continued its efforts to hide or deny other equally troubling aspects of its program. For example, the IAEA Director General's August 26 report states that in February 2003, Iran told the IAEA that it had started developing its gas centrifuge enrichment program in 1997 based on information from open sources and extensive modeling and simulation and that tests had been conducted without nuclear material. The report reveals that these assertions were misleading and incomplete. For example, the report notes that environmental samples from the IAEA inspection of Iran's Natanz gas centrifuge facility indicate the presence of highly-enriched uranium at that site. By the August 2003 IAEA visit, Iran had changed its story stating that it began its centrifuge program in 1987 and had acquired components from foreign sources and that the presence of highly enriched uranium in the IAEA samples must have come from contamination from those foreign components. The IAEA is continuing to investigate Iran's claims. For the IAEA to do its job effectively, Iran must abide by the terms of last Friday's IAEA resolution, and be more honest and forthcoming about the many questions raised during recent months. No one is denying that various nations (including the US) use their foreign policy to advance their own interests. That is what a foreign policy is for. Trying to villify the US in particular over its policies (and mistakes) in the middle east is disengenuous. Every country that thought it had the means to make its policy stick in the middle east has tried to do so. We are currently at odds with several nations that have a tendency to enact their foreign policy utilizing rerrorist groups, or to fund groups that are actively engaged in attacks on our interests. I do not wish to say anything as dismissive as "Its water under the bridge".... but essentially, the history is what it is. The US is the most likely target now for labeling, but it is by no means the ONLY one. Regardless of how we got where we are today, the issues with terrorism will be dealt with, and it is unfortunate that very few will like how it has to be done. People seem to think that peace and good will are the natural state, and big bad bullies like the US are responsible for disrupting it. That region has been at war in one way or another almost continuously for 3000 years that we know of, and for that matter, so has the rest of the world. North America has been spared much of the typical turmoil, and there are reasons for that. Israel has survived against over whelming numerical odds, and against countries with exponentially greater resources for almost 60 years, and there are reasons for that as well. Eggs are going to get broken.... but to blame the US for a regions problems when that region has had similar problems for most of its history is wrong. I will acknowledge the mistakes the United States had made in general, but that doesnt mean I think we will or should be uninvolved. Someone is going to exert their will on that region, REGUARDLESS..... I support the fact that our government has decided to be involved, and protect some of our interests. I cant think of another country that would put as much effort into TRYING to benefit the local population as much as we do. That effort will cost us more money, time, and lives.... but at least it will be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted September 30, 2004 Author Share Posted September 30, 2004 Someone is going to exert their will on that region, A money quote! Unless and until an Arab nation (or group of nations) get's it collective act together politically, the middle east (with its oil resource) will always be a ripe target for powerful nations. Arab nations have to grow up and stop acting like victims of imperialism (even though it happened in their past) and start assuming the role of leaders of people and Islam. Every country on this planet has been a victim of imperialism at one (or many) points in their history. Arab nations are not unique in this but they are unique in making the "victim of imperialism" a critical part of their identity. In other words, Arab nations need to earn respect from more powerful nations based on words and deeds. Relying on "victimhood" just makes you another target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afshin Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Hi bluex, My point is that if you follow the historical facts, it is undeniable that we have been the aggressors. We put dictators in, removed democratic governments and supported wrongfuls wars and brutal regims in order to get cheap oil. The middle eastern countries did not first harm us, we harmed them. So I'm challenging the notion to those who are unaware of the history of who has been the greater victim and who was the aggressor. It is just way to hypocritical for my taste to call them evil and dangerous, when we have attacked. Iran has not threatened to attack Israel without due cause, it said if you attack us, we will strike back. Israel has not been any friendlier or civil and yet no one here seems to mind that our tax dollars are going towards their miltary and that they have numerous nuclear weapons. How is it that you grant us the right to defend ourselves at the cost of destroying other governments who have not yet directly attacked us, but find it bothersome that another country wants the ability to defend itself. I will keep repeating this, Iran has not started any wars, we can't stop finding excuses to start more of them. Now please, don't misunderstand and think that I would defend a horrible government like that of Iran's, just pointing the fact towards who is the aggressor and who might be trying to defend themsleves. You can blame Iran for questionable