Why Iran?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
1,605
Location
Turkmenbashin'
i personally dont understand why on earth the americans have lined iran up as their next target in the 'axis of evil'

for one there is absolutely nothing wrong with their people, ok they arent as glamourously dressed as americans, there are a few americans that arent very tolerant and think every place in the world has to be like west virginia

if there is one country which is obtuse and has all kinds of problems with tolerance; treatment of women and all that it is SAUDI ARABIA, but you dont see anyone saying anything about them now do we?
 
Actually, I don't think too many Americans are all that keen on going to Iran-they're sick to death of our still being mixed up in Iraq, so that makes the Bush administration's push for Iran even more nonsensical. Why push for something that won't get you much support, if any?

No, it's mainly just our government who wants to go to Iran. 'Cause they're just stupid like that. I particularly want to know where Bush intends on getting the money and means to go there-we can't afford to give children healthcare, but we can blow our (nonexistent) money on wars we don't need to be involved in. Yep. That's logical :huh:.

And I've got no issues with the people of Iran in general-I'm quite sure that they're a decent group of people overall.

It's a mystery, this whole "war with Iran" idea. And a scary one at that. WE DON'T NEED MORE VIOLENCE.

Angela
 
America always needs an enemy.

Before Iran, it was "the insurgents".
Before "the insurgents", it was Saddam Hussein.
Before Saddam, it was Osama bin Laden.
Before Osama, it was Saddam.
Before Saddam, it was Slobodan Milosevic.
Before Milosevic, it was Saddam.
Before Saddam, it was the USSR, Ho Chi Minh, Noriega, the Sandinistas, the Ayatollah, all the way back to King George the Third.

We'll see Kim-Jung Il creeping higher and higher on this list too if the Iranian "threat" goes away or backs off.

America always, always needs an enemy. And the government is always more than happy to provide one.
 
Very glad to see healthy scepticism about desire to wage war on Iran. I hope you persuade other Americans to not listen to bullies in the Bush administration who go on and on about Iran's transgressions but mention nothing about interfering in Iran's democratic processes and backing the Shah to take on full and brutal control just because they didn't want a neutral Iran.

This led to the Iranian revolution, which was the only opposing faction in civil society radical enough to overthrow the Shah and it sadly took American hostages, but Reagan funded an 8-year war against Iran by supplying Saddam with conventional weapons and chemical/biological weapons to use against Iranians. Behaviorally, that's terrorism, if I've ever heard a rational definition.

Whatever tenuous links Iran might have with enabling Al Qaeda, the US has supported Israel's state oppression and violence against Palestinians for decades and supervises a biased peace process, and has grown more biased under Clinton and now George W. Bush.

Despite all this, Iranians were quite pro-American in the '90s and over a million Iranians took to the streets of Tehran after 9/11 in mourning and solidarity. Bush responds, as only a fool seeing only obstacles to his superficial ambition for glory and empire can, by frightening Iranians with his Axis of Evil speech. Ahmadinejad's election is very much tied to these fears. And the fear of American invasion has allowed fundamentalist, rightist elements to gain strength in crushing much of the progress made in creating liberal civil society.

Iran's desire for nuclear energy and even nuclear defense is rational, since the US proved it was likely to invade any country without nukes (as it did Iraq) and negotiate with any country that had them (North Korea). It is also the US which has talked for the past several years about resurrecting the Star Wars program (Strategic Defensive Initiative). Given this administration's record, I don't think it's inconceivable that an American leader would arise that would obliterate anyone it wants to, while protecting itself and its "allies" with a nuclear shield. I wish I weren't so cynical and pessimistic about America, but I've been very disillusioned these last years.

Despite Bush's proclammations, he doesn't give a damn about Muslim peoples or even those outside of his social circle. America's actions in Iraq are shameless, as many collaborators promised safety have not been given it, and now risk death from insurgents. Bush has refused to swear off permanent bases and refused to promise that Iraq's oil profits will go to Iraqis; instead, it would allow American corporations to go in and profit. I never believed the radical leftists who said it was all about oil or those who said Americans WEREN'T morally superior.

I now see they were mostly right. It took me a long time to acknowledge America's hypocrisy, but I finally did, and I fear America's politicians will go the same old path. Hilary Clinton is again bullying Iran. John Edwards is violently pro-Israeli. The GOP is a joke.

