# Freedom in Iran, a realization of Bush's plan for the Middle East



## American Horse (Jun 20, 2009)

Their question is Where is my vote?  This is what the signs they are holding say in both Farsi and English.

This election has afforded them a world stage  to look across the border to the West, towards free Iraq, a people only a border away, a conveniently symbolic direction, and ask: Why not us too?  It cant be lost on Iranians that their own country's government  did  everything it could to discourage or cut short the new political freedom the Iraqis are now enjoying.  That is a big part of the reason that their signs are also written in English.  It's an appeal to the country which has clearly worked for democracy in their region. They are speaking directly to America, as brothers and sisters in in their hope for democracy.  

The desperation of the Mullas and Ahmadinejad is revealed by the fact that some of the "Militia" are Arab speakers, unable to speak Farsi (per WSJ article 19-June-09 "The Fear is Gone"), all the while in Iraq a judge recently found illegal a law that deprived an Iraqi citizen of his legal rights.  That is what the rule of law is supposed to do.

But it could easily be said that whats happening in Iran right now is a direct result of the freedom in Iraq. We can pretty conclusively say that it would not be happening now, except for that. The change of Iran into a true democracy would also help us in a moral victory in Afghanistan over the Taliban, and everywhere over the Al Qaeda; who knows, even Pakistan would eventually be favorably influenced. 

All at once wed have a tier of democracies, hopefully, soon stable across the region.  The whole region from Turkey to India might be consolidated as democracies.  What a remarkable legacy that would be for an American President, starting with President Bush, and fostered to completion by President Obama.

Map of the region from Turkey to India  Connecting the dots.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 20, 2009)

I cannot see a sound moral objection to the forcible removal of dictatorships and installment of democratic governments; the military force that would be required to accomplish it would be a less severe authoritarian imposition than the policies of the dictatorship had it remained in place would have been.

However, there is a critical divergence between the theoretical model of a clean regime change and the actual manifestation of it, not least of which being the fact that the motives of those who favor regime changes are not the purest in nature. Regarding your mention of "democracy" in Iraq, there was most certainly support of the dictator Saddam Hussein when it served the interests of the ruling administration here. John F. Kennedy, perhaps the most radically interventionist president in American history, certainly supported the Baathist revolt in Iraq when military head of state Abd al-Karim Qasim became too "uppity" for his administration's interests. 

The same was true shortly prior, when his government continued the anti-Castro campaign in Cuba initiated by his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, through the approval and involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion and related attempts to assassinate Castro himself, all portions of "Operation Mongoose," or the "Cuban Project." Certain elements of that plan could accurately be called manifestations of state terrorism, no matter how much a nationalistic military veteran like our admin is unwilling to admit it. To his credit, Kennedy did oppose the proposed Operation Northwoods, which would have involved a violent and destructive false-flag operation that entailed the murder of American civilians so as to blame the incident on the Castro government and thus justify an invasion. But the actions of the government at that time are all the more appalling because this campaign did not involve opposition to the full-fledged dictator Fidel Castro, but to a far younger Fidel Castro, who was only a recently declared Marxist-Leninist and had overseen the establishment of more equitable economic policies that involved the provision of greater well-being than his predecessor, the dictator Fulgencio Batista, had ever been able or willing to bring about. Such a campaign was hardly supported by anti-authoritarian sentiment. 

The same is true for the CIA-backed removal of Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz and Chilean president Salvador Allende, only to have the latter replaced by the brutal military dictator Augusto Pinochet, not to mention the support of the Contras, Somoza, Batista, Trujillo, Noriega, etc. These dictatorial regimes were supported by proponents of the same interventionist ideology that George W. Bush was later to put into action yet again. And it's thus only necessary to mention the most obvious manifestation of American government supported regime change that Iranians would well remember: Operation Ajax, which entailed the removal of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and the parliamentary democracy and empowerment of the monarch Mohammad Rez&#257; Sh&#257;h Pahlavi, who subsequently ruled over Iran with an iron fist, terrorizing the citizenry with his brutal SAVAK police until the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the return of Ayataollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It's due to that factor that it's only appropriate for the American head of state and government representatives to refrain from excessively meddlesome actions, lest the "hard-liners" seize on this as justification for their continued rule, which they can then claim is warranted by a need for a powerful defense to resist American intervention...the same mentality empowers the neoconservatives of this country.


----------



## American Horse (Jun 20, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> I cannot see a sound moral objection to the forcible removal of dictatorships and installment of democratic governments; the military force that would be required to accomplish it would be a less severe authoritarian imposition than the policies of the dictatorship had it remained in place would have been.....
> <Snip>



It's a cruel world; Eisenhower, Kennedy, _Etal._ believed that sincerely; the Iraqis, Iranians, and hopefully the Afghanistanis, and even the Pakistanis are all aware of that fact in its current permutation, and they will begin to appreciate what we've tried to do because there is no one else who will even begin to try.  If the last two rebuff our noble efforts (Yes we are capable of trying to do the right thing), they will have a long wait for a better world, at least those of their people who are the most enlightened.

The last two, I believe because of their trible nature lending itself to lawlessness, will have the most change to endure and will resist it most, so change in the middle will be slow.  They will be a tough nut to crack, and the turnover of our people does not help us get the job done.


----------



## Missourian (Jun 20, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Their question is Where is my vote? This is what the signs they are holding say in both Farsi and English.
> 
> This election has afforded them a world stage to look across the border to the West, towards free Iraq, a people only a border away, a conveniently symbolic direction, and ask: Why not us too? It cant be lost on Iranians that their own country's government did everything it could to discourage or cut short the new political freedom the Iraqis are now enjoying. That is a big part of the reason that their signs are also written in English. It's an appeal to the country which has clearly worked for democracy in their region. They are speaking directly to America, as brothers and sisters in in their hope for democracy.
> 
> ...


 
I totally agree with this excellent post, with the exception of seven words.  

President Obama's "We won't meddle" doctrine will not cement his name into the history books as a defender of Iranian freedom.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 20, 2009)

Just more naked American Imperialism

Bomb the unwashed brown people into democracys because we know whats best for them.


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 20, 2009)

I am deeply sorry for the all of the Iranian posters and citizens in the United States that are asking this question, but the truth of the matter is that you never had a vote. Once the hardliners took control of the political arena, the election process was only a piece of fiction to be used to deceive as many as possible. You are living in a fantasy land big time if you think the hardliners will ever give that up and as long as any country maintains a combined of both civil and religious power that is inter-twined - it will remain that way.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jun 20, 2009)

stupid propaganda.

i'd like to vomit now


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 20, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> stupid propaganda.
> 
> i'd like to vomit now



What are you calling propaganda? - your post is vague and incoherent


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 20, 2009)

American Horse said:


> It's a cruel world; Eisenhower, Kennedy, _Etal._ believed that sincerely; the Iraqis, Iranians, and hopefully the Afghanistanis, and even the Pakistanis are all aware of that fact in its current permutation, and they will begin to appreciate what we've tried to do because there is no one else who will even begin to try.  If the last two rebuff our noble efforts (Yes we are capable of trying to do the right thing), they will have a long wait for a better world, at least those of their people who are the most enlightened.
> 
> The last two, I believe because of their trible nature lending itself to lawlessness, will have the most change to endure and will resist it most, so change in the middle will be slow.  They will be a tough nut to crack, and the turnover of our people does not help us get the job done.



The immorality of the world manifests itself through more elements than merely the cruel and "rough" nature that you believe necessitates decisive military force to secure genuine accomplishments. It also manifests itself through the motivations of those who would support the interventionist program that you do not because of some desire to do good or spread democratic or libertarian mores, but because of genuine _imperial ambitions_. Support for the imperialism of whatever radically interventionist government happens to be in place here often stems from an interest in financial profit or the accomplishment of less dubious ideological goals than the spread of democracy. There was little "authoritarian" element in Mossadeq's parliamentary democracy to oppose; it was objection to his oil nationalization schemes that formed a basis for opposition to him, because attempts to secure national profit for a national citizenry angered foreign profiteers. Anti-democratic imperialism thus served as their "solution."


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jun 20, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > stupid propaganda.
> ...



i am calling the original post of this thread stupid propaganda.

i can understand your accusation of vagueness, but what was incoherent about my post?


