Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/4/2006 7:58:57 AM EDT
From Winds Of Change


Kenneth Timmerman says that Iran is preparing to close the Strait of Hormuz
.
Ahmadinejad says a nuclear program is an inalienable right.

The Dubai debate - what about Iranian investment in the UAE?

The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany are to meet with Iran. The NYT calls that a surprise move, as if Europe rehashing the same arguments they've been having for years is something to be surprised by. Would you believe nothing came of it? Now we get to see the game played in the UN Security Council.

An ex-IRGC defector says Iran is training palestinians and Iraqis in at least twenty camps, in which 'Sunnis outnumber the Shiites'.

Iran has tested the Shihab-4, which the test results suggested has a range of 4,000km.

The 1 million strong Basij militia in Iran has been given police and defence powers.

The Foundation for Democracy in Iran says the State Department has set up an office dedicated to promoting democracy. Secretary Rice has also said State will set up a regional office in Dubai to deal with Iran and Iranians.

Reza Pahlavi, son of the former shah, has called on anti-regime exile groups to unite rather than waste time on in-fighting.

IranFocus says there is some serious purging going on in the Iranian 'government'.

Iran is doling out some energy contracts - Total, Royal Dutch Shell and Repsol, together are set to make nearly $3 billion. The contract involves producing and exporting gas, starting in 2009 - optimistic people...

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:22:00 AM EDT
Why am I beginning to think that I am going there next?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:23:08 AM EDT
Heres the problem as i see it. We are getting played by the Iranian Exiles just like we got suckered by the Iraqi exiles who promised us that "Iran is changing" "The Mullahs are finished" Etc ETc. Like somehow the MOST radical regime is somehow less dangerous than any other because they are "non-arab" So people keep saying dont do anything about the nuclear programme, they'll collapse soon enough anyway. Like somehow the Magic mullahs are gonna give up their ultimate position of power and authority for nothing and these radicals Mullahs can be "dealt with" diplomatically even if they have THE BOMB! What planet are these people living on? Planet Chomsky? The plain fact is the Europeans are on our side but are as useless as tits on a bull. They won't help one iota in preventing Iran get the bomb. Just blah blah blah. Even we AMericans might be in a tenous position because we are streached so thin. If we personally attacked Iran could our troops in Iraq repulse a Iranian invasion?? So essentially there is only one country that can do anything about it, Isreal. Can they do it? Will they do it? If not then Iran WILL get the bomb. It will become another north Korea. Any terrorists that get support from Iran like Hezbollah or Al-sadr's militia can act with impunity because Iran willl back them up strategically. They'll say to Isreal "withdraw from South Lebanon and stop attacking Hezbollah or we'll nuke you."
This is 10 times more serious than any other situation right now including Iraq. People say that Isreal has to attack somethime in the next 60 days or it'll be too late.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:27:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
Heres the problem as i see it. We are getting played by the Iranian Exiles just like we got suckered by the Iraqi exiles who promised us that "Iran is changing" "The Mullahs are finished" Etc ETc. Like somehow the MOST radical regime is somehow less dangerous than any other because they are "non-arab" So people keep saying dont do anything about the nuclear programme, they'll collapse soon enough anyway. Like somehow the Magic mullahs are gonna give up their ultimate position of power and authority for nothing and these radicals Mullahs can be "dealt with" diplomatically even if they have THE BOMB! What planet are these people living on? Planet Chomsky? The plain fact is the Europeans are on our side but are as useless as tits on a bull. They won't help one iota in preventing Iran get the bomb. Just blah blah blah. Even we AMericans might be in a tenous position because we are streached so thin. If we personally attacked Iran could our troops in Iraq repulse a Iranian invasion?? So essentially there is only one country that can do anything about it, Isreal. Can they do it? Will they do it? If not then Iran WILL get the bomb. It will become another north Korea. Any terrorists that get support from Iran like Hezbollah or Al-sadr's militia can act with impunity because Iran willl back them up strategically. They'll say to Isreal "withdraw from South Lebanon and stop attacking Hezbollah or we'll nuke you."
This is 10 times more serious than any other situation right now including Iraq. People say that Isreal has to attack somethime in the next 60 days or it'll be too late.



That is so wrong, in so many ways.

Israel has FIVE tanker aircraft. Even if they go nuclear they cannot get enough planes or IRBMs over the target to do the job.

The US Army is more than capable of dealing with a Iranian attack RIGHT NOW on Iraq. Heck, it would probably be preferred to the bug hunting they are doing now trying to hunt terrorists hiding in the civilian populaion- most of whom are NOT interested in the sectarian violence.

It does need to get quieter before we would be comfortable leaving the rear area to the Iraqi military and police and direct all our combat forces toward Iran, but that is the ultimate goal.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:33:13 AM EDT
Iran and Iraq were going at it before the WOT. I expect that will continue after we step out of the way.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:44:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Iran and Iraq were going at it before the WOT. I expect that will continue after we step out of the way.



How is Iraq going to do that when we are not giving them enough of a military to conduct a offensive against another country?

Plus, we can no longer afford to fight by proxy anymore, its how we got in this mess. Allies yes, but we need to do our own fighting for ourselves.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:04:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Iran and Iraq were going at it before the WOT. I expect that will continue after we step out of the way.



How is Iraq going to do that when we are not giving them enough of a military to conduct a offensive against another country?

Plus, we can no longer afford to fight by proxy anymore, its how we got in this mess. Allies yes, but we need to do our own fighting for ourselves.




Plus, Iraq isn't being run by the Sunnis any longer.......The Shiite majority would most likely help out their Shiite brothers from Iran......The United States just doesn't have the troops to support an invasion of Iran, AND occupy Iraq and Afghanistan....unless we start talking about a DRAFT.......If you jam a stick in the hornets nest, prepare to get stung!
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:57:14 AM EDT
I say hit them now and hit them hard.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:58:34 AM EDT


Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:04:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 10:05:07 AM EDT by MGNiko]
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:


I think he's saying "KISS ME, KISS ME"!!!
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:05:59 AM EDT
I don't see why people think that refueling Israeli aircraft is such a big deal.. If Israel is willing to go through the trouble of launching a strike against Iran, do you really think they will care if their aircraft make it back? Compare it to our cold war plans with Russia: Our B52's didn't have enough fuel for a round trip but it didn't stop us from making them part of our battle plans....
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 6:24:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Iran and Iraq were going at it before the WOT. I expect that will continue after we step out of the way.



How is Iraq going to do that when we are not giving them enough of a military to conduct a offensive against another country?

Plus, we can no longer afford to fight by proxy anymore, its how we got in this mess. Allies yes, but we need to do our own fighting for ourselves.




Plus, Iraq isn't being run by the Sunnis any longer.......The Shiite majority would most likely help out their Shiite brothers from Iran......The United States just doesn't have the troops to support an invasion of Iran, AND occupy Iraq and Afghanistan....unless we start talking about a DRAFT.......If you jam a stick in the hornets nest, prepare to get stung!



Quit fantasising about a draft. Low quality troops are not worth it.

We will soon not need US troops in Iraq and Afganistain- dont beleve the media. They will be free to attack Iran in a short time.

Attacking Iran from Iraq and Afganistan actually simplifies things. Iran is the biggest backer of insurgents in BOTH countries and physically it is between the two, so invading it makes a two front war into a ONE front war.

It would be doing what we FAILED to do in Vietnam when we DIDN'T invade Laos and the North.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 6:39:24 AM EDT
It seems as if all is well with Iran these past couple of weeks. Several weeks ago they were the biggest blip on the radar. Now, you have to search for the news on this topic.

I guess Cheney and the Bareback Mounting movie superceded those "yesterday's news" mullahs. I guess I should be enjoying the calm, unfortunately I fear the worst is yet to come.

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 10:46:03 AM EDT
This weekend I got all three vehciles filled with gas. A couple of more weeks and it will be warm enough to bike to work.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 10:51:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 10:54:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I don't see why people think that refueling Israeli aircraft is such a big deal.. If Israel is willing to go through the trouble of launching a strike against Iran, do you really think they will care if their aircraft make it back? Compare it to our cold war plans with Russia: Our B52's didn't have enough fuel for a round trip but it didn't stop us from making them part of our battle plans....



The Soviets were also probably at least somewhat capable of being humane to American POW's (Gary Powers, for instance). An Israeli crash-landing in the Middle East, however, is in for some big trouble.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 11:31:07 AM EDT
Reza is an idiot whose inner circle has been breached by the mullahs and he doesn't know it. The mullahs almost assasinated him. Then they figured out he did them more good alive than dead.

If we wait until Israel strikes I think it will cause far more chaos than if we go in.

rj
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 11:36:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CitizenSoldier:
Why am I beginning to think that I am going there next?




Unless you are a pilot, doubt it.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 11:39:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:


Reza Pahlavi, son of the former shah, has called on anti-regime exile groups to unite rather than waste time on in-fighting.



The Iranian people hate the Shah more than they hate the Mullahs.

The Shah was a gold plated dictator who's autocratic rule resulted in the whole Iranian Revolution mess.


ANdy



After 25 years of Mullahdom they dont think so badly.

Nothings changed except they got poorer.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:03:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:23:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:


Reza Pahlavi, son of the former shah, has called on anti-regime exile groups to unite rather than waste time on in-fighting.



The Iranian people hate the Shah more than they hate the Mullahs.

The Shah was a gold plated dictator who's autocratic rule resulted in the whole Iranian Revolution mess.


ANdy



After 25 years of Mullahdom they dont think so badly.

Nothings changed except they got poorer.



And I'm guessing you never worked in Iran or with Iranians during the Shah's reign....

I'd go home on a Friday, and when I came back on Monday another one of the Iranian I worked with had 'dissapearred' coutesy of SAVAK...

ANdy



So, then after all this time nothing has changed.

The Mullahs make just as many, if not more, people disappear.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:26:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:27:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:
Plus, Iraq isn't being run by the Sunnis any longer.......The Shiite majority would most likely help out their Shiite brothers from Iran


You really don't understand the Persian/Arab dynamic.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:29:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:31:21 PM EDT
Who thinks that everyone who wants to reply in Iran threads should have to read the definitive book on the subject of understanding the country? Kenneth Pollacks "Persian Puzzle." In all honesty, it is a great read.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:34:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By vito113:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
After 25 years of Mullahdom they dont think so badly.

Nothings changed except they got poorer.



And I'm guessing you never worked in Iran or with Iranians during the Shah's reign....

I'd go home on a Friday, and when I came back on Monday another one of the Iranian I worked with had 'dissapearred' coutesy of SAVAK...

ANdy



So, then after all this time nothing has changed.

The Mullahs make just as many, if not more, people disappear.



So what you are saying to the Iranians is Vote for a new Shah, sounds like it's a vote for back to the future.



You guess incorrectly

What it means is that the population of Iran realizes it made a big mistake- doubly so considering the Shah had only months to live...they would of had a new goverment revolution or no.

Of course that begs the question- how popular WAS the Islamic revolution- or did they just have more men than the Shah did and being really REALLY violent the rest of the population was cowed....

But to excuse the crimes of the Ayahtollah and the Revolution because of the Shah is silly.

Do you excuse the crimes of the Stazi simply because the Gestapo preceeded it?

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:36:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:40:29 PM EDT
I wouldn't mind seeing some more explanation of the persian/arab dynamic, or what the Iranans want or dont want to vote for.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:41:32 PM EDT
Why do you enlighten us with some of your gnosos. Explain the true meaning of the Islamic Revolution and why it should not be viewed as anything but a pestilance on mankind...
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:46:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Painter:
I wouldn't mind seeing some more explanation of the persian/arab dynamic, or what the Iranans want or dont want to vote for.


Just because someone is Shia doesn't mean all Shia's align with them. That's like saying there is only one sect of the Luthern Church.

We often get bogged down in labeling the two main Islamic sects without realizing the subtleties.

For instance, the Kurds aren't Turks or Persians, but they are Shia. Doesn't mean the Turks or the Iranians particularly like the Kurds. Iraqis are largely Arab. Iran is largely Persian. They don't necessarlly like each other. There are many tribal-type hatreds in the region, and neither Iraq nor Iran has forgotten the eight years of bloody war they fought.

As far as the Shah was concerned, he was too hard on his people. The Mullahs seemed like a good alternative he was so bad. While some might want to return to the "good old days" of the Shah, most likely they are either people who would benefit from a new Shah or people who don't remember the Shah's rule.

Neither the Shah nor the Mullahs are good alternatives.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:48:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:51:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Painter:
I wouldn't mind seeing some more explanation of the persian/arab dynamic, or what the Iranans want or dont want to vote for.


Just because someone is Shia doesn't mean all Shia's align with them. That's like saying there is only one sect of the Luthern Church.

We often get bogged down in labeling the two main Islamic sects without realizing the subtleties.

For instance, the Kurds aren't Turks or Persians, but they are Shia. Doesn't mean the Turks or the Iranians particularly like the Kurds. Iraqis are largely Arab. Iran is largely Persian. They don't necessarlly like each other. There are many tribal-type hatreds in the region, and neither Iraq nor Iran has forgotten the eight years of bloody war they fought.

As far as the Shah was concerned, he was too hard on his people. The Mullahs seemed like a good alternative he was so bad. While some might want to return to the "good old days" of the Shah, most likely they are either people who would benefit from a new Shah or people who don't remember the Shah's rule.

Neither the Shah nor the Mullahs are good alternatives.




Couldn't have put it better myself.

ANdy


The ironic thing is if you said all southerners in this country had the same accent, you get people from every southern state telling you how wrong you are and that the accents are totally different. Or if you confused someone from Oklahoma for someone from Texas you'd make people angry. Yet when those same people look half a world a way they fail to see the people occupying that area are about as homogenous as they are.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:57:38 PM EDT
Why is it assumed that anyone other than the boy himself wants there to be another Shah?

Why would one replace one failed regime with another?
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 1:23:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Why is it assumed that anyone other than the boy himself wants there to be another Shah?

Why would one replace one failed regime with another?


I agree with the second part. However, the last thing we need to do is be perceived as a friend of a new Shah. Any credibility we may have would go right out the window.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 1:30:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Why is it assumed that anyone other than the boy himself wants there to be another Shah?

Why would one replace one failed regime with another?


I agree with the second part. However, the last thing we need to do is be perceived as a friend of a new Shah. Any credibility we may have would go right out the window.



Except we are not, HE is butting in... although he has a point about then NEEDING to get togeather.

I guess he must own a chunk of the FT to get himself that press.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 2:25:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Why is it assumed that anyone other than the boy himself wants there to be another Shah?

Why would one replace one failed regime with another?


I agree with the second part. However, the last thing we need to do is be perceived as a friend of a new Shah. Any credibility we may have would go right out the window.



Except we are not, HE is butting in... although he has a point about then NEEDING to get togeather.

I guess he must own a chunk of the FT to get himself that press.



Perception is reality in that part of the world. Hell, it is here. If we get lumped with him it hurts us.
Top Top