The only people I'd trust on the Middle East would be Chuck Hagel -- the only one to decry the carte blanche given to Israel's 2006 massacre of 1000 innocent Lebanese civilians -- and he's leaving the Senate. Even those who portray Iran correctly, such as Ron Paul and especially Mike Gravel -- are silenced by arrogant media elites like George Stephanopoulis and worse. This is all so depressing.
 
Last edited:
Here we go again...

U.S. slaps new sanctions on Iran

* Story Highlights
* U.S. names Iran group as proliferator of weapons of mass destruction
* Sanctions will help U.S. block financial assets of Iran's Revolutionary Guard
* Sanctions announced Thursday by secretaries of State, Treasury

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Thursday announced new economic sanctions against Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Quds Force.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps is being designated by the United States as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and the Quds force as a supporter of terrorism.

The sanctions mean that no "U.S. citizen or private organization will be allowed to engage in financial transactions with these persons and entities," Rice said. "In addition, any assets that these designees have under U.S. jurisdiction will be immediately frozen."

The United States also designated three Iranian state-owned banks for sanctions, two of them "for their involvement in proliferation activities" and the other "as a terrorist financier," Rice said.

"Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars each year through the international financial system to terrorists," Paulson said. "Iran's banks aid this conduct using a range of deceptive financial practices intended to evade even the most stringent risk management controls."

"The Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon; building dangerous ballistic missiles; supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories; and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map," Rice said.

The Quds Force is blamed by the U.S. military for training and arming Shiite militias in Iraq and smuggling highly lethal explosives into Iraq, where they are used to attack coalition forces. Iran denies the charge.

Previous sanctions imposed by the United States have been tied to Iran's nuclear program. The United States believes Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, a claim that the Islamic republic denies, saying its program is for peaceful purposes only.

Last month, representatives of world powers announced that unless a November report shows a "positive outcome" of talks with Iran about its uranium enrichment program, they will move ahead with plans for a resolution imposing additional sanctions on the country.

The announcement came out of a meeting of what the participants termed the "P5 plus two." The meeting included Rice and the foreign ministers of the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Britain, China, France and Russia -- along with the foreign minister of Germany and Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief who has held nuclear talks with Iran.

The Security Council has repeatedly demanded that Iran suspend enrichment of uranium and has imposed limited sanctions on Tehran for refusing to comply. The United States has been trying to cut Iran off from the international financial system and the European Union is weighing its own unilateral sanctions.

CNN's Kathleen Koch and Elise Labott contributed to this report.

It's like 2002 all over again! :happy:


:|
 
Some yes or no questions to consider...

Would you consider the Iranian government to be Islamic Fundamentalist?

Would you consider them to have a Jihadist point of view?

Do you think they really would wipe Isreal off the face of the earth as proposed by their President?

Do you think they are developing nuclear weapons?

Do you think we should stop them from developing nuclear weapons?

Is it any of our business?
 
I'm not sure some of these can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". I'm not familiar enough with the Iranian government to say for certain whether or not they are Islamic fundamentalists and are Jihadist in their views, but I dunno, I would guess that some Iranians follow that line of thinking and some don't.

But regarding that third question, I think one thing that might help is if we acknowledge that both sides have done some horrific things and try and work on bringing both sides together to compromise. Yes, there are people on both sides that want to see the other one gone completely, but there are also those who just want to go about their lives in peace-you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. Let's try to work with the latter group of people for once instead of just completely siding with one group of people, and see what happens.

As for the other stuff...

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Do you think they are developing nuclear weapons?

Possibly. Who knows?

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Do you think we should stop them from developing nuclear weapons?

We have nuclear weapons, too. Why is it okay for us to have them but nobody else can? If the U.S. wants to stop Iran from making them, fine, but then we have to stop funding money towards making our own fancy war toys, too.

And I know this is incredibly idealistic thinking, but I'd like to think there's a way we could stop a country from making nuclear weapons without getting ourselves into another war to do so (or at the very least, let's try and maybe actually get, you know, some hard PROOF that they made or are making nuclear weapons before going in and starting a war with them). I guess I'd just say, "Well, we thought Iraq had those, too, and look how well that mission turned out!"

How does the old saying go, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? That's what was going through my mind as I read that article DaveC posted.

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Is it any of our business?