support of any insurgents in Iraq, but I and most of the world outside of our country places more blame on what can be considered an illegal take over of a country that did not pose a direct threat to us. We are no better and history doesnt allow us to take any claim of moral superiority. All of this mess comes out of GREED FOR OIL and then some pathetic excuse is used or fabricated as to why we need to take over another oilr rich nation. There are many worse criminals in other countries that are never mentioned, and as pointed out earlier, since we support dictators and overthrow democracies, please never claim to me that we go to another place to save innocent people from a dictator we supported. Believe it or not, we wrongfully started this and from their perspective, they need to defend themselves from further hostile takeover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 In other words, Arab nations need to earn respect from more powerful nations based on words and deeds. Relying on "victimhood" just makes you another target. [devil's advocate] So maybe they should give the imperialist countried a big "F you" and get some nukes. Then those imperialist countries would be FORCED to show Iran some respect...[/devil's advocate] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluex_v1 Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Trying to stay on-topic here Afshin, I agree with your comments regarding the stubborn nuke-em-all attitude, but I'd eat my own left arm if anyone here would really push the button if they could. Its merely frustration speaking empty words, I expect you realize that too. I'll have to respectfully decline to believe anything that doublestandards.org site you linked to says. It is full of mischaracterizations and missing information. For example, regarding US involvement in Afghanistan, it presents the idea that a lovely 20th century environment would have developed if we had not stepped in aiding the mujahideen, making no mention that it would actually be a communist dictatorship. It also says the US 'murdered' Iranian civilians when the Vincennes accidentally shot down a commercial airbus. It also says it was there to provide military support for the Iraqis. This is completely untrue. It was there to protect neutral tankers and other shipping in the gulf because Iraq and Iran were BOTH firing on them. If you know anything about the Aegis air defense system that the Vincennes (a Ticonderoga class missile cruiser) was built around, you know it was not designed to operate in coastal areas. Its sensitive sensor arrays were intended to be used in blue water operations against the USSR. It essentially had a sensory overload and a human made the wrong decision, expecting it was a threat to the battle group because silkworm and excocet antiship missiles had already been used in the theater on other ships. The site also says the US paid $2.9 million in compensation...not true, the figure was $61.8 million in compensation ($300,000 per wage earning victim, $150,000 per non wage earner) for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown. (not that that makes what happened ok, it just makes that site more wrong.) Its difficult to prove a negative, so I'll just have to ask where you are getting your information from that the US gave Saddam the means to make and deploy chem weapons against Iran? So, if an American works for the government, they aren't civilians? This applies to USPS workers, IRS rubber stampers, and EPA inspectors too? Just because the pawn shop sold me the gun I used for my murder, that makes the pawn shop responsible for the death too? The US sure isn't squeaky clean, but I don't think it warrants this level of self loathing. At least we try when we can. Anything that emboldens the ME resistance to the US is in the interest of Iran, because it takes the focus off that regime's oppression of its own people. Anything that slows or reverses progress toward a free Iraq is in Iran's best interest because it keeps an adjacent source of free information at bay. A nuke (delivered any way you wish to speculate on) in the center of NY would certainly do this. Not likely, but there exists a motivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afshin Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Hi John Quote: Iran, despite having a repressive government, has not initiated any act of violence, OUR government on the other hand has done vast irreparable damage and is responsible for the death of hundred of thousands of Iranians. So who is the threat, us or them ? http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=362 http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/st_terror/iran.htm http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1996/212.htm Iran has done a decent job in establishing plausible deniability, but is listed in several estimates as perhaps the greatest contributor to terrorism world-wide. As I had mentioned in my post, the Israel-Palestine conflict is complex, with sever wrong doing and terrorism on BOTH sides, so why is it that support of ISrael is not state sponsered terrorism, but support of Palestine is? Again, i'm not taking sides, just pointing that IMO, you can not use this as an example of terrorism (too broad of a term). Terrorism in my opinion related mostly to killing of innocent civilians in a non war situation (otherwise all wars are state supported terrorism). Israel -Palestine is more in the war category. You say Iran has done a good job of plausible deniability, why are you so quick to believe that they are lying, while our government that lied about the WMD and nuclear threat from Saddam are to be trusted when they imply possible support from Iran without proof. How do we justify it when