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 20, 2009)

I understand that many people incorrectly believe that President Obama should defend the people of Iran. obviously I am not in agreement with that for several reasons. The United States have already stuck their nose into Afghanistan and Iraq and simply can't afford to waste valuable resources on parts of the world that have been fighting and killing each other since the beginning of time. In addition, the more he says right now, the worse it will be and will also give the barbarian in charge a reason to kill more - right now is the time to be quiet, wait and see what happens and collect information. Now I would approve of allowing Israel bombing and obliterating their nuclear capabilities though


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 20, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> lcrackel said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but it seemed like you were attacking american democracy and I didn't see where your post had a reference point or too since there were already a few. I would call the post stupid or propaganda, but I would call it unrealistic. Many americans believe that we the USA should police the world wherever there is a problem and I was around when I witnessed the barbaric way that the same type of youths that brought that type of government into power, siezed american citizens and tortured them. I definately believe the USA should mind their own business and stay out of it. We have no formal relations with the country and we should leave it that way


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 20, 2009)

I have to add that I also find it interesting that more then a year ago or so when the same man that is accused of stealing the election was in the process of stating that the Holocost never happened and that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood - never objected and never protested such barbaric and primative statements and now want some one to do something. These are the same people that gave this government a legitimate form to operate for the last 30 years - so if a man admits he would murder an entire country of people, why are you so suprised at him stealing an election?  - GET REAL


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 20, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> The United States have already stuck their nose into Afghanistan and Iraq and simply can't afford to waste valuable resources on parts of the world that have been fighting and killing each other since the beginning of time.



While the first part of your post was generally sound, it doesn't seem inaccurate to note that the current political situation in Iran is partially due to previous U.S. intervention in the country, not the population's own "perpetually disorderly conduct."



lcrackel said:


> Now I would approve of allowing Israel bombing and obliterating their nuclear capabilities though



Israel is a small country, and it would only require decent mid-range missile capabilities for Iran to strike back against whatever hostile action the ruling administration chose to take, even without them having developed nuclear weapons of their own at this point. The facts that Iran's physical infrastructure reduces the possibility of a quick and clean Osirak-style "obliteration," that the Israeli government is opposed by Shi'a allies of Iran in southern Lebanon (Hezbollah) and a broadly restless Palestinian population that could be provoked to greater militant violence if they perceived a time of weakness or reduced military capabilities on that government's part (because of a confrontation with Iran), and that Iran's development of a nuclear energy program is permissible under the terms of the NPT and any military action is opposed by the current U.S. administration means that such action would be widely condemned and receive effectively no support all weigh in as factors against such an action.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 20, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> ...that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood...



I never heard of him saying anything of the sort. Even his "Holocaust denial" is somewhat exaggerated; I think his main focus is on whether the historical event is seized upon by elements in the Israeli government to warrant their current policies, and his belief that it is is the basis behind his desire to challenge the historical veracity of the genocide.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 20, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> I have to add that I also find it interesting that more then a year ago or so when the same man that is accused of stealing the election was in the process of stating that the Holocost never happened and that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood - never objected and never protested such barbaric and primative statements and now want some one to do something. These are the same people that gave this government a legitimate form to operate for the last 30 years - so if a man admits he would murder an entire country of people, why are you so suprised at him stealing an election?  - GET REAL


True, Ahmadinejad doesn't believe in the holocaust. 

But he never advocated killing everyone in Israel.


----------



## elvis (Jun 20, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> lcrackel said:
> 
> 
> > I have to add that I also find it interesting that more then a year ago or so when the same man that is accused of stealing the election was in the process of stating that the Holocost never happened and that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood - never objected and never protested such barbaric and primative statements and now want some one to do something. These are the same people that gave this government a legitimate form to operate for the last 30 years - so if a man admits he would murder an entire country of people, why are you so suprised at him stealing an election?  - GET REAL
> ...



But you do , don't you Adolf?  come on, admit it.  You won't be happy until ALL the Jews in Israel are exterminated.  don't be shy, Adolf.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 20, 2009)

I have nothing against the Jewish people or the religion of Judiasm.

I admire them and their wonderful religion.

But I am totally opposed to Israel and the Zionist gangsters who rule that terrorist state.


----------



## elvis (Jun 20, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> I have nothing against the Jewish people or the religion of Judiasm.
> 
> I admire them and their wonderful religion.
> 
> But I am totally opposed to Israel and the Zionist gangsters who rule that terrorist state.



come on, chickenshit, tell us how the Holocaust never happened, you Jew-hating bastard.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 20, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > I have nothing against the Jewish people or the religion of Judiasm.
> ...


Once again, I have nothing against the Jewish people.

But no, I don't believe in the official zionist holocaust story and the mythical 6 million missing jews.


----------



## elvis (Jun 20, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



There ya go.  that's the Mengele worshipper we all know and love.


----------



## American Horse (Jun 20, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> I understand that many people incorrectly believe that President Obama should defend the people of Iran. obviously I am not in agreement with that for several reasons. The United States have already stuck their nose into Afghanistan and Iraq and simply can't afford to waste valuable resources on parts of the world that have been fighting and killing each other since the beginning of time. In addition, the more he says right now, the worse it will be and will also give the barbarian in charge a reason to kill more - right now is the time to be quiet, wait and see what happens and collect information. Now I would approve of allowing Israel bombing and obliterating their nuclear capabilities though




I know of no one who has proposed that there be any military intervention by America in Iran.  

President Obama need not even take sides in the present disruption.  He can say that the "American people stand for freedom and fair elections" and make a statement about whom the American people support; that's the protesters in the streets who are being beaten and shot by imported militia because the citizen police lack enthusiasm for taking action against their own people. He could say that we stand for people who stand for greater freedom anywhere it is denied or elections are not fair.  We can give them technical communications help with web-sites and other internet capabilities.

We cannot be completely silent,  These people need some moral support, or they will simply wear out.  The good part (or a good part) is that more than half the population is under 27 years of age.  It's their future, and being young they hopefully have the energy to push this to the limit.  

At this moment Mousavi is a figurehead.  He is the persona of their protest.  He may even be murdered but it he is he will be a martyr and martyrs take on a new life to members of a rebellion like this one.  If he lives and finally does  take office, then he is an improvement because he has stood up against the Mullahs.


----------



## Lycurgus (Jun 20, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Just more naked American Imperialism
> 
> Bomb the unwashed brown people into democracys because we know whats best for them.





Brown people founded democracy you stupid idiot.


----------



## Lycurgus (Jun 20, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> lcrackel said:
> 
> 
> > I have to add that I also find it interesting that more then a year ago or so when the same man that is accused of stealing the election was in the process of stating that the Holocost never happened and that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood - never objected and never protested such barbaric and primative statements and now want some one to do something. These are the same people that gave this government a legitimate form to operate for the last 30 years - so if a man admits he would murder an entire country of people, why are you so suprised at him stealing an election?  - GET REAL
> ...




You know Sunni, my dog leaves better stated piles of shit in the back yard, than you do with your opinions and propaganda!


----------



## oreo (Jun 21, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> I am deeply sorry for the all of the Iranian posters and citizens in the United States that are asking this question, but the truth of the matter is that you never had a vote. Once the hardliners took control of the political arena, the election process was only a piece of fiction to be used to deceive as many as possible. You are living in a fantasy land big time if you think the hardliners will ever give that up and as long as any country maintains a combined of both civil and religious power that is inter-twined - it will remain that way.





Very true:  The elections in Iran are just a farce anyway.  When you consider that there is a "Supreme leader" who is appointed not elected by the people & who is in charge of the military & security forces.  Therefore, an elected President or any other politician is simply just a puppet of the Supreme leader.


----------



## oreo (Jun 21, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...




Uhh-*What!*  You don't believe that the Holocaust happened!? 6 million jews were slaughtered!  We have plenty of ACTUAL evidence of that happening.  We have the bodies to prove it--the entire families that were murdered & you don't believe it.

*Do they teach world history in high school anymore? * Because when I was in high school back in the late 60's we saw a film in school regarding the Holocaust & I couldn't eat for two days.


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 21, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> lcrackel said:
> 
> 
> > ...that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood...
> ...



His exact words was "All of Israel should be destroyed and killed...."  - I call that an endorsement of genocide - He is a cold blooded murderer in his heart and no different from Adolf Hitler - these same people that now want him out - have endorsed him for the last years of his being in power - I just don't think the United States should get involved yet - please not that I said yet - there is a time and place for all things


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 21, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> lcrackel said:
> 
> 
> > The United States have already stuck their nose into Afghanistan and Iraq and simply can't afford to waste valuable resources on parts of the world that have been fighting and killing each other since the beginning of time.
> ...