Once it becomes a real threat to people, yeah. But just building weapons alone isn't really enough reason to start a war, because once again, lots of countries have weapons. I'd worry once they started actually using them or there was sufficient evidence that they were plotting to do so, myself.

On the other hand, do people really want America to be the world police?

Angela
 
MadelynIris said:
Some yes or no questions to consider...

Anyone living in this obvious, dynamic world of variables, who views the world through the prism of absolutes, black and white, good/evil, is simply a fundamentalist of a different stripe.
 
Anyone living in this obvious, dynamic world of variables, who views the world through the prism of absolutes, black and white, good/evil, is simply a fundamentalist of a different stripe

U2DMFan,

Although I appreciate your comments, you're painting me as a fundamentalist of a different stripe is quite offensive.

Every argument or proof has to start somewhere, usually with the most basic known facts possible. I was simply trying to start with a basic premise. Do you think that I don't know or understand there are a billion microcosmic factors that would weigh into a foriegn policy decision?

For example the NPR report this morning on Iran's despicable infiltration into the Shiite/Sunni conflict in Iraq, where specific orders are given to Iranian mercs to pose as Sunnis, rape Shiite girls, and go to the Shiites and Americans to tell them, to incite violence against the Sunnis.

One example of a million, I'm sure.

Do you think Hilary is equally as crazy as Bush -- I've heard her hard stance against Iran's government. What's with her?
 
diamond said:
I don't know guys.


When I hear "Death To Israel" led by Iran's President: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in front of thousands and thousands of Iranians similar to a Nazi Rally -I get a little concerned.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

Besides posting these videos (I can't watch them since I'm in the library at school), care to elaborate on your position on all this?

I'm genuinely curious :)
 
DaveC said:


Besides posting these videos (I can't watch them since I'm in the library at school), care to elaborate on your position on all this?

I'm genuinely curious :)

Well, I'm not gung ho in "let's bomb Iran", but I am concerned.
When you get a chance, watch them.

I don't think there is a "misinterpretation or mistranslation" offered by some here. Iran's antimosity towards America and Israel-the leaders of Iran I mean, is clearly evident here, so I say watch them closely.

dbs
 
Seriously,

Why Iran, when you have Syria?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa35.cfm

ap_us_syria_suspected_nuclear_site_195_24Oct07.jpg



Two satellite images made available by Digital globe show a suspected nuclear facility site before and after an Israeli airstrike
A U.S.-based research institute says new satellite images show a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor site has been completely dismantled since its apparent bombing in September by Israeli aircraft.

Analysts at the Institute for Science and International Security say the images taken Wednesday show tractor marks where the facility stood before the September 6 air strike. They say the images also show what appears to be a trench that might have held buried pipelines connecting the suspected reactor facility to a water supply station.

The analysts say the cleanup will hinder a proposed investigation of the site by international nuclear inspectors. They say the dismantling of the building at such a rapid pace also suggests Syria may be trying to conceal evidence of what was there.

Damascus has denied the air strike targeted a nuclear facility. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said Israel targeted an "unused military building."

Earlier this week, the Institute for Science and International Security said satellite images of the Syrian site taken about a month before the Israeli air strike showed construction that resembled the early stages of a small nuclear reactor.

Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright, who heads the institute, and researcher Paul Brannan said the imagery showed a tall building that may have housed a reactor under construction. They said it was similar in design to a North Korean nuclear reactor.

Israel recently lifted a media blackout on news reports about the raid, confirming that its warplanes hit what it called a "military target" deep inside Syrian territory.
 
MadelynIris said:

Do you think Hilary is equally as crazy as Bush -- I've heard her hard stance against Iran's government. What's with her?

I quoted you eariler (re:yes/no questions) to make my own premise.
If my statement about fundamentalists doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply. If it does, consider yourself an offended fundamentalist.


I think Iran is a threat, always have.
I think they should be dealt with in some manner but I'd rather see a Clinton or even Giuliani administration gets their hands on the real Intel before I'd trust the cowboy chimp Bush admin to make a single more decision of this magnitude.

They will not be able to develop a nuke by Jan 2009.
So I can wait, personally.

It's not a question of crazy, it's a question of competence.
Nobody has to cook up the bogeyman with Iran like they did with Hussein, we've got Ahmaninejad talking about wiping out Israel etc. I think it's a question of gauging the severity. And furthermore the competence of executing a plan to thwart them.

