|
Iran is next (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| I'll bet you a hundred bucks Iran is a non-issue. Why? Iran is NOT treaty bound or obligated to the UN unlike Iraq. It is a legitimate, non-agressive government. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I'll bet you a hundred bucks Iran is a non-issue. Why? Iran is NOT treaty bound or obligated to the UN unlike Iraq. It is a legitimate, non-agressive government. |
well lets hope the American guv has the same opinion on this like you.I just hope we are not next.But I mean if u look at the situation right now iran is sorounded by U.S troops,there is troops in Turkey,Afghanistan,Kuwait,Iraq(soon:( )Saudi Arabia,and lets not forget how many troops are just waiting in the persian gulf,so it does look scary to me,and since we are part of Axis Of Evil:whip: :whip: I wonder what they gonna say about Iran once there are done with Iraq,I mean I dont think Bush is gonna stop his war on terrorism any time soon.:confused: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
well lets hope the American guv has the same opinion on this like you.I just hope we are not next.But I mean if u look at the situation right now iran is sorounded by U.S troops,there is troops in Turkey,Afghanistan,Kuwait,Iraq(soon:( )Saudi Arabia,and lets not forget how many troops are just waiting in the persian gulf,so it does look scary to me,and since we are part of Axis Of Evil:whip: :whip: I wonder what they gonna say about Iran once there are done with Iraq,I mean I dont think Bush is gonna stop his war on terrorism any time soon.:confused: |
Iran is playing the situation VERY smart. They are declaring their intentions with their nuclear energy developments, and are opening their programs to intense international scrutiny. Particularly with the IAEA. It is VERY unlikely that they will draw internationaly critisicm and involvement in their policies. You truly vilify US intentions in the region. It is not to mantain dominance but rather to maintain long term stability. Many erroneously characterize the US policy with Iraq as the "standard" US policy with every country. That is clearly false as demonstrated by dimplomatic strides towards achieving peace in korea. Iran is similar in the respects that progress would be achieved through dimplomacy rather than force. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Well, Iran had its own nuclear program back in the seventies. And what happened was that islamic revolution heavily funded by the US overthrew the Iranian government and installed a new one which halted the nuclear program completely. And since we all know Iran is in the axis of evil, I'm sure Bush will find a reason to bomb it as well. Did anybody a year ago except Bush & co. think Iraq was going to be bombed soon after Afghanistan? |
|
|
| melech_mike |
| quote: | | Did anybody a year ago except Bush & co. think Iraq was going to be bombed soon after Afghanistan? |
No, but i guess my prayers were answered!!
And after Iraq, we'll see how many more of the freedom appreciating world's prayers will be answered!
G-d Bless Israel, America and every country that stands for everything these two countries stand proud for!
A world with less Arafats, less Hussiens, Less Bin Ladens, and less extreme lefties! :tongue3 |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, Iran had its own nuclear program back in the seventies. And what happened was that islamic revolution heavily funded by the US overthrew the Iranian government and installed a new one which halted the nuclear program completely. And since we all know Iran is in the axis of evil, I'm sure Bush will find a reason to bomb it as well. Did anybody a year ago except Bush & co. think Iraq was going to be bombed soon after Afghanistan? |
What the hell are you talking about??? So the US heavily funded a revolution in 1979 to overthrow the US BACKED Shah and to turn the Iranian economy that the US had invested millions into against the US??? Yea ok ... and next year I think the CIA will start supplying arms to the taliban so they can overthrow the US forces there and the Afghan government. I think we're starting to take the anti-American propoganda a little toooo far. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | | A world with less Arafats, less Hussiens, Less Bin Ladens, and less extreme lefties! |
Oh, so now it's extreme lefties too? The list grows and grows...
Now, about Iran. There are two reasons why the US supported islamic revolution, although Britain was more involved in that than the US. The first reason is that Iran was going to buy 4 nuclear reactors from Germany and France, and not from the US. The second reason is oil. In 1978 Iranian government and British Petroleum were working on an agreement to renew their previous 25-year plan for oil exploatation which was nearing its end. The talks failed because british offer stated that they want the exclusive rights of iranian oil, while at the same time they refused to guarantee that the oil will be bought. Iran then decided that it might turn to Germany or France regarding its oil exports. London responded by decreasing its oil demand from Iran to only 3 million barrels/day although their agreed minimum was 5 million barrels/day. That was very hard on Iranian economy and additionally strikes of oil exploatation workers lead to total collapse of it. Then British Petroleum retreated most of its money from Iran, which, together with US and mostly british government agents provoking the masses, lead to the islamic revolution. When Homeini came to power, he immediately stopped plans for development of nuclear power, and additionally Iranian oil exports dropped dramatically. This resulted in a huge leap of oil prices in the market, and who else profited from that then the oil companies, mainly British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell.