Don't deceive yourself pal - the United States has been stockpiling Israel for years and years with high grade weapons far beyond Iran's capability of defending. The only reason that Israel hasn't launched an attack is because the United States has refused to give them the codes that would allow them to by-pass the United States defensive system in areas between Israel and the USA - If Obama was to give Israel permission - Iran's ability to build anything nuclear would end up like what they did to Iraq 30 years or so ago


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 21, 2009)

I am not going to post the quotes for the sake of simplicity - but whatsisname denying the Holocost by itself prove beyond reasonable doubt that he would murder all jews and is a dangerous murderer given the chance.  The fact is that he did advocate the destruction of Israel as a race - that puts him on the same level as Adolf Hitler with one big difference. He is not smart enough or strong enough to destroy any nation


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 21, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> His exact words was "All of Israel should be destroyed and killed...."  - I call that an endorsement of genocide



A Google search for the precise phrase "All of Israel should be destroyed and killed" reveals no results. Can you post a link or reference that confirms this statement? 



lcrackel said:


> Don't deceive yourself pal - the United States has been stockpiling Israel for years and years with high grade weapons far beyond Iran's capability of defending.



If so, that would constitute a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on the U.S.'s part where Iran has committed no violation, which would prove hypocritical in the case of interventionist administrations. And I'm quite aware that Israel has high-grade weaponry, but their usage of such against Iran would merely cause mutually assured destruction because Israel's small geographic size compared to Iran would place them at a heavy defensive disadvantage.  



lcrackel said:


> The only reason that Israel hasn't launched an attack is because the United States has refused to give them the codes that would allow them to by-pass the United States defensive system in areas between Israel and the USA - If Obama was to give Israel permission - Iran's ability to build anything nuclear would end up like what they did to Iraq 30 years or so ago



They're not going to launch an attack because the Netanyahu regime is not stupid and would be aware of the aforementioned factors and the danger of creating a threat to Israel.


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 21, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> I have nothing against the Jewish people or the religion of Judiasm.
> 
> I admire them and their wonderful religion.
> 
> But I am totally opposed to Israel and the Zionist gangsters who rule that terrorist state.



It was their country long before when 1945 or so when the British Mandate expired and Israel declared themself to be a free country. Israel as a young nation gave freedom to every citizen of the young state and yet it was the entire mid-eastern Islam countries that tried to invade Israel and destroy them as a nation and as a race.  They also failed for one reason. As a race - Israel is the chosen people of the true and living God - not the those who promote killing women and children in the name of Islam.  Note that I said in the name of Islam and am not crediting them to be true in their faith. The President of Iran is not a person who loves or believes God - he is only using the religion for his own personal greed - His God is lucifer


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 21, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> They also failed for one reason. As a race - Israel is the chosen people of the true and living God - not the those who promote killing women and children in the name of Islam.  Note that I said in the name of Islam and am not crediting them to be true in their faith. The President of Iran is not a person who loves or believes God - he is only using the religion for his own personal greed - His God is lucifer



I trust you're aware that explicitly religious doctrine is not a suitable basis for public policy formation? There's a reason that we're not governed by James Dobson and Pat Robertson.


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 21, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> lcrackel said:
> 
> 
> > ...that every person in Israel should be murdered in cold blood...
> ...



This is a pile of crap and you know it - he clearly denied the Holocost even though he clearly knows that it happened. It is a matter of public record and the evidence is clear. Therefore he denies it ever happened because he supports the concept of murdering innocent woment and children just like Obama Bin Laden - in short he is a murdering coward. In addition he clearly advocated the destruction of Israel - that makes him a murdering coward


----------



## lcrackel (Jun 21, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> lcrackel said:
> 
> 
> > They also failed for one reason. As a race - Israel is the chosen people of the true and living God - not the those who promote killing women and children in the name of Islam.  Note that I said in the name of Islam and am not crediting them to be true in their faith. The President of Iran is not a person who loves or believes God - he is only using the religion for his own personal greed - His God is lucifer
> ...



You might find it not suitable, but religious doctrine and the differences between Israel and the other governments is the one and only reason that there is a conflict. If Israel for example declared that the Muslim as the one and only correct faith in the world - the conflict would be over. If the USA were to do the same and embrace the muslim faith and agree to force every USA citizen in America to obey their laws - I again point out that these conflicts would end.

Therefore religion is the center of this entire conflict


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 21, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> This is a pile of crap and you know it - he clearly denied the Holocost even though he clearly knows that it happened. It is a matter of public record and the evidence is clear. Therefore he denies it ever happened because he supports the concept of murdering innocent woment and children just like Obama Bin Laden - in short he is a murdering coward. In addition he clearly advocated the destruction of Israel - that makes him a murdering coward



I've already addressed the nature of his "Holocaust denial"; his stance is certainly at odds with historical reality, but it's motivated by a desire to counter what he perceives as exploitation of that historical reality by a hard-line lobby in the Israeli government. The rest of your post is hyperbolic drivel. Nowhere do you cite or attempt to defend the existence of the ludicrous "quote" that you evidently made up out of thin air. 



lcrackel said:


> You might find it not suitable, but religious doctrine and the differences between Israel and the other governments is the one and only reason that there is a conflict. If Israel for example declared that the Muslim as the one and only correct faith in the world - the conflict would be over. If the USA were to do the same and embrace the muslim faith and agree to force every USA citizen in America to obey their laws - I again point out that these conflicts would end.
> 
> Therefore religion is the center of this entire conflict



That's decidedly untrue and not what your post inferred anyway. Your post inferred that American support for Israeli Jews should exist because there was a religious mandate for such, which would simply constitute a blatant violation of the First Amendment. This is also *not* a case of mere "religious" divergence; there's enmity between Israeli Jews and Arabs on many more grounds than that.


----------



## JW Frogen (Jun 21, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> They're not going to launch an attack because the Netanyahu regime is not stupid and would be aware of the aforementioned factors and the danger of creating a threat to Israel.



The UN determined Iran is in violation of it's non-proliferation comittments, not the US.


Oh, given Iran has already maximised it's threat to Israel in the only ways it can without a nuclear weapon, through sponsorship of proxy terror movements, I think you are wrong. Israel probably will attempt to take out the Iranian nuclear program once they think it has reached a critical moment.


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 21, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> I am not going to post the quotes for the sake of simplicity - but whatsisname denying the Holocost by itself prove beyond reasonable doubt that he would murder all jews and is a dangerous murderer given the chance.  The fact is that he did advocate the destruction of Israel as a race - that puts him on the same level as Adolf Hitler with one big difference. He is not smart enough or strong enough to destroy any nation



and what level does israel's denial of the uss liberty put them on?

well?


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 21, 2009)

i wonder if saudi women will take to the streets in protest of their rights....i wonder what we would do and say then?


----------



## JW Frogen (Jun 21, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> i wonder if saudi women will take to the streets in protest of their rights....i wonder what we would do and say then?



I lived there, the answer would be no.

But if they did what would we do? Nothing, just like Obama in Iran.

Obama just expanded the policy indifference to help our enemies as well as our allies.


----------



## editec (Jun 21, 2009)

I don't think George Bush II had jackshit to do with this event.

I don't think Iraq is remotely inspiring the Iranians to protest their government.

The dissatisfaction the people in Iran are feeling for their "Supreme Leader" is homegrown, not American.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 21, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> The UN determined Iran is in violation of it's non-proliferation comittments, not the US.



Not quite. The IAEA Board of Governors expressed opposition to the Iranian government's limits on some portions of their inspections, but that's merely an objection to a policy that they feel prevents them from ascertaining whether any substantive violations have actually occurred, not a proclamation that they already have. And the Iranian government merely disputes the precise guidelines of components of their access, not whether they should be granted access at all or whether they have to conform to guidelines at all. 



JW Frogen said:


> Oh, given Iran has already maximised it's threat to Israel in the only ways it can without a nuclear weapon, through sponsorship of proxy terror movements, I think you are wrong.



The "proxy terror" movements that you refer to pose effectively no threat to Israel's existence or security. It's merely when the IDF attempts to overextend their presence into southern Lebanon or Gaza that they escalate the number of casualties incurred on their forces.  