When you're a fundamentalist, say George W Bush, and you believe there is a man in the sky who adorned you the leader of the 'good fight', then maybe you make decisions that most other folk, in the same position wouldn't make. Or maybe he's just not that smart.

I think Dick Cheney and the neo-conservative brigade have done a drastic disservice to George W Bush but in turn, he's the one making the decisions.

I ask you, how can I trust a damn thing coming from this group in the White House? I simply don't.
 
Last edited:
I ask you, how can I trust a damn thing coming from this group in the White House? I simply don't

Unfortunately, I don't think there was much to trust about the Clinton Whitehouse either, and I'm not sure about the next one.

That seems to be the fundamental problem.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
I'd worry once they started actually using them or there was sufficient evidence that they were plotting to do so, myself.


Angela

You'd worry only once they started using nukes?
Hopefully it won't come to that.

And isn't that what we/they are trying to avoid?

But yours is an interesting viewpoint because you question why Iran can't have nukes too.
Even Iran's neighbours don't want them to be succesful in that endeavour.
 
I think that internal politics make a nuclear Iran relatively benign to any other nation, but much like Pakistan the trading of nuclear technology raises the risks exponentially.
 
ladywithspinninghead said:
You'd worry only once they started using nukes?
Hopefully it won't come to that.

I hope it won't, either, believe me. But keep in mind, too, I also said there'd have to be sufficient evidence that they were plotting to use them as well. So allow me to rephrase a bit-I'll start worrying when there's sufficient proof they're going to use them. When that starts happening, then it becomes other people's business.

ladywithspinninghead said:
And isn't that what we/they are trying to avoid?

Indeed it is. But I think we're going about doing that poorly.

ladywithspinninghead said:
But yours is an interesting viewpoint because you question why Iran can't have nukes too.
Even Iran's neighbours don't want them to be succesful in that endeavour.

And I don't understand that. I don't understand why any countries that have weapons suddenly get all nervous when someone else wants them. They want to defend themselves just like anybody else, after all.

Like I said, if we demand Iran never get its hands on nuclear weapons, that's fine. I'd be happy with that. But then we, and any other countries that have weapons, should probably start rethinking keeping our arsenals around, too. It just seems really hypocritical otherwise.

Angela
 
Well, look at it in this context. The United States government undoubtedly considers Iran an enemy...isn't it natural that they wouldn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

I rarely agree with our government, certainly not with the Bush administration...but I think trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of perceived enemies while having them ourselves isn't hypocrisy, it's strategy. I mean, the US probably has more WMD's than the rest of the world has combined, yet we made up the WMD bugaboo as an excuse to attack Iraq...talk about hypocrisy.
 
CTU2fan said:
Well, look at it in this context. The United States government undoubtedly considers Iran an enemy...isn't it natural that they wouldn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

I rarely agree with our government, certainly not with the Bush administration...but I think trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of perceived enemies while having them ourselves isn't hypocrisy, it's strategy.

Oh, yeah, you're absolutely right-I understand the reasoning behind that line of thinking, definitely. It certainly makes sense when you look at it that way.

It's just that, unfortunately for us, countries like Iran probably have that exact same line of thinking and are probably using that same strategy. We may not see it as hypocritical to not let them have weapons, but they might. And that's something I just think the U.S. might do well to realize, is all.

CTU2fan said:
I mean, the US probably has more WMD's than the rest of the world has combined, yet we made up the WMD bugaboo as an excuse to attack Iraq...talk about hypocrisy.

Agree wholeheartedly with this.

Angela
 
Europe faces tough choices on Iran

By Kim Murphy
Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2007


LONDON -- With tough new U.S. sanctions against Iran now in place, the next step falls to European nations: Will they agree on biting measures of their own, the only way to make the unilateral U.S. action truly effective?

European officials expressed worry Friday that the Bush administration's designation of Iranian agencies and firms as supporters of terrorism and purveyors of weapons threatens efforts to bring Iran back into the fold of diplomacy. That could erect a formidable barricade against relations with Tehran for years to come, some analysts warned. "It will make things much more difficult," said Alex Bigham of the London-based Foreign Policy Center, echoing the uneasy sentiment across the continent about the go-it-alone U.S. stand. "Obviously this is about Bush trying to be tough and ratchet up the pressure on Iran, but also it's kind of trying to lock in his successor. Because it's one thing to put an organization on the terrorist list, and quite another matter to take it off."

