Time to Condemn Iran

[Verbal]

bush_cheney2004 : "Who cares...WMDs worked wonderfully as a pretext for war and continuation of US/UK policy for Saddam's Iraq."

So you are using your nom de plume 'tongue-in-cheek' or did you think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea?

Just wondering...

[bush_cheney2004]

....The hands of the US are tied because of history (see: CIA coup) and the most we can do is give moral support to those brave Iranians who are risking their lives against a corrupt and unjust regime that is on it's last legs.

The "US hands" are not tied....brave Iranians or not. Obama will not repeat Carter's mistakes if he can help it.

[Verbal]

bushcheney_2004 "The "US hands" are not tied....brave Iranians or not. Obama will not repeat Carter's mistakes if he can help it."

So you really are a Bush Cheney fan but you just can't come out of the closet. It's OK. We understand.

[ToadBrother]

The "US hands" are not tied....brave Iranians or not. Obama will not repeat Carter's mistakes if he can help it.

At this point is there even a reason to consider Khamenie anything other than a puppet? Assassinating him now would not overthrow the military dictatorship that has seized Iran, but it would certainly give them more ammunition to continue their nuclear program and oppress their people.

Who the f*** are you going to assassinate in Iran right now that would radically change the situation? Please give a list of names. I'd love to hear 'em.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Who the f*** are you going to assassinate in Iran right now that would radically change the situation? Please give a list of names. I'd love to hear 'em.

Don't be an idiot...the only one describing such a simple minded assassination solution is you. Destabilzing Iran can/will come in many forms. Setting them up for more paranoid military hysteria will do nicely, playing into a time proven method. "Mission Impossible" script writers could figure this one out in their sleep.

Rinse and repeat.

[Bugs]

Given prior US interference in Iran (Mossadegh), it's quite difficult to have any credibility when it comes to promoting democracy, given that they did the exact opposite in the fifties. The US will probably prefer to do things covertly.

The US can force the current regime to take bigger risks in winning the election by demanding certain reforms be met, or else sanctions will be put in place or lifted, as the case may be.

There is a huge generational divide in Iran, and it is only a matter of time before real democracy prevails. There is no real justification for starting a war, (civil or otherwise), to expedite a process that will come about naturally in the next 10-15 years.

Gosh, when did that happen? And did it have anything to do with Soviet plans for Iran?

Of course, since then, Iran attacked the American embassy and took the staff prisoners -- itself an act of war.

Let me turn the sarcasm off, and just to put the question: why would any politically organized people deal with these barbaric liars?

[ToadBrother]

Don't be an idiot...the only one describing such a simple minded assassination solution is you. Destabilzing Iran can/will come in many forms. Setting them up for more paranoid military hysteria will do nicely, playing into a time proven method. "Mission Impossible" script writers could figure this one out in their sleep.

Rinse and repeat.

You're the one moaning about Carter banning the assassinations, so clearly you think there must be someone in Iran who needs killin' to make things alright, so I'm asking, who would you have killed in Iran and why?

[bush_cheney2004]

You're the one moaning about Carter banning the assassinations, so clearly you think there must be someone in Iran who needs killin' to make things alright, so I'm asking, who would you have killed in Iran and why?

No, clearly you are obsessed with such a simple-minded idea. As for Carter and assassinations, you got that wrong too...the policy was originated on President Ford's watch.

[JB Globe]

The "US hands" are not tied

There are simply no options the US has on the table for any sort of direct/indirect intervention in Iran that could IMPROVE the situation.

The only options the US has are ones that would make the situation worse in both the short and long term for national, regional, and even international stability.

Which means - this is one of those cases where doing nothing is the best option.

Remember America - sometimes, not everything is about you.

....brave Iranians or not. Obama will not repeat Carter's mistakes if he can help it.

What do you mean by Carter's mistakes?

[Bugs]

Given prior US interference in Iran (Mossadegh), it's quite difficult to have any credibility when it comes to promoting democracy, given that they did the exact opposite in the fifties. The US will probably prefer to do things covertly.

Jeez, the Mossedegh mythology, which always omits how the dressing gown premier was playing footsie with the Russians, and the whole history of the crown of Iran. The prime players in the drama were the British, and, other in assenting in the move, the Americans did little. The oil ended up nationalized anyway, licensed by the Shah, and used to modernize Iran. It was the Shah who modernized and built up those universities you see on the UTube videos. He was a tough customer, and was his own kind of nemesis, but if he's to be faulted, it's that he tried to westernize his people too fast. There was a backlash.

The US can force the current regime to take bigger risks in winning the election by demanding certain reforms be met, or else sanctions will be put in place or lifted, as the case may be.

I don't see that the US has much leverage on the situation, at all. Nor does any other country. The two countries are technically at war, as a result of the Embassy kidnappings. In fact, the Iranians have played the Germans, the French, and the EU like a violin, when it comes to their nuclear program. Some serious pundits claim that the regime wants an invasion, to solidify its control of the country. Besides, there already is a boycott. If there's another boycott, will Russia and China maintain it?