JW Frogen said:


> Israel probably will attempt to take out the Iranian nuclear program once they think it has reached a critical moment.



Israel will not attempt to "take out" any program because that would only secure the prospect of mutually assured destruction, since they would not receive quick assistance from the U.S. after violating an explicit desire by the current administration that they not escalate the present situation.


----------



## JW Frogen (Jun 21, 2009)

The IAEA has declared Iran in violation of their treaty obligations and in continued violation of blocking the inspection process. Still, the Far Left only supports the UN when it is against US or Israeli interests, I get it.

The terror movments Iran supports have called for the complete elimination of Israel, a UN recognised state. (Once again that pesky UN not doing the nihilistic will of the Far, anti democratic, Left 100% of the time, only 90%).

These movements actively attack Israel and violate almost every proviso of the Geneva convention, as well as attempting to terrorise the democratic movement in Lebanon. (To which the brave voters of Lebanon have just said no.)

Finally, if you think Israel is going to allow Iran to weaponise nuclear material (or that the Sunni world would actively prevent Israel from preventing it) then I have some land I want to sell Hamas in down town Tel Aviv.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 21, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> The IAEA has declared Iran in violation of their treaty obligations and in continued violation of blocking the inspection process.



Were you not paying attention to what I said? I said that the IAEA's complaints were reasonably disputed by the government, and were not so substantive as to actually allege severe wrongdoing in the way of weaponry development on the part of that government. They were merely objections to allegedly restricted inspection guidelines.



JW Frogen said:


> Still, the Far Left only supports the UN when it is against US or Israeli interests, I get it.



It never is. The U.S.'s hegemonic control over the Security Council prevents scrutiny of unjust and anti-democratic actions that ruling administrations here and in Israel have committed through usage of its veto power, and U.S. influence over the IAEA Board of Governors prevents examination of Israel's own undeclared nuclear arsenal, which was developed while deliberately concealed from American inspectors. 



JW Frogen said:


> The terror movments Iran supports have called for the complete elimination of Israel, a UN recognised state. (Once again that pesky UN not doing the nihilistic will of the Far, anti democratic, Left 100% of the time, only 90%).



Which "terror movement" are you referring to? You seem to be referring to Hezbollah, but Hassan Nasrallah has indicated support for the two-state solution if the Palestinians accept it, and you certainly can't be referring to Hamas, since they abided by the peacefire until the IDF violated it. 



JW Frogen said:


> These movements actively attack Israel and violate almost every proviso of the Geneva convention, as well as attempting to terrorise the democratic movement in Lebanon. (To which the brave voters of Lebanon have just said no.)



You're obviously referring to Hezbollah, but that group would likely not exist were it not for the IDF's ill-conceived 1982 invasion of Lebanon. You seem to be ignoring the reality that the "terrorism" you refer to would not exist were it not for IDF instigation.



JW Frogen said:


> Finally, if you think Israel is going to allow Iran to weaponise nuclear material (or that the Sunni world would actively prevent Israel from preventing it) then I have some land I want to sell Hamas in down town Tel Aviv.



_*As I've explained to you previously*_, Supreme Leader Khameini has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weaponry. Your response when I last explained this was to foolishly cite the Shi'a doctrine of taqqiya and claim that it permitted almost every variety of deception to advance Islam, though in reality, it permits denial of one's Islamic faith to avoid death. But that's not the point. There are certainly elements in the Iranian government that desire nuclear weaponry because of the arms race provoked by the Israeli government's unauthorized possession of a substantial arsenal, but mutually assured destruction would still be a reality if Iran were to initiate an attack just as would be the case with Israel. I note your conspicuous lack of a response to that argument, incidentally.


----------



## DavidS (Jun 21, 2009)

American Horse said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot see a sound moral objection to the forcible removal of dictatorships and installment of democratic governments; the military force that would be required to accomplish it would be a less severe authoritarian imposition than the policies of the dictatorship had it remained in place would have been.....
> ...



The Shah of Iran was not a better alternative to anything. The former government of Iran before America interfered, was democratically elected and was peaceful. He just wanted to nationalize the oil and leave the US out of it. So, off he went.


----------



## JW Frogen (Jun 21, 2009)

The IEAE is clear, Iran is in violation. Iran's response has been as valid and reasonable as North Koreas, they have basically said fuck off.

Now you may want to play apologist for that Aggie, fair enough, but do not cry when greater powers take the stick to Iran when Iran steps outside the idiot bonds of UN protection.

As for the US having a "hegemonic" power over the Security Council, that Council is composed of five equal voting members, all with a veto. Two of whom are quite sympathetic to Iran's overt power play and violation of international order because they have simular agendas of their own, China and Russia.


Aggie, you may feel comfortable with a theocratic tyranny having nuclear weapons but Israel is not, indeed neither are the Sunni Islamic states; you see unlike you, they can not rely on self rightous ideology or arcane political theory that bares little relastionship to reality for survival. They do not have the luxery of those without power, responsibility or influence. They have to act in the real world.

So don't be suprised if Iranian democratic movement fails and then Israel strikes at Iran's nuclear program and if her Sunni neighbours protest lightly and wink, wink, nudge, nudge.


----------



## American Horse (Jun 21, 2009)

editec said:


> I don't think George Bush II had jackshit to do with this event.
> 
> I don't think Iraq is remotely inspiring the Iranians to protest their government.
> 
> The dissatisfaction the people in Iran are feeling for their "Supreme Leader" is homegrown, not American.



Thank you Ed for your very thoughtful remarks.  But, since you commented on but didn't quote the OP I'll insert it below,  with pertinant text in bold.  And in brackets I'll  parse it for you and anyone else who&#8217;s interested in why their cause might be inspired by America and its recent policies (re - Bush) highted in blue text:



American Horse said:


> Their question is *&#8220;Where is my vote?* [remember the Iraqis purple thumbs?] This is what the signs they are holding say in *both Farsi and English.*
> 
> This election has afforded them a world stage  to look across the border to the West, towards free Iraq, a people only a border away, a conveniently symbolic direction, and ask: *&#8220;Why not us too?&#8221;  It can&#8217;t be lost on Iranians that their own country's government  did  everything it could to discourage or cut short the new political freedom the Iraqi&#8217;s are now enjoying.*  That is a big part of the reason that *their signs are also written in English.* *It's an appeal* [not for military intervention  but in "hope" of our supporting them in their hour of need] the country which has clearly worked for democracy in their region. *They are speaking directly to America,* as brothers and sisters in in their hope for democracy.
> 
> ...



As for all the repetitious comments about the prior history of the region (by others in this thread) after 9/11/2001 policy changed by the Bush Administration and, by design or by accident America has been a &#8220;game changer&#8221; in the M.E. 

Those who were and still are convinced Bush went there for oil:  The oil resources in Iraq are firmly in the hands of the Iraqi people, even to the unique and novel policy for the M.E. of it&#8217;s being an asset of the Iraqi people and not any regime. This is another paradigm change.  Unlike in Iran and other M.E. states the Iraqi people actually have a stake in their country.  

In Iran there is a 40% unemployment rate *in spite of their oil wealth* which is spent totally funding the government for less than democratic and peaceful purposes, to the point even for quelling their own people from striving for democratic ideals.  For those the Iranians have to look over their shoulder but there they can clearly see a better way.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 21, 2009)

The claim that current events in Iran have anything to do with events in Iraq is almost as idiotic as the belief that the Bush administration's "plan" is the "realization of freedom in the Middle East." "Freedom" for Iraqis and Afghans might have been a useful way to sell and legitimize the 6-year occupation of the country, but is in no way shape or form remotely the reason why it was carried out.


----------



## phxcon (Jun 21, 2009)

American Horse said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think George Bush II had jackshit to do with this event.
> ...




Yet, the partner they* perceived* they would have in the United States has evaporated into dust. Obama should have stepped up and welcomed the revolution in Iran because, at this point, it is the only way to stave off an impending and devastating strike by Israel to do away with their nuclear ambitions.

The revolution there will only work if the US engages both overtly and covertly. I feel we are doing neither.


----------



## American Horse (Jun 21, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> The claim that current events in Iran have anything to do with events in Iraq is almost as idiotic as the belief that the Bush administration's "plan" is the "realization of freedom in the Middle East." "Freedom" for Iraqis and Afghans might have been a useful way to sell and legitimize the 6-year occupation of the country, but is in no way shape or form remotely the reason why it was carried out.