we support terrorist groups that overthrow democracies in our interest. I call it state sponsered terrorism. Point is we are as, if not more guilty and this is still going on. As such, I'm bothered when people simplify it as them being bad and us good and that they should be nuked and deported... For every dispecable act that they perform I can list over two that we have done. I will keep repeating this, because it is what people fail to see when getting into who did what kind of arguments. Iran 's governement is bad, on an international level, ours is as well. We do not have the right to attack others who have not directly attacked us. The idea of us calling anyone else sponsors of terrorism is a joke, since we have done it as well, we just call it looking after our own interest and matters of security (guess what, so do they). By what right to you claim it wrong if they seek to defend themsleves, but right if we do, which country have they attacked, I can name you the ones we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim240z Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 I would rather just live in blissfull ignorance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted September 30, 2004 Author Share Posted September 30, 2004 [devil's advocate] So maybe they should give the imperialist countried a big "F you" and get some nukes. Then those imperialist countries would be FORCED to show Iran some respect...[/devil's advocate] Absolutely. That's one way to gain resepct and Iraq has tried that repeatedly. Its a very traditional way of gaining resect in the middle east and you're probably 100% correct in assuming that's exactly what the Mullahs in Iran are doing. But, that's a street gang way to respect. My hope is that an Arab country stands up and says, "Islam is not about murder and terrorism. We do not support and will actively hunt down and bring to justice anyone in our country who advocates or commits terrorism in the name of Islam." A statement like that from an Arab country FOLLOWED by real, public action would establish that Arab country as a courageous leader in the eyes of the reast of the world. Unfortunately, we get wimpy monarchies that may say the above in private but publicly encourage the teaching of Wahhabism, privately fund terrorist organizations, and provide sanctuary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tannji Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 You need to do a little more research before you say they have not attacked us.... at least you backed off the position that they havent supported or originated terrorism. Also, we have commited 2X the number of "bad actions" they have? in our history, or year for year in direct comparison with Iran? Either way, wrong again. so why is it that support of ISrael is not state sponsered terrorism, but support of Palestine is? Terrorism is the use of force or violence by A PERSON or GROUP to intimidate or achieve political or idealogical goals. When we do it, it is our foreign policy, as decided by an elected government. When we act directly against a group, that is counter-terrorism, when against a country, it is usually war. If Iran used its army or secret service to accomplish its foreign policy, it would lose a war, and badly. The Iranian goavernment uses GROUPS to accomplish its goals in an attempt to maintain deniability, or merely to insure that we dont declare war directly upon Iran... but waste our efforts and resources chasing its agents. What has gotten a few countries (not to mention joe blow internet commentator and self-empowered expert) in an uproar is that the US just changed the rules. We will now hold all involved Countries directly accountable. (I understand that there is controversy over the definition of Terrorist VS Patriot, but there always will be. People have a tendency to define it according to how it affects their country or group) We do or should have issues with how Israel has handled their "Palestinian problem".... But face it... they are combating an Idealogy that is committed to ERASING the Jewish State, not just claiming a state of its own. Both sides are resisting efforts to copmpromise... so I will not completely support either side, nor stand by attempts to paint Israel (and the US, by extension) as the sole responsible party. If not the US, they will always have other candidates for "The Great Satan". I dont condone what was done in the past any more than you do. I probably wont condone everything we do in Iraq (like the prison guard scandal... tho that wasnt a policy issue) But that area has issues that conflict with our own, and physically threaten our interests and assets. There is a permanent power void there, and we can let it fill itself, or have a hand in choosing who is most influential there. Hate reality all you want, heck I dont blame you in the slightest, because I dont like it either, but we stand to regret not being involved there far more than being involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tannji Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 [devil's advocate'] So maybe they should give the imperialist countried a big "F you" and get some nukes. Then those imperialist countries would be FORCED to show Iran some respect...