The U.S. on Thursday imposed sweeping sanctions targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which it labeled a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and more than 20 individuals and companies associated with the powerful military organization. The Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force unit was declared a supporter of terrorism. The measures not only prohibit U.S. business contacts but also threaten access to American markets for foreign companies that do business with designated companies in Iran.

But many European analysts said Friday that it would be difficult to hope to engage Tehran in negotiations while attempting to isolate groups such as the Revolutionary Guard, from whose ranks Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many of his colleagues have emerged. Cornering Iran's military hard-liners could diminish the government's willingness to negotiate and is unlikely to produce the hoped-for wedge between the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian public, many Europeans fear. "The idea that there is a clear separation between the population and the Revolutionary Guard is completely false," said Thierry Colville of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations in Paris. "There has been an eight-year war with 500,000 dead in Iran," he said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. "It looks like the U.S. has forgotten this war, which legitimized the Guard."

European leaders feel compelled to support those in the Bush administration who favor sanctions over military threats, yet are concerned about jeopardizing their own lucrative business ties to Iran. Europe is Iran's biggest trading partner, and even the tough new U.S. sanctions will not bite unless European businesses scale back their multibillion-dollar trade and investments in Iran. Several European banks have curbed their ties with Tehran. But European oil and engineering firms continue to do a robust trade, underwriting much of Iran's new oil and gas expansion and industrial operations. Still, a consensus is emerging that the European Union will have to adopt its own unilateral sanctions, possibly within the next few weeks, to complement the U.S. action. Europe's support is needed, particularly in the face of Russian and Chinese reluctance, if the administration hopes to force Iran to back down on its controversial uranium enrichment program.

Russia's position was clear Friday: "Why aggravate the situation now, why push [Iran] into a blind alley, threaten it with sanctions or hostilities?" said President Vladimir V. Putin, who a day earlier described the new U.S. sanctions as "running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand."

Britain, which has come out strongly endorsing both the unilateral U.S. steps and the idea of a third round of United Nations sanctions if Iran does not comply with international demands, is pushing for strong EU action. But the U.S. should not get impatient if the Europeans take their time in order to achieve a consensus, especially since Europe has already imposed an arms embargo on Iran, a British official said Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The EU haven't exactly been sitting and not delivering anything on this. Yes, it has been a slow process, but that's the way the EU works, on the basis of consensus," the official said.

Now, following French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for independent EU action on sanctions to back up President Bush, European leaders are looking at various measures. They include banning travel and restricting visas for some Iranian officials, freezing assets and levying penalties that would target key players in Iran's nuclear program. "You've got to hit them where it hurts, which is obviously what the Americans decided to do. So now is the time to bring the EU's quite significant pressure to bear on Iran, and look at practical measures," the British official said.

European leaders say an EU decision could be made within the next few weeks, with the possibility of another round of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council if the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, does not report full cooperation from Iran before then.

Bringing on board nations such as Germany and Italy, which together had more than $7 billion in exports to Iran last year, will be difficult. Berlin already saw Russia pick up the contracts German companies abandoned for Iran's Bushehr nuclear power station; now, European companies fear that Russia and China will move in if the EU imposes sanctions outside a U.N. framework. There are signs, however, that both Germany and Italy are prepared to back whatever consensus is reached within the EU. One factor is Germany's desire to make sure sanctions have a chance to work, as a means of discouraging the alternative prospect of military action, said Henning Riecke of the German Council on Foreign Relations in a phone interview from Berlin.

"If you have too weak sanctions, or if you don't agree to them, you might play into the hands of those in Washington who want to seek a military solution, the Cheney faction," Riecke said, referring to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. "So to support the supporters of a diplomatic solution, you had better support sanctions." Italy so far has taken a wait-and-see approach, preferring no increase in sanctions, but unprepared to buck a European tide.

It seems unlikely that France's Sarkozy will be successful in prevailing on his European partners to adopt tough unilateral sanctions, said Franco Pavoncello, president of John Cabot University in Rome, in a telephone interview. Many feel "that maybe this is not the proper time to push the Iranians into a corner. But should Europe go along with America," Pavoncello said, "you won't have Italy producing a lonely voice and saying no."
 
Back
Top Bottom