And about the Talibans and Bin Laden, CIA did supply them with weapons once already, it's just that they sort of broke loose when the americans didn't expect it. |
|
|
| melech_mike |
| quote: | | Oh, so now it's extreme lefties too? The list grows and grows... |
Just as i and many others believe having an extreme right wing government is not always the best solution to world affairs, so do i believe that having extreme lefties is a terrible mistake!
Issues cannot always be solved without conflict, and if no progress is being made and the situation is just getting worst, than i believe a more hardline rightwing approach is a pliable solution to getting conflicts resolved!
I wish we could rely on humanities goodwill to get the job done, but sometimes humaniy doesn't make the right descisions quickly enough, and thats when people have to be more hard pressed abuot some issues! |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
| quote: | Originally posted by melech_mike
Issues cannot always be solved without conflict, and if no progress is being made and the situation is just getting worst, than i believe a more hardline rightwing approach is a pliable solution to getting conflicts resolved!
|
this means, that there should be no war in Iraq following your own definition. There is progress in Iraq with the important concessions lateley, and the situation isn't getting worse because no one has yet to show that Iraq is prepping up an attack with chemical and biological weapons. |
|
|
| melech_mike |
| quote: | | this means, that there should be no war in Iraq following your own definition. There is progress in Iraq with the important concessions lateley, and the situation isn't getting worse because no one has yet to show that Iraq is prepping up an attack with chemical and biological weapons. |
There is no progress being made.
Resolution 1441 clearly states that Iraq must prove to the Security councel that it has destroyed its WMD.
It has clearly not done so to this day.
It has recycled old reports to the security councle that provides no new eveidence of disarmiment!
Therefore i dont believe that progress is being made if we have to send in thousands of UN inspectors to search a country the size of California for these weapons.
Just like Bush said: we dont need thousands of UN inspectors in Iraq, we need just one or two to make sure that Iraq is complying with Resolution 1441, and is disarming its WMD!
Playing cat and mouse is no progress.... its just delay!
The US has ever right to have started the war with Iraq already!
1441 has failed to achieve a peaceful solution to the problem, and supposedly it was Saddams last chance. There is no need for another resolution by the security councel... they must unite to disarm this very dangerous man before they find themselves and the rest of the humanity extinct!
On a side note: even if Iraq didn't have WMD (which he does), i believe its the worlds responsibilty to make sure that people in his country under his rule arent mistreated as humans. To make sure thay arent hung for opposing the government. To make sure their families wellbeing is not at risk. This man should be taken out of power just because of his lack of respect for humanity, for individuals rights!
He is a cruel mother****** who kills for fun, this man is a reincarnation of Hitler, just with different plans to unleash his evil! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Oh, so now it's extreme lefties too? The list grows and grows...
Now, about Iran. There are two reasons why the US supported islamic revolution, although Britain was more involved in that than the US. The first reason is that Iran was going to buy 4 nuclear reactors from Germany and France, and not from the US. The second reason is oil. In 1978 Iranian government and British Petroleum were working on an agreement to renew their previous 25-year plan for oil exploatation which was nearing its end. The talks failed because british offer stated that they want the exclusive rights of iranian oil, while at the same time they refused to guarantee that the oil will be bought. Iran then decided that it might turn to Germany or France regarding its oil exports. London responded by decreasing its oil demand from Iran to only 3 million barrels/day although their agreed minimum was 5 million barrels/day. That was very hard on Iranian economy and additionally strikes of oil exploatation workers lead to total collapse of it. Then British Petroleum retreated most of its money from Iran, which, together with US and mostly british government agents provoking the masses, lead to the islamic revolution. When Homeini came to power, he immediately stopped plans for development of nuclear power, and additionally Iranian oil exports dropped dramatically. This resulted in a huge leap of oil prices in the market, and who else profited from that then the oil companies, mainly British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell.
And about the Talibans and Bin Laden, CIA did supply them with weapons once already, it's just that they sort of broke loose when the americans didn't expect it. |
What on God's earth are your sources for this material? I smell a conspiracy theory magazine. First of all, you stated that the US backed the Iranian revolution to put a stop to their development of a nuclear power plant. Now you're saying the US backed the revolution because Iran wouldn't purchase the power plants from the US? Which is it do we want them to have nuclear power or not??? So are you saying the US invested billions backing the Iranian governement, training the Shah's army, and selling arms to them and then overthrow the government because they purchased a nuclear reactor from France rather than us? And if the US was so intent on keeping the SHah from developing a nuclear power plant, WHY WOULD WE SELL HIM A SMALL RESEARCH REACTOR in the 60s??? Also why would we allow several hundred Iranian students in the US to study nuclear physics and engineering??
Secondly, you stated that the US heavily funded the Iranian revolution ... blah blah blah blah blah ... US = evil. Then you just admit that the whole thing benefited the British and was more so a British plot! Funny how you never mentioned the Brits before when you were critisizing the US!
Lastly, I find the intuition of how this benefits the Brits to be a little absurd. The whole plot was designed to RAISE oil prices? So if the US invades