[/devil's advocate] Absolutely. That's one way to gain resepct and Iraq has tried that repeatedly. Its a very traditional way of gaining resect in the middle east and you're probably 100% correct in assuming that's exactly what the Mullahs in Iran are doing. But, that's a street gang way to respect. My hope is that an Arab country stands up and says, "Islam is not about murder and terrorism. We do not support and will actively hunt down and bring to justice anyone in our country who advocates or commits terrorism in the name of Islam." A statement like that from an Arab country FOLLOWED by real, public action would establish that Arab country as a courageous leader in the eyes of the reast of the world. Unfortunately, we get wimpy monarchies that may say the above in private but publicly encourage the teaching of Wahhabism, privately fund terrorist organizations, and provide sanctuary. Great point. It will NEVER happen without our support, and very few American civilians will really understand that. It is figurative and literal suicide to pursue a "Western" Idealogy in the Middle East, yet we have leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq trying to do so, knowing that they are literally uninsurable as a direct consequence. Makes a pretty bold statement on how SOME people over there perceive the value of our political system, to the point of committing slow suicide by supporting our initiatives. The last thing any fundalmentalist-extremeist wants is an Arab country following in the footsteps of Israel, with a western style democracy, and educated, liberated civilians. They would immediately lose their powerbase, and THAT is what this is about. Dont buy into Any countries vocal support for "our repressed Palestinian brethren"..... The Palestinians are merely a convenient political foil for extremism in the middle east. That being said... we probably should make them OUR political foil, and get them their statehood. But never mind Israel resisting that, all the other countries will sabotage that at every opportunity.... for their own political reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afshin Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Hello gentleman Well I would like to avoid too much of whom did exactly what since it is a never ending argument. All I’m trying to do is make certain points which I fell are often missed, not to prove details of the many events that have occurred. Regarding the second link, I did not look at it closely I just used it because it was in a list format and I did not want to list all 30 or so countries in which we have negatively interfered for our benefit, I apologize if the site is not reliable> Most of my info has been gathered over many years from many sources, I just could not list them all and I was trying to give an example, not proof of any event (the link on the Iran coup is accurate, that I know). Fortunately, it seems like most agree that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is complex with wrong doing on both parts and that it can be broken down into good and bad side….so I would like to drop it, which was my point (it’s not a valid example of state sponsored terrorism when it is an ongoing and very long slow war). I just made the argument that backing Palestine is arguably the same as backing Israel, one can take sides, but you must acknowledge that both use brutal measures and have caused the suffering of many civilians. Tanji said that I was wrong about us having committed twice the number of bad actions in our own selfish interest. OK buddy, I’ll take your challenge here is my initial abbreviated list, bring yours: 1953: Iran, overthrow of Mossadegh and placement of Shah, already explained. 1954: we overthrow elected leader Arbenz and replace him with General Castillo Armas., which inaugurated a series of bloodthirsty regimes that murdered more than 100,000 Guatemalans over the next 40 years. 1960: along with Belgium we organize a coup to overthrow Zaire’s 1st democratically elected prime minister and replaced him with Mobutu resulting in 32 years of corrupt dictatorship. 1930-1965. 1930 Rafael Trujillo took power in the Dominican Republic in a coup d'etat and received enthusiastic backing from Washington for most of the next 30 years. His methods for suppressing dissent were sickeningly familiar-torture and mass murder. The US raised no objections, and Trujillo returned the favor by becoming a totally reliable supporter of US policies in the UN. In the 60’s, Trujillo dies and a physician named Juan Bosch comes to power and was dedicated to establishing a "decent democratic regime" through reforms. He was deposed by a CIA-backed coup after only seven months in office. When a popular countercoup tried to restore Bosch to power in 1965, the US invaded the island and backed/helped a series of murderous regimes which have maintained a favorable investment climate ever since. 1973: After multiple failed attempts we help end the oldest functioning democracy in Latin America by overthrewing Salvador Allende in Chili (again elected by popular choice) and replaced with the horrible General Augusto Pinochet who ruled for 17 brutal years. We helped overthrow Sukarme in Indonesia and replaced with Suharto who killed and tortured and was anti democratic 1980: we support Saddam and arm him to attack Iran resulting in the death of 800,000 to one million young men. 1989 we illegally attack and invade Panama (hundred of civilians were killed in our attack) 2003, we face multiple failed attempts to overthrow elected president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, because of wanting to control their oil. Off course the list goes on and on….. And yes, I’m sure many have counter arguments for some of these events (some of them have no counter argument), and the point is not to debate each. The point is that on an international level, we have and continue to harm other countries in our interest. And yes, other countries try and do the same, but usually are not powerful enough to do as much. The fact remains, that no matter how much we might dislike the current theocratic government (as do now most of the people in Iran), their acts of aggression towards other countries pales in comparison to ours (we are