And the American Revolution had nothing to do with the French revolution....
I think the Iranian people are a lot more pragmatic than we give them credit for.  
They can clearly see results in spite of preconceptions about one president's motives.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 21, 2009)

American Horse said:


> lcrackel said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that many people incorrectly believe that President Obama should defend the people of Iran. obviously I am not in agreement with that for several reasons. The United States have already stuck their nose into Afghanistan and Iraq and simply can't afford to waste valuable resources on parts of the world that have been fighting and killing each other since the beginning of time. In addition, the more he says right now, the worse it will be and will also give the barbarian in charge a reason to kill more - right now is the time to be quiet, wait and see what happens and collect information. Now I would approve of allowing Israel bombing and obliterating their nuclear capabilities though
> ...



Wrong. Short of declaring all-out war, the Bush Administration threatened the regimes of every potential enemy in the region.

Read the synopsis here:
National Security Strategy Report - September 2002

Read the full text of the "Bush Doctrine" here:
http://merln.ndu.edu/whitepapers/USnss2002.pdf


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 21, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > lcrackel said:
> ...



The US also armed Iran in the 80's, a direct violation of arms embargo to Iran, in order to launder funds to support the Contras. My problem with yes, MEDDLING, in Mideastern/Southeast Asian affairs is that we support whatever best serves our own country..._at the time._

If even _I_ know that, then you can bet that the leaders of all those countries know it too.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 21, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> > lcrackel said:
> ...



You obviously know little about American History, my friend. The United States fled England to escape the oppression of religious domination. THAT is something imbedded forever in the brains of Americans--over time immemorial, and regardless of political ideologies. We may argue about the meaning of some parts of our Constitution, but we never argue over the Declaration of Independence. If some future US leadership "forced" one religion fits all upon us, there would be an American Revolution Redux against a Washington dictatorship just as there was against the British Royalty.


----------



## American Horse (Jun 21, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> > [American Horse] I know of no one who has proposed that there be any military intervention by America in Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Short of declaring all-out war, the Bush Administration threatened the regimes of every potential enemy in the region.


Maggie, I was referring to current events, the current situation, and the current president.
.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 21, 2009)

American Horse said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > > [American Horse] I know of no one who has proposed that there be any military intervention by America in Iran.
> ...



Oh, sorry. I was thinking back to your OP, which stated this:

_But it could easily be said that whats happening in Iran right now is a direct result of the freedom in Iraq. We can pretty conclusively say that it would not be happening now, except for that. The change of Iran into a true democracy would also help us in a moral victory in Afghanistan over the Taliban, and everywhere over the Al Qaeda; who knows, even Pakistan would eventually be favorably influenced. _

Although freedom and democracy were always a part of the Bush _dialogue_, the actual policy put forth in positions papers on how to get there was quite frightening.


----------



## Annie (Jun 21, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Position papers, like battle plans, often have little to do with policy. Think of the party platforms.


----------



## American Horse (Jun 21, 2009)

> FROM the OP - " The desperation of the Mullas and Ahmadinejad is revealed by the fact that some of the "Militia" are Arab speakers, unable to speak Farsi  "



Reported on FNC:  "Civilian types" are walking with and inserting themselves into the protestors, and slicing them with razors and razor knives before they are aware of what's about to happen.


----------



## concept (Jun 21, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Wow. I don't run across too many people like you, thankfully.

But I'll definitely be paying attention to your posts, sort of like studying a bug in a glass jar.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 21, 2009)

concept said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


Go to   Stormfront - White Nationalist Community 

There are thousands of posts on the Holohoax and the Zionist fascist nation of Israhell


----------



## elvis (Jun 21, 2009)

Sunni wishes to prove the Holocaust didn't happen by quoting a site started by a Ku Klux Klan member.


----------



## Annie (Jun 21, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Like I said on another posts, the problem is extremists. Islamic, Christian/racial far right.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 21, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


it figures you fit in over there


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 21, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> The IEAE is clear, Iran is in violation. Iran's response has been as valid and reasonable as North Koreas, they have basically said fuck off.



I'm not familiar with any organization known as the "IEAE," but even the reports of their own Board of Governors are far less severe than you would assert them to be. For example, consider their Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The report makes it clear that no substantive violations in regard to overt development of military dimensions of the nuclear program appear to exist and that the government of the Islamic Republic is generally in compliance with development guidelines as far as can be observed. As noted therein: 



> On 29 September 2008, the Agency conducted a PIV at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP), the results of which confirm the physical inventory as declared by Iran, within the measurement uncertainties normally associated with such a facility...To date, the results of the environmental samples taken at FEP and PFEP5 indicate that the plants have been operating as declared (i.e. less than 5.0% U-235 enrichment). Since March 2007, 21 unannounced inspections have been conducted at FEP.



The point of dispute comes not because of some assertion that Iran is violating developmental guidelines in regard to the definite creation of a military dimension, but merely that allegedly restricted inspection guidelines have hindered the ability of the IAEA to ascertain such. As noted:



> Contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not implemented the Additional Protocol, which is a prerequisite for the Agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. Nor has it agreed to the Agencys request that Iran provide, as a transparency measure, access to additional locations related, inter alia, to the manufacturing of centrifuges, R&D on uranium enrichment, and uranium mining and milling, as also required by the Security Council.



*However*, as I noted, there is a counterclaim from the government of the Islamic Republic in regard to the extent that the inspection need be conducted. As also noted therein:



> In a letter dated 26 January 2009 referring to previous communications concerning the submission of design information, Iran informed the Agency that it would not permit the Agency to carry out the DIV. In a reply dated 29 January 2009, the Agency reiterated its request for access to carry out the DIV. In its response, dated 7 February 2009, *Iran reiterated its view that since IR-40 was not in a situation to receive nuclear material, no DIQ was required, and, hence, the request for access to perform DIV was not justified.* Iran requested that, as long as the decision stipulated in Irans letter of 29 March 2007 was valid,6 no DIV for IR-40 be scheduled.



Now, I do not deny that certain hard-liner elements in the Iranian government certainly wish to develop nuclear weaponry to serve as a deterrent to the Israeli arsenal, but that would likely be less problematic should they perceive international consensus being more influential in terms of regulation of said arsenal. However, the alliance of USrael remains intact. Israel can maintain their unauthorized nuclear arsenal without question as long as the U.S. maintains a hegemonic influence over the Security Council and a similarly excessive influence over the IAEA Board of Governors, the obvious provocation to an arms race that this constitutes apparently irrelevant to the concerns of the ruling administrations. That said, I find it ironic that you condemn Iran and claim that Israel will handle them while the Israeli government's development of their nuclear program was based on deliberate concealment of the military dimension from American inspectors, a conscious and deliberate practice approved by even Levi Eshkol. 



JW Frogen said:


> Now you may want to play apologist for that Aggie, fair enough, but do not cry when greater powers take the stick to Iran when Iran steps outside the idiot bonds of UN protection.



Israel is not a "greater power," and though the unauthorized nuclear arsenal that the government maintains provides a temporary offensive advantage, the small geographic size of Israel compared to the large geographic size of Iran places them at a significant defensive disadvantage, along with the presence of "subversive" elements who would be entirely willing to commit violence against the IDF should they perceive that a diversion exists. Moreover, any act against the explicit desire of the current U.S. administration would not be in their interests. 



JW Frogen said:


> As for the US having a "hegemonic" power over the Security Council, that Council is composed of five equal voting members, all with a veto. Two of whom are quite sympathetic to Iran's overt power play and violation of international order because they have simular agendas of their own, China and Russia.



Nope! Your conspiracy theories aside, that veto power has been used by the U.S. representative to a far greater extent than any other permanent member of the Security Council and has been used not only to block investigation or censure of ruling administrations here in the U.S., but also in Israel. 



JW Frogen said:


> Aggie, you may feel comfortable with a theocratic tyranny having nuclear weapons but Israel is not, indeed neither are the Sunni Islamic states; you see unlike you, they can not rely on self rightous ideology or arcane political theory that bares little relastionship to reality for survival. They do not have the luxery of those without power, responsibility or influence. They have to act in the real world.



