Well Now This Should Start A Nice Fight......

I wish the effort against fundamentalist government well in Iran, but think we should keep our sticky fingers and big feet out of there.

0 Replies

"Iranian officials were instructed not to harrass al-Qa'eda personnel as they crossed the border and, in some cases, not to stamp their passports."

"A commission official, quoted in the latest edition of Time magazine, alleges that Iranian officials approached Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the USS Cole in 1999, proposing a joint strategy of attacks on US interests."

The above two quotes, if accurate, are more than sufficient justification in my mind to "strike against Iran's nuclear facilities". Were I in charge, I'd have done it already. Clinton faced the same decision with Yongbyon and did it wrong. That mistake should not be repeated.

BPB, I'm not sure what you see as convenient about that article. It sure doesn't make Bush's decision to attack Iraq look any better. Confused

0 Replies

Bill, if you had your choice, would you bomb everything on the planet, and keep bombing until the only livable piece of real estate was your little section of property in Florida?

Oh, I suppose you'd save that chunk of land in Costa Rica that you've had your eye on.

Well, go ahead, Bill.... bomb away.

That seems to be in vogue these days.

0 Replies

BBB made a brilliant analysis of the Bush military stratagem when she wrote:

Do you suppose we attacked Iraq due to a misspelling of Iran and simply got the two countries mixed up?

0 Replies

No Gus. I wouldn't. But I would do what I could to prevent Iran from getting "the bomb". While I don't think anyone is as bad as Kim for human rights abuses; I think, ideologically speaking, the leadership of Iran could prove to be even more dangerous. Idea

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Nimh - do you really see that happening anytime soon?

Oooooww well its not like I'm an expert of any kind about the country ... at all. In fact, if anything I should be a little discredited after I had it all wrong a little while ago; after the hardliners re-grabbed hold of power by stitching up the elections, I really did already expect a revolt of some kind. After all, earlier clampdowns by Khamenei's people had led to fierce student rebellions, and the students obviously enjoy the sympathy of the urban population (most of it too young to have lived through or remember 1979) ...

But it fizzled. Perhaps the population had already been numbed by the deadlock of the previous years, when the democratically elected President and parliament kept slamming their head into the juduicial/legislative wall of the conservatives that dominate the bodies whose power overrode theirs ... perhaps Khatami had already made so many compromises, was so half-hearted about opposing the conservatives' new blatant grab for power, that people just became demoralised, resigned, disgusted by it all ... I dunno.

I do think that, even if a new period of stagnation seems to have started now, the conservatives will not be able to hold on to power for a whole many more years. The Iranian population is young - half the population is under 25, or something amazing like that. And they've exhibited great impatience in the past few years. And of course - whenever they were offered a reasonably free choice in elections, such as in the ones before the last, they massively voted in reformists and progressives. Culturally, too, most of the young people seems to have long shrugged off the mullahs' admonishments - the only way the regime holds on to power now is through intimidation and through spreading the sense that resistance is no use, anyway - after all, look at how it went last time. Good enough spiel - but it cant work forever.

From your lips to the ears of providence!

0 Replies

Earl Grey wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
... before we need to invade [Iran]...

Need?
This kind of attitude on the US part is not helpful in making friends.

I sure hope the "need" never arises, but should the leaders of Iran get any stupid ideas in their head and start funding and protecting groups like al Qaeda, then that "need" may arise.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I sure hope the "need" never arises, but should the leaders of Iran get any stupid ideas in their head and start funding and protecting groups like al Qaeda, then that "need" may arise.

"Need?" God, you are so well-informed . . . the "need" arose long ago, by your thoughtless criterion.

0 Replies

Thoughtless?

0 Replies

Well, what an inopportune time for this information to finally be considered! Seems if we had to beat up somebody, Iran would have been a better choice than Iraq, hmm?
Great. Just great.
I hope if we help Iran from the inside, we do a better job than when we supposedly tried to help Iraq from the inside, where it seems we merely led the people to slaughter. And I sure hope we don't install a CIA buddy to run their country when all is said and done. We haven't done very well with choosing leaders for any country.

0 Replies

I don't know, we chose the last leader for the US correctly last time.

0 Replies

Who might that be?

0 Replies

As has been pointed out the CIA has already helped out Iran once or twice already which is why there is an antiamerican government there now.

0 Replies

Rabel22
Rabel22, can you shah me any evidence for that?

BBB :wink:

0 Replies

The anti-American government in Iran goes way back to all of Reagan's mistakes there.

0 Replies

Good one BBB. Ill bet a lot of the posters dont know that the CIA destroyed a democratically elected government to install the Shah of Iran as king.

0 Replies

rabel
rabel, us Americans are so ignorant of events outside our borders, even inside sometimes.

BBB

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I don't know, we chose the last leader for the US correctly last time.

"We?" A telling remark. This means that McGentrix can be one of five people.

My money is on Clarence Thomas.

Well Now This Should Start A Nice Fight......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know