stronger, so we take over more). What I find bothersome is not such simple facts of life (greed is a human condition), it’s the person on either side who simplifies it as well we are good and they are bad, so we must eliminate them. As I first said, I keep out of these discussions as much as I can, until I hear someone like freedomfighter on this forum or his pro-terrorist equal on the other side whom believe that they are just and should kill the evil people on the other side. Off course, even though I like John C, I was dismayed to see is view of taking pre-emptive strike against a country that has not directly threatened us in a significant manner. Remember, all countries have enemies and differing interest. If all countries were to attack anyone they see as a potential threat (different than true undeniable imminent threat), no country would be spared> We all have enemies, we all have the right to defend ourselves, why wait, start the war ASAP. It’s one of the most self righteous, supremacist and barbaric notion that I can think of. Disclaimer: these arguments are tricky and most of us get emotional, myself included. My goal is not to offend but to share perspective and tolerance, for things are seldom as simple and one sided as people think. War drums are not to be taken lightly. I have lived in France for 6 years, the Middle East for 4 and here for 27. Anyone who thinks that there are masses of people (not government) who do not wish to be free and are inherently violent has not interacted sufficiently with others. Most people in all countries truly believe that they are right and mean well (and no it’s not that you are right and they are wrong). It’s the aggressive, greedy or intolerant ones playing the war drums that cause true harm. Patriotism is great, but unfortunately is often manipulated to blind people, similar to religion. I hold no allegiance to France, Iran the US or any religion (up to hell I go, or is it down to hell? :flamedevil: I aim for a more global view. Hum.. reading back what I just wrote, perhaps I should now sell my turbo Z and get a VW Beatle with a big flower on the hood, it fits perfectly in my home town of San Francisco, or should I move to Berkeley? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tannji Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Tanji said that I was wrong about us having committed twice the number of bad actions in our own selfish interest. OK buddy, I’ll take your challenge here is my initial abbreviated list, bring yours: 1953: Iran, overthrow of Mossadegh and placement of Shah, already explained. 1954: we overthrow elected leader Arbenz and replace him with General Castillo Armas., which inaugurated a series of bloodthirsty regimes that murdered more than 100,000 Guatemalans over the next 40 years. 1960: along with Belgium we organize a coup to overthrow Zaire’s 1st democratically elected prime minister and replaced him with Mobutu resulting in 32 years of corrupt dictatorship. 1930-1965. 1930 Rafael Trujillo took power in the Dominican Republic in a coup d'etat and received enthusiastic backing from Washington for most of the next 30 years. His methods for suppressing dissent were sickeningly familiar-torture and mass murder. The US raised no objections, and Trujillo returned the favor by becoming a totally reliable supporter of US policies in the UN. In the 60’s, Trujillo dies and a physician named Juan Bosch comes to power and was dedicated to establishing a "decent democratic regime" through reforms. He was deposed by a CIA-backed coup after only seven months in office. When a popular countercoup tried to restore Bosch to power in 1965, the US invaded the island and backed/helped a series of murderous regimes which have maintained a favorable investment climate ever since. 1973: After multiple failed attempts we help end the oldest functioning democracy in Latin America by overthrewing Salvador Allende in Chili (again elected by popular choice) and replaced with the horrible General Augusto Pinochet who ruled for 17 brutal years. We helped overthrow Sukarme in Indonesia and replaced with Suharto who killed and tortured and was anti democratic 1980: we support Saddam and arm him to attack Iran resulting in the death of 800,000 to one million young men. 1989 we illegally attack and invade Panama (hundred of civilians were killed in our attack) 2003, we face multiple failed attempts to overthrow elected president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, because of wanting to control their oil. OK, first of all... your post implied that you were talking about Iranian acts against the US, and US acts against Iran. So your list is magnified by including other countries we have acted against.... but it is magnified far more so in my favor, as I can now google for 30 minutes or so, and post as many of the acts of terrorism committed by any country that directly or indirectly either supports terrorism, or utilizes it for political gain. I am not going to do so at this point, but I am taking the position, and I believe many others will support me, The United States spends far more money, time, resources, and LIVES attempting to help other countries than it does engaging in destructive actions. Your depiction of the government of Iran being internally evil and externally benign unless provoked is naive, and coincidently wrong. I am not going to generate another huge post, listing incident by incident exactly how wrong you are (at least not tonight, long day, and I am exhausted) but depending on how this thread proceeds and how much time I have, I may yet. I say again, Iran is widely considered by terrorism experts to be one of the most dangerous and active countries in the world, insofar as as their willingness to finance, train, and