There is a huge generational divide in Iran, and it is only a matter of time before real democracy prevails. There is no real justification for starting a war, (civil or otherwise), to expedite a process that will come about naturally in the next 10-15 years.

I am rather dismayed. I posted this with the suggestion it was time for some world leaders to condemn this nonsense in Iran. The regime is growing to rely on terror on the streets. This last holiday is normally a day of lamenting. It's the Sh'ia version of the split in the faith. It happens because a usurper displaced Mohammed's grandson, and the usurper was a gambler, a womanizer, and just not a genuine moslem as the Sh'ia see it. Now, the regime is being compared to the usurper, as people who have abandoned true moslem ideals for luxury, pleasure, and power as he did. They are really in bad odour.

I think it is a time for world leaders to speak out. Nobody is talking about an invasion, or CIA squads dispatched to assassinate people.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Bugs

[ToadBrother]

I am rather dismayed. I posted this with the suggestion it was time for some world leaders to condemn this nonsense in Iran. The regime is growing to rely on terror on the streets.

The regime in power is not the one that was in power before. Say what you will of that old bastard Khomenei, he was too sly a dog to ever let the Revolutionary Guard get the best of him, but Khamenei is and always has been a lightweight in every sense of the word, and is now pretty much a puppet. The Revolutionary Guard runs Iran now. The only hope for any quick resolution now is that the regular army decides to back Rafsanjani and his cronies (not that Rafsanjani isn`t a crooked bastard, but he`s the kind of crooked bastard you can do business with).

[Bugs]

It is not your buisness if the guy down the road kicks his dog..it's none of your buisness if the guy across town beats his wife. It is none of your buisness if the woman across the street cheats on her husband and eats bong bongs all day long while he slaves away. It is not Israels buisness what the social and political situation is in Iran...it is not their buisness to suck the rest of the world into a conflict that they seem to think they will benefit buy. To assist in stirring up trouble in the young and firey population of Iran with our media is sinful and abusive - let Iran be as peaceful as possible - We let Bush and Cheney walk free - so why should the hoods that run Iran not be granted the grace we give our own crimminals? Simply put...stop stirring up the hornets nest because Israel wants Iran gone - let them send ground troops to rescue the aggitated students hitting the streets in protest! But they will not because..One Israel is worth 1000 people - They are to precious a people and to lose a single citizen is unbearable to these secualarist gangster Jews - so they want to use our troops as cannon fodder...Yes in time Israel will expect more Christian sacrafice...to assist in their agenda - when was the last time Israel did us a favour?

I'm sorry you feel like that, Oleg. Really, the situation isn't that bleak.

But I think you'll find that when nations see hated enemies working overtime to gain a decisive advantage over them, they often act to head off the inevitable. You understand what I am saying? Judged by that standard, Israel doesn't have to stand there, waiting for annihilation.

Israel bombed a reactor that the French were building for Saddam, fearing that it would be used to build nuclear warheads that could be dropped on Tel Aviv. Nobody (really) blamed them. He likely would have done just as the Israelis feared.

This idea that there's some kind of entity that acts as a referee, interpreting an 'international law' rule book, is probably one you should discard.

We live in a really fortunate time because the top dog nation is one of the good guys. You know, democracy, mass prosperity, and all that crap. It turns out that a nation of hustlers and salesmen make a lot better neighbors than any European empire I can think of, particularly the ones the Russians were running at the time. God, if the KGB boys had their way, the whole continent of Europe would look like East Germany.

And if these guys prevail, the goats will chew up every bit of greenery and turn the place into a desert, just as they've done in other parts of the world.

[jbg]

Given prior US interference in Iran (Mossadegh), it's quite difficult to have any credibility when it comes to promoting democracy, given that they did the exact opposite in the fifties. The US will probably prefer to do things covertly.

I think the U.S. should promote its interests. Those usually, but don't always, coincide with democracy.

In certain situations populist rabble-rouses such as Mossadegh or for that matter Hitler are likely to win. I don't think we have to just sit there on principal and let very dangerous situations fester.

[ToadBrother]

I think the U.S. should promote its interests. Those usually, but don't always, coincide with democracy.

In certain situations populist rabble-rouses such as Mossadegh or for that matter Hitler are likely to win. I don't think we have to just sit there on principal and let very dangerous situations fester.

You're comparing Mossadegh to Hitler? That's a new one.

Come on, everyone knew then that the only reason the Shah was delivered his job back is because Mossadegh, with pretty broad public support, was kicking the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in the pants, and the US, at the request of Britain, got rid of him.

There was nothing noble about that coupe. It wasn't even enlightened self-interest. It was all about oil.

[bush_cheney2004]

...There was nothing noble about that coupe. It wasn't even enlightened self-interest. It was all about oil.

Those interests are one and the same.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think the U.S. should promote its interests. Those usually, but don't always, coincide with democracy.

I don't know why this very astute observation escapes so many people. They dream of a USA that has never really existed.

[KeyStone]

"Gosh, when did that happen? And did it have anything to do with Soviet plans for Iran?"