We again see the emergence of your apparent belief that the Iranian government is irrationally religiously fervent and will not hesitate to use nuclear attacks against other nations even if it results in their own destruction because they are willing to sacrifice their lives for Allah. It's a crude and primitive conception spawned from a deep ignorance of the various elements of Islam and its influence on the entire region. Never mind! Israel will gain only mutually assured destruction if they're foolish enough to unilaterally attack Iran. 



JW Frogen said:


> So don't be suprised if Iranian democratic movement fails and then Israel strikes at Iran's nuclear program and if her Sunni neighbours protest lightly and wink, wink, nudge, nudge.



Tell me, how do you simultaneously maintain your conception of a strong Sunni/Shi'a divide and a conception that the Iranian government is willing to smuggle nuclear weaponry to a Sunni, Arab jihadist militia that would not be accountable to them? 



American Horse said:


> Those who were and still are convinced Bush went there for oil:  The oil resources in Iraq are firmly in the hands of the Iraqi people, even to the unique and novel policy for the M.E. of its being an asset of the Iraqi people and not any regime.



That will not be the case so long as republicanism is the norm; a republican system does not constitute an establishment of legitimate "democracy." However, though I believe that the oil factor is only a partial element of the motivation for an invasion, it should not be denied that suspicious behavior in terms of seemingly unscrupulous policy formation has lent credence to that explanation to some degree. For example, consider Andrew E. Kramer's _Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back_. As noted therein:



> Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power...The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
> 
> There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry.



Now, this development is almost precisely a year behind us. Have you been monitoring the circumstances of this?


----------



## American Horse (Jun 21, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Those who were and still are convinced Bush went there for oil:  The oil resources in Iraq are firmly in the hands of the Iraqi people, even to the unique and novel policy for the M.E. of its being an asset of the Iraqi people and not any regime.
> ...



FYI  I follow this stuff daily in the WSJ paper edition. I do not follow it online; so what I stated in only a few sentences you quoted which is also in the post directly above now needs to be backed up by a formidable amount of text with links: (I hope this is informative  please pay close attention to the text in bold)

Iraq unveils foreign oil contract shortlist - Times Online 
*June 10, 2009*  Alice Fordham, Baghdad

"Three British companies have been shortlisted to bid for contracts to work on Iraq's oil and gas fields, pitting themselves against 32 other non-Iraqi companies in a televised, two-day bidding procedure revealed at Baghdad's Oil Ministry. 
BP, which provided technical assistance to the Iraqi state oil company in 2004-2006, BG International and Premier Oil were among the 120 companies who put themselves forward in June last year, and which now appear on the shortlist of 35 companies who are invited to submit proposals for consideration by a panel of experts at the Ministry. 
Along with other oil majors including Exxonmobil and Total, they are due to present proposals on June 29 and 30 to work on one of six oil fields and two gas fields. It will be the first major foreign investment in Iraqi oil for 40 years, which has the world's third-largest oil reserves but needs massive foreign investment to resurrect the country's energy infrastructure. 

*The oil and gas fields are already operational. The agreements due to be awarded are service contracts, whereby companies provide technical assistance to increase capacity, and are paid according to how much production of oil or gas increases, rather than production contracts, where revenue is shared."*​
AND:

 Oil giants flock to Iraqi auction - Times Online 

*September 14, 2008*   Danny Fortson
"THE worlds largest oil companies will converge on London next month for a chance to re-enter Iraq for the first time in more than three decades. 

In all, 34 oil companies, including BP, Royal Dutch Shell, BG, Exxonmobil, Gazprom and Sinopec, are expected to attend a roadshow held by Iraqs oil minister Hussein al-Shahristani when he officially kicks off the bidding for so-called technical-service agreements. 

These will govern exploitation of eight of the countrys largest fields. 

At the event, scheduled for October 13, bidders will be given technical data on the sites in question  six giant oilfields including Kirkuk and West Qurna and two gasfields  bidding parameters and remuneration terms. 

*The opening of Iraq, which sits on the worlds third-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Iran, has been eagerly awaited by the industry but has been repeatedly delayed by security concerns and political infighting that has held back a crucial hydrocarbons law.  *​
But recent deals struck by the countrys oil ministry with Shell and China National Petroleum, despite the continuing political limbo of the hydrocarbons law, have raised expectations that oil companies will be welcomed back en masse for the first time since the industry was nationalised in 1972. 

*The oil ministry called off talks on no-bid short-term advisory contracts this summer in place of the longer deals that feature in the new plan. *

The oil ministry is not expected to award contracts for at least another six months, pushing back a previously announced plan to increase production by 500,000 barrels per day to 3m barrels by the end of this year. 

The Kurdistan regional administration in northern Iraq has been signing contracts with foreign oil companies for more than two years, but has been unable to attract the largest firms who feared angering the federal government and getting shut out of auctions for the giant fields in the south. 
*Contracts will be fee-based rather than the industrys preferred revenue-sharing model." *


----------



## oreo (Jun 21, 2009)

editec said:


> I don't think George Bush II had jackshit to do with this event.
> 
> I don't think Iraq is remotely inspiring the Iranians to protest their government.
> 
> The dissatisfaction the people in Iran are feeling for their "Supreme Leader" is homegrown, not American.


?


What struck me was comments made from a few young Iranians after our invasion of Iraq.  When asked by reporters what they thought of the invasion:  "They stated gleefully--"We hope we're next.  They were actually hoping that we would invade Iran. "  That was back in 2003/2004.  As we are witnessing _"freedom is really not free."_  And we as Americans--continually take our freedom for granted.

*So I think the question should be:--How many Iranians wish they were Iraqi's about right now?*  And that answer would have everything to do with President Bush.


----------



## American Horse (Jun 21, 2009)

oreo said:


> What struck me was comments made from a few young Iranians after our invasion of Iraq.  When asked by reporters what they thought of the invasion:  "They stated gleefully--"We hope we're next.  They were actually hoping that we would invade Iran. "  That was back in 2003/2004.  As we are witnessing _"freedom is really not free."_  And we as Americans--continually take our freedom for granted.
> 
> *So I think the question should be:--How many Iranians wish they were Iraqi's about right now?*  And that answer would have everything to do with President Bush.



I remember that very thing Oreo.  Sadly the left, doesn't want that to be true....in the worst way, and I mean the very worst way....(we know why, even if they don't)  Thanks for the reminder.
.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 22, 2009)

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



That's right. And the Bush Doctrine (read the links provided) and the Obama Doctrine are at opposite ends. The first one hasn't worked out so well, so it's time for other options.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 22, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Of course there are. It's just sad that so many of you have been sucked into that idiocy.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 22, 2009)

oreo said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think George Bush II had jackshit to do with this event.
> ...



You have no idea what you're talking about. Iranians are proud of their homeland, just as Iraqis are.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 22, 2009)

American Horse said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > What struck me was comments made from a few young Iranians after our invasion of Iraq.  When asked by reporters what they thought of the invasion:  "They stated gleefully--"We hope we're next.  They were actually hoping that we would invade Iran. "  That was back in 2003/2004.  As we are witnessing _"freedom is really not free."_  And we as Americans--continually take our freedom for granted.
> ...



Well I'd sure like to see where that stupid story came from. An interview with a group of Iraqi teenagers that made front page news on Fox?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

If Bush did anything, it was to make more Iranians rally behind Amadenijad.  This is DESPITE Bush.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2009)

Bush also gave Amadenijad the idea on how to steal an election.

Only thing is Amadenijad wasn't smart enough to make it close.  He was too obvious.

But just like Amadenijad's opponent lost his own city, Gore supposedly lost Tennessee?  Wow, the similarities are eerie.


----------



## elvis (Jun 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Bush also gave Amadenijad the idea on how to steal an election.
> 
> Only thing is Amadenijad wasn't smart enough to make it close.  He was too obvious.
> 
> But just like Amadenijad's opponent lost his own city, Gore supposedly lost Tennessee?  Wow, the similarities are eerie.



Yyyyyeah sure.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bush also gave Amadenijad the idea on how to steal an election.
> ...


bobo the moron just keeps showing everyone just how much of a moron he is


----------



## rhodescholar (Jun 22, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> A Google search[/url] for the precise phrase "All of Israel should be destroyed and killed" reveals no results. Can you post a link or reference that confirms this statement?