support terrorist groups and actions are concerned. Their policy concerning Israel is what concerns us, not the fact that they are developing weapons. Would they Directly attack Israel? Doubtful (to me) but they have and will continue to support and fund those who do. Should they develope a nuclear capacity, how long would it be before that capacity was used by an Iranian terror affiliate? We will never know, because there is absolutely zero chance that Israel will allow it to proceed that far, and Bush is on the same page. Israel has learned the hard way to err on the side of prudence rather than diplomacy, when it comes to dealing with her neighbors.... and it isnt due to a lack of effort. It is entirely in Israels best interest to achieve peace in the region... but not at the cost of her security, and that is the only way the powers that be around her would allow it. I have friends and family in many of the countries in the middle east, and I try to temper my opinions with as much imput as possible from people who live there, in addition to what I can see with my own eyes. I have never heard anything to support your views on Iranian docility or tracability from any of my aquaintances over there... indeed, most people fear Iran as much as they did Iraq under Saddam. Iran is arguably much more dangerous, as it is a seat of religeous authority, and influences all countries in the region, regardless of the individual goverment's intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afshin Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Tanji, please do not take any of my example to heart, I'm not taking any sides, just trying to remind that our acts are not benign enough to give ourselves the right to bomb anyone we don't like. They do bad stuff, so do we, we do some good stuff, so do others. The initiation of military force against a country requires more than look at what they did (look in the mirror). I have no intention of defending the Iranian government (it is disgusting). However, you seem to miss the point that most of the alleged terrorist support from Iran was for Palestine and calling that terrorism is subject to opinion and which side you are on to qualify as state sponsored terrorism. I don't like what Palestine does, but neither do I like what Israel does. So, my challenge to you is not to find excuses for what we do, but to show me the number of overthrown democracies, support of dictators... that Iran has done, and how it exceeds what we have done. Helping one country does not give us the right to ruin another, sorry, I don't buy that. Also you say that Iran did worse to the US, how could you do worse than overthrowing a democracy and putting a dictator who ruled for 26 years (perhaps the people you know in Iran were supporters of the shah, I know many of them), so you/they may not think poorly of his iron hand rule and anti democratic tactics. How could you do worse than arm Saddam against you causing over 500,000 Iranian deaths. Please show me the worse atrocities that the Iranians caused us. BTW, I want fact, not report that they were linked to a group that was linked to another that did something. We directly overthrew Mossadegh and directly armed and trained Saddam. You say the terrorist experts claim Iran is a major seat of terrorism, well exclude Israel-Palestine situation and then provide me with the facts (both sides play dirty and both have causes that can be sympathized with). Like I said, didn't the expert recently tell us that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD and was developing nuclear power, yeah I trust that kind of speculation without proof. And please don't forget after you google and find something immoral that they supported (which you most certainly will, I know of some), you need to find as many as I can find about our government, not to mention the difference in death toll from committing single despicable acts of terrorism vs supporting brutal dictators over decades. Now please, I am not making a case that they are harmless and we are evil, just that looking at actions and all the things we can be tied to they can reasonably make the same arguments against us. Also, I don’t care to and certainly don’t claim that Iran can’t be tied to any terrorist group (after all Cat Stevens, that violent man, remember peace train can qualify as terrorist and a threat), I think any government can be tied to terrorists, including ours, all governments have likely supported groups who are active against their enemies. Taliban, now that was a training camp, and some other countries that I don’t want to bring up. Iran is not one of them. BTW, I have been to Iran, and as much as I will rejoice the day that this fundamentalist oppressive religious government is gone, anyone who claims it’s like being under Saddam has absolutely no clue whatsoever, and unlike much of the opinions I posted, this one is a fact. Now you can believe whatever you need to and justify our actions anyway you want, that's fine, we all do in some way. I just can't stand the hypocrisy and double standard when pointing the finger at others (this is what happens when you grow up in 3 countries on 3 continents). When we do something for our own interest or security it’s good, when they do it’s wrong, it was a constant everywhere I lived. Ahhh, this thread is starting to bother me, hardly anyone changes their opinion either way and there is no end to these kind of debates. Need to stop and find a good deal on a LSD R200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tannji Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 No offence (and I am not offended) but you are not reading my posts closely. Iran is only on the side of the Palestinians so far as it is convenient to