You know when it happened, and no, it had nothing to do with Soviet plans for Iran. Mossadegh did not like communists.

It had everything to do with the nationalization of the oil industry, and the US/UK being opposed to it.

"Of course, since then, Iran attacked the American embassy and took the staff prisoners -- itself an act of war. "

Some would say that organizing a coup to remove an elected government, is an act of war.

"Let me turn the sarcasm off, and just to put the question: why would any politically organized people deal with these barbaric liars?"

Sorry, your question is unclear. By barbaric liars, do you mean the American government?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Some would say that organizing a coup to remove an elected government, is an act of war.

How about removing a democratically elected president (Haiti)? Is that an "act of war"?

[KeyStone]

"Jeez, the Mossedegh mythology, which always omits how the dressing gown premier was playing footsie with the Russians, and the whole history of the crown of Iran."

It is probably omitted, because the alleged Russian plan was contrived, and had nothing to do with the coup.

"The prime players in the drama were the British, and, other in assenting in the move, the Americans did little."

No, the Americans didn't do much. They just funded, and organized the coup, and then trained SAVAK to deal with dissidents.

"The oil ended up nationalized anyway, licensed by the Shah, and used to modernize Iran."

Yeah, it had already been nationalized under Mossadegh, because the people demanded it.

"but if he's to be faulted, it's that he tried to westernize his people too fast."

LOL. I hadn't realized that replacing democracies with dictatorships, and having secret service kill political opponents was part of the Westernization process. You're hysterical.

"I think it is a time for world leaders to speak out."

1) Iran is very wary of foreign interference. Any explicit interference will be viewed negatively, and the internal group getting support from external interests, will suffer as a consequence.

2) Iran's elections are far from perfect, but they are much better than those of Saudi Arabia. How can we possibly condemn Iran for the faults with its elections, when Saudi Arabia has only token elections in municipalities, continues a multi-generational dictatorship, and routintely kills dissidents under the guise of fighting terror? Why the double standard?

Could it possibly be because Israel isn't telling us to engage Saudi Arabia, and because Saudi Arabia buys a krap load of stuff from the West?

[KeyStone]

I think the U.S. should promote its interests. Those usually, but don't always, coincide with democracy.

In certain situations populist rabble-rouses such as Mossadegh or for that matter Hitler are likely to win. I don't think we have to just sit there on principal and let very dangerous situations fester.

Basically, JBG, your opinion amounts to a complete abandonment of justice, or fairplay, and simply becomes a matter of might makes right.

We are the good guys. They are the bad guys. We can have all the weapons we want. They can't have any unless we say it is OK.

If they try to get weapons, we will kill as many as it takes to stop them.

The problem is not with the US supporting its own interests. The problem is with the US pretending to be the world's policeman, when in fact it's only real interest is itself - not democracy, not justice, and certainly not compassion. If the US is the world's policeman, than they are 'on the take'.

There are far too many instances of the US siding with dictatorships over democracies, simply because of where their alliances are, and the trading relationships they will prefer.

[KeyStone]

How about removing a democratically elected president (Haiti)? Is that an "act of war"?

Absolutely. There was no justification for us going into Haiti.

Unfortunately, Haiti does not have the unity nor military firepower to exact any revenge.

If you install a dictator for the next 10 years, who routinely kills political dissidents, then you might want to be wary of placing an embassy there.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The problem is not with the US supporting its own interests. The problem is with the US pretending to be the world's policeman, when in fact it's only real interest is itself - not democracy, not justice, and certainly not compassion. If the US is the world's policeman, than they are 'on the take'.

Of course...so what's the problem ? Why would any nation take on such a role (and debt) for purely altruistic reasons?

Cops get a paycheck and union benefits too.

[bush_cheney2004]

Absolutely. There was no justification for us going into Haiti.

So why did Canada, France, and the USA do it? For reasons having nothing to do with "justice"....and that is very consistent with previous adventures.

Unfortunately, Haiti does not have the unity nor military firepower to exact any revenge.

If you install a dictator for the next 10 years, who routinely kills political dissidents, then you might want to be wary of placing an embassy there.

Why? Embassies are like hotels in the board game Monopoly.

[Bonam]

It would be very naive to assume that the US doesn't have a hand in whatever unrest has been brewing in Iran as it is. Clearly, getting rid of the present regime in Iran is in the interest of the US, and the US always acts in its interests whoever the president may be. With the US not having the resources/will for direct intervention, covert support for dissidents in Iran is the best means of achieving their goals there. While black ops are carried out in Iran, Obama plays as hands-off as he can on the international stage to reduce suspicision and make Iran's accusations of foreign intervention sound hollow to its people.

A good strategy given the limited resources available to the US presently.

[Oleg Bach]

May as well conbdemn everyone involved in this upheavel..that includes most western nations and Israel included. What we have here is the begining of a youth revolt. The secualarist westerners are undermining this society. In eccense it is an attack against family - this is a revolution in the making that simply consists of son and daughter over throwing their father. What will take place once it's over and you have a government of nothing but 30 year olds?