Look I am not getting into a match here about this, the piece of iranian shit never tried to deny it, and decent human beings use language like: "I disagree with their government, I hate their leadership and think it is wrong," etc.  Don't waste our time trying to smudge the lines of acceptable behaviour; one of your earlier posts was well-thought out, when you reverse course with something this stupid it makes one wonder if you are here to really discuss or fuck around.



> If so, that would constitute a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on the U.S.'s part where Iran has committed no violation,



It is well known that iran has severely violated several sections of the NPT, and just this week Baradei stated he believes they are seeking nuclear weapons.

Again, let's stop wasting time on nonsense, we're all well past this crap.



> They're not going to launch an attack because the Netanyahu regime is not stupid and would be aware of the aforementioned factors and the danger of creating a threat to Israel.



If the regime survives intact, and decides that its fraudulent elective "victory" is a mandate for a harder line, I would give them days, perhaps hours, before the UK, Australian, US, French and Israeli forces pulverize the country, obliterating their military capacity and demolishing all known nuclear facilities.  Troops would probably be stationed to render the Rep Guard and other illegitimate, criminal elements of the dead regime non-functional.


----------



## rhodescholar (Jun 22, 2009)

lcrackel said:


> This is a pile of crap and you know it - he clearly denied the Holocost even though he clearly knows that it happened. It is a matter of public record and the evidence is clear. Therefore he denies it ever happened because he supports the concept of murdering innocent woment and children just like Obama Bin Laden - in short he is a murdering coward. In addition he clearly advocated the destruction of Israel - that makes him a murdering coward



The real question is where the fuck does this little iranian turd even get off discussing either the holocaust, or israel - who is not even a neighbor?

This would be like the US coming out to deny the Potato Famine, or the Chinese Opium disasters, it is none of their fucking business.

Leftist idiots whine all day about US "imperialism," and then et REAL fucking quiet when one mentions iran's imperial adventures in Lebanon, Gaza, WB, Iraq, etc.  Or if they are really stupid, they say: "it isn't _ iranians _ there, its locally grown movements, an insult to the intelligence of anyone over 6.


----------



## rhodescholar (Jun 22, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> I've already addressed the nature of his "Holocaust denial"; his stance is certainly at odds with historical reality, but it's motivated by a desire to counter what he perceives as exploitation of that historical reality by a hard-line lobby in the Israeli government. The rest of your post is hyperbolic drivel. Nowhere do you cite or attempt to defend the existence of the ludicrous "quote" that you evidently made up out of thin air.



Again, where does the iranian midget asshole get the right to even discuss it?  WTF appointed him UN Commissioner of History to discuss it?

And why the fuck is iran given a pass to target anything with israel?  Israel is not a neighbor of iran, israel has never attacked iran, yet iran seems to have a pass from so much of the (jew-hating) Left to be able to warn/threaten and physically attack israel using suicide bombers.

Israel is FAR away from iran, so only a moron accepts anything that the iranian dwarf has to say about israel.


----------



## rhodescholar (Jun 22, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Not quite. The IAEA Board of Governors expressed opposition to the Iranian government's limits on some portions of their inspections, but that's merely an {blah blah blah} /  The "proxy terror" movements that you refer to pose effectively no threat to Israel's existence or security.



Another post of this level of total idiocy, and you will be ignored.  This shit makes Shogun look like a brilliant scholar, I am embarrassed for you, I thought you had more intelligence than this, I guess I was sorely mistaken.

The second sentence is stupid enough to warrant thoughts that you are here to troll...


----------



## rhodescholar (Jun 22, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> You're obviously referring to Hezbollah, but that group would likely not exist were it not for the IDF's ill-conceived 1982 invasion of Lebanon. You seem to be ignoring the reality that the "terrorism" you refer to would not exist were it not for IDF instigation.
> 
> _*As I've explained to you previously*_, Supreme Leader Khameini has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weaponry.  {rest of garbage deleted}



I'm sorry folks, but I can see why this person was banned from the other forum; he is an idiot AND a troll, not an appealing person to debate with.

Sigh, not everyone in a forum can be a quality person...


----------



## rhodescholar (Jun 22, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> I'm not familiar with any organization known as the "IEAE," but even the reports of their own Board of Governors are far less severe than you would assert them to be. For example, consider their .....



Agna posts in this thread can be summed up from Harvey Keitel's line in the "Two Jakes": 

"You may _ think _ you know what is going on, but you really don't."


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 22, 2009)

You are a total joke Rhodes  

Rarely is this board graced with such a Bozo of your caliber


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> You are a total joke Rhodes
> 
> Rarely is this board graced with *such a Bozo of your caliber*


REALLY????

checked your rep power lately?


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > You are a total joke Rhodes
> ...


Has RhodesMoron hired you as his spokesperson???


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


pay would not be required, i'd slap you down just for the pure enjoyment of it alone


----------



## elvis (Jun 22, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> You are a total joke Rhodes
> 
> Rarely is this board graced with such a Bozo of your caliber



You tell him Adolf, you Jew-hating fuck.


----------



## rhodescholar (Jun 22, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > You are a total joke Rhodes
> ...



The dogshit drops into many of my threads, not adding anything, she just tries to antagonize and get a response from me.  

You'd think after 3 weeks of trying and failing - similar to its entire life, if one seeks accuracy - that it would just give up...but then again, only idiots are known to keep trying the same thing and thinking it will turn out differently


----------



## elvis (Jun 22, 2009)

rhodescholar said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



welcome back, rhode.  sunni's  a stupid shit.  he claims the Holocaust never happened


----------



## Maple (Jun 22, 2009)

I remember 1979 when they threw out the shaw of Iran and replaced him with the radical Iatola Komeini, they went from a western modern society back to the dark ages with that move and the people themselves supported this change. They held over 300 Americans hostage during the Carter Administration and it took Reagan to get them out.

Sometimes all that hope and change does not work out for the betterment of the people and it's obvious to me that they are paying heavily for their past mistakes. I bet they wish they had the shaw back.

Neither of these candidates will promote democracy because the Mullohs are still the ones that run the country and they are all radical islamists.

I beleive in freedom for everyone and I think that Obama should speak to that, however, these mullahs even today are blaming the U. S for this uprising when we have been totally silent. Obama's in a tough spot here and I can understand his reluctance to say anything that would support or ignite a fire under people who are already riled up. That could turn on us as it has in the past. I don't agree that Obama should sit down and talk over anything with this regeime and that's where I disagree with his policy.

" Watch out what you wish for you just might get it. "


----------



## rhodescholar (Jun 22, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> welcome back, rhode.  sunni's  a stupid shit.  he claims the Holocaust never happened



Thanks, and much obliged.  I've encountered far worse filth on the web, and I doubt he will be around long.  Gunny and the team have little tolerance for BS, and he will be section 8'ed in no time...

Back on topic, I've said for 20 years that only an outside military intervention will be able to destroy iran's fascist, illegitimate regime, as I warned that any popular uprising that the iranian people attempt is going to be hammered down by animals who do not value life. 

Just as in 1999, when the dictatorship sent in thugs to attack college students, the same is re-occuring today, and will again every time.  It took a massive war - WW2, in fact - to destroy the Nazi Regime, and unfortunately, alot of pacifistic simpletons do not understand and embrace that it will require another major war to rid the earth of this diseased regime.

The parallels with the Nazis are astonishing, in fact, I've had discussions where we have spreadsheeted the 2 regimes, and their makeup is extremely similar: 

- Brownshirted "internal security" thugs made up of lower classes to maintain internal order and crush popular uprisings

- an "elite order" - the SS, or in this case, the Republican Guard - a military order made up of only the most fanatically devoted

- a singular, godlike leader whose proclamations cannot be questioned and are considered the words of God

- massive gulag system retaining substantial numbers of political prisoners

- attacks and oppression of women and homosexuals

- externally manufactured enemies along with internal ones - especially the Jews, an easy target

If you view some of the videos coming out, you will see that many of the arrested demonstrators/peace activists are captured and placed in black hoods, an image aptly captured in the anti-fascist film, "V for Vendetta."  This thuggish tactic is the direct result of an unaccountable, one-party regime whose thirst for violence and power knows no bounds.

Bottom line, their security system apparatus is too well-entrenched for unarmed college students and such to be able to overcome, and the leadership, knowing the first place it would land would be the Hague gallows were it to ever step down is certainly not going to surrender for the betterment of iran.  

I know it isn't a popular idea; I was the only one who voted for it in the poll, but the US and West MUST invade iran and degrade its military while destroying its current leadership.  For the safety of those in the middle east and  beyond, it is THE country which must be dealt with, and soon.  The nuclear bomb clock is ticking, and I recall how the intelligence services stated it "would be years" before pakistan had a bomb, and then they detonated a test one months later - an embarrassment of significance for the CIA.  Let's not make that mistake again...


----------



## Kalam (Jun 22, 2009)

Maple said:


> I remember 1979 when they threw out the shaw of Iran and replaced him with the radical Iatola Komeini, they went from a western modern society back to the dark ages with that move and the people themselves supported this change.


How about in 1953 where Iran's Prime Minister was deposed by the United States and replaced with a puppet monarch?


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > I remember 1979 when they threw out the shaw of Iran and replaced him with the radical Iatola Komeini, they went from a western modern society back to the dark ages with that move and the people themselves supported this change.
> ...


except that monarch was already monarch and the US didnt do anything close to what you claim
all the US did was advise the Shah to do what he already had the authority to do since the PM had already completed his term and was refusing to step down

man, you guys just love to make up shit to make the US look bad


----------



## Kalam (Jun 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> all the US did was advise the Shah to do what he already had the authority to do since the PM had already completed his term and was refusing to step down


Electronic Briefing Book: The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-appendix-a.pdf

Corrupt deals and US-backed terrorist bombings are an interesting method of "advising."



DiveCon said:


> man, you guys just love to make up shit to make the US look bad


I would get nothing out of forging lies to make the US look bad. I'm discussing what actually happened and placing the blame on those who deserve it. 

_"I came here to tell the truth - and if the truth condemns America, then she stands condemned." _


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jun 22, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> You are a total joke Rhodes
> 
> Rarely is this board graced with such a Bozo of your caliber




i like you when you are not obviously trolling.

can you please pos rep me for my post?


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 22, 2009)

Kalam said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > all the US did was advise the Shah to do what he already had the authority to do since the PM had already completed his term and was refusing to step down
> ...


your links back what i said


----------



## Chris (Jun 23, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > I remember 1979 when they threw out the shaw of Iran and replaced him with the radical Iatola Komeini, they went from a western modern society back to the dark ages with that move and the people themselves supported this change.
> ...



Or when the Shah's secret police were doing the same things the Mullah's goons are doing now?

And people wonder why they hate us.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


well, since he was already Shah, and we didnt MAKE him Shah, they are blaming the wrong people
but thats normal to blame the USA for stuff we didnt have anything to do with

and no one is saying the Shah was a nice guy


----------



## Kalam (Jun 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> your links back what i said


_"Basic aim is to secure 41 votes against Mossadeq and assure quorum for quasi-legal move by being able to depend on 53 deputies in Majlis (SIS considers 20 deputies now not controlled must be purchased.)"

"Religious leaders... should be encouraged to threaten direct action against pro-Mossadeq deputies."

"Just prior to movement CIA would give widest publicity to all fabricated documents proving secret agreement between Mossadeq and Tudeh."

"Just prior to movement CIA would give widest publicity to the evidence of illegally issued paper money. CIA might have capability to print masses excellent imitation currency which would be overprinted by this message."_

Direct quotes from the CIA document itself show that the US government acted like a bunch of thugs, liars, and terrorists in their subversive interference in the political processes of a sovereign nation. Our government is not to be trusted.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2009)

Kalam said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > your links back what i said
> ...


only if you really want to twist it
which it is clear you do


and again, the Shah was ALREADY SHAH


----------



## Kalam (Jun 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> only if you really want to twist it
> which it is clear you do


You claimed that our actions were limited to "advising." I demonstrated that you were incorrect. I have not twisted anything. 



DiveCon said:


> and again, the Shah was ALREADY SHAH


Power became far more concentrated in his hands as a result of the coup. He was, as I said, a puppet monarch.


----------



## Chris (Jun 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



The British government tried to enlist the United States in planning a coup, but President Harry S. Truman refused. However, his successor Dwight D. Eisenhower allowed the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government.[7] The British and U.S. spy agencies replaced the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq with an all-powerful monarch, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.[8]

1953 Iranian coup d'Ã©tat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## elvis (Jun 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Do you have any evidence besides wikipedia?


----------



## Chris (Jun 23, 2009)

Ignoring international law, Britain and the US opted for the high-risk strategy of regime change in order to pre-empt a volatile enemy in the Middle East. It was not Iraq, however, that was in the firing line but Iran, and the aftershocks are still being felt. 

Fifty years ago this week, the CIA and the British SIS orchestrated a coup d'etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The prime minister and his nationalist supporters in parliament roused Britain's ire when they nationalised the oil industry in 1951, which had previously been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves. 

Britain accused him of violating the company's legal rights and orchestrated a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged the country into financial crisis. The British government tried to enlist the Americans in planning a coup, an idea originally rebuffed by President Truman. But when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, cold war ideologues - determined to prevent the possibility of a Soviet takeover - ordered the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government. 

A new book about the coup, All the Shah's Men, which is based on recently released CIA documents, describes how the CIA - with British assistance - undermined Mossadegh's government by bribing influential figures, planting false reports in newspapers and provoking street violence. Led by an agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, the CIA leaned on a young, insecure Shah to issue a decree dismissing Mossadegh as prime minister. By the end of Operation Ajax, some 300 people had died in firefights in the streets of Tehran. 

The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in 1979 shook the whole region and helped spread Islamic militancy, with Iran's new hardline theocracy declaring undying hostility to the US. 

Dan De Luce: The spectre of Operation Ajax | Politics | The Guardian


----------



## Chris (Jun 23, 2009)

The CIA history of operation TPAJAX excerpted below was first disclosed by James Risen of The New York Times in its editions of April 16 and June 18, 2000, and posted in this form on its website at: 

New York Times Special Report: The C.I.A. in Iran

This extremely important document is one of the last major pieces of the puzzle explaining American and British roles in the August 1953 coup against Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq.  Written in March 1954 by Donald Wilber, one of the operation&#8217;s chief planners, the 200-page document is essentially an after-action report, apparently based in part on agency cable traffic and Wilber&#8217;s interviews with agents who had been on the ground in Iran as the operation lurched to its conclusion. 

Long-sought by historians, the Wilber history is all the more valuable because it is one of the relatively few documents that still exists after an unknown quantity of materials was destroyed by CIA operatives &#8211; reportedly &#8220;routinely&#8221; &#8211; in the 1960s, according to former CIA Director James Woolsey.  However, according to an investigation by the National Archives and Records Administration, released in March 2000, &#8220;no schedules in effect during the period 1959-1963 provided for the disposal of records related to covert actions and, therefore, the destruction of records related to Iran was unauthorized.&#8221; (p. 22)  The CIA now says that about 1,000 pages of documentation remain locked in agency vaults. 

WebCite query result


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 23, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Do you have any evidence besides wikipedia?



"Evidence" of what? The fact that the CIA played a major role in the 1953 removal of prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq and parliamentary democracy in Iran is a historical reality; I'm not familiar with anyone that denies its occurrence. As put in this book review *on the CIA's website*:



> [T]he CIA carried out its first successful regime-change operation over half a century ago. The target was not an oppressive Soviet puppet but a democratically elected government whose populist ideology and nationalist fervor threatened Western economic and geopolitical interests. The CIA's covert interventioncodenamed TPAJAXpreserved the Shah's power and protected Western control of a hugely lucrative oil infrastructure. It also transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic revolution of 1979



Similar anti-democratic regime changes backed by the CIA were those of presidents Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador Allende in Chile, just to name two that immediately jump to mind. I wouldn't have been surprised if Hugo Chavez had been in the bulls-eye of the Bush regime for a time either.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 23, 2009)

Kalam said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > only if you really want to twist it
> ...


and thats all it was, asshole


----------



## elvis (Jun 23, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any evidence besides wikipedia?
> ...



Not saying those things are false; only that wikipedia is a joke and shouldn't be used as evidence.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jun 23, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Not saying those things are false; only that wikipedia is a joke and shouldn't be used as evidence.



I realize that Wikipedia-bashing is somewhat of a popular trend, but most pages on important topic are rigorously organized with appropriate citations simply as a result of numerous editors constantly monitoring the pages to maintain objectivity and factual accuracy. I'm not suggesting that you simply accept the words of Wikipedia, but it would obviously be reasonable to consult the cited sources.


----------