them. I never said Iran has done more harm to us in particular, but they have supported or ordered more acts of harm than you are acknowledging. You really need to do some reading before posting stropng opinions like that = ) It is well and good to say things about what we SHOULD do if we are nice and they are nice, but thye are not nice, they dont play nice, and Nations have never played nicely. We cant afford to take a "Jimmy Carter" approach. It is read as weakness in that culture, and they are "religeous" about taking advantage of weakness. If I get some time here I will do some searching For You (lol) and give examples, but what you have said so far is admirable in its spirit, but telling in its general ignorance about about recent history in the middle east, not to mention naive about certain country's intentions. I never said anything about the US's inherent nobility either.... but then, all I am looking for is a strong reaction to terrorism. Do gooders and feel gooders do not earn respect in the middle east, they get taken advantage of, and as much harm as we might have done over there, we are trying to rectify some past mistakes. Once again, no offence meant or taken, but we are not talking about what we would like to happen, but what is likely to happen, and the day Iran turns into Ghandi's retirement home is the day monkeys fly out...... well, you know. tannji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 1, 2004 Author Share Posted October 1, 2004 Off course, even though I like John C, I was dismayed to see is view of taking pre-emptive strike against a country that has not directly threatened us in a significant manner. Actually, I didn't say that I supported a pre-emptive strike in Iran at any point in this thread. I started this thread to get the discussion going but I had yet to state an opinion (except for the lack of Arab leadership). IMHO... the US and Europe should support the Iranian students and the Iranian opposition publically, financially, and with whatever other resources they might need. But, this strategy often backfires so its a very risky one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluex_v1 Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Reviving just to post this article from http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/31235.htm SYRIA SMUGGLE CABAL BACKING IRAQ GUERRILLAS By NILES LATHEM October 4, 2004 -- EXCLUSIVE WASHINGTON — A secret Syrian and Iraqi smuggling network that made billions of dollars busting U.N. sanctions during Saddam Hussein's regime is now involved in organizing and financing violent anti-U.S. guerrillas in Iraq, The Post has learned. According to U.S. intelligence officials and Syrian exiles, the network, once involved in oil and arms smuggling as well as scamming the U.N. oil-for-food program before the war, has morphed into an increasingly organized command and control structure to coordinate much of the terrorist campaign in Iraq. The officials said the shadowy structure, with bases of operation in Syria, is made up of Saddam's cousins, clansmen and ex-aides who are actively supported by some family members of Syria's ruling elite and at least two powerful Syrian generals. "It is part of a pattern of relationships that started in the 1990s for strategic and commercial purposes. It involved a lot of very powerful families from both countries who made millions of dollars together," said Farid Jhadry of the Reform Party of Syria, an exile group with close contacts at the Pentagon and State Department. Last week, after months of pressure from the United States, the State Department announced that Syrian President Bashar Assad had agreed to take "specific steps" to stop the flow of arms and fighters across Syria's border with Iraq. But there are doubts about whether Assad is willing or able to shut down the network. "There has been a great deal of fragmentation of the power center after the death of Assad's father [former Syrian President Hafez Assad]. There are branches of the security services and even some ministries that basically act independently," said Ammar Abdulhamid, a prominent Syrian political and social analyst. At the head of this network, U.S. intelligence officials say, is Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, Saddam's deputy military commander. Duri, who has a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head, has been holding meetings with other Iraqi Ba'athists and members of Saddam's Tikrit and al-Majid clans inside Syria to coordinate movement of weapons, fighters and money for Iraqi terrorist groups, according to intelligence reports. A group of Saddam's cousins, who are co-coordinating the financing of the rebel campaign, also operate in the network, U.S. intelligence officials say. The group reportedly has access to up to $4 billion that Saddam looted from Iraq's treasury and scammed from the oil-for-food program. U.S. intelligence officials also say the ring includes wealthy relatives of Syrian government officials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 What did I tell you? Now they are offering the Iranians nuclear fuel. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6230380/ It is nice when you can afford to buy your way out of a confrontation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigWhyteDude Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 We are not going to invade Iran any time soon. I say this for one reason, the Straits of Hormuz. Iran and Oman are seperated by less than 120 miles of water. In the past 10 yeras 25% of the worlds oil has passed through that narrow waterway. The Strait is the most stratigic point of realstate in the world, and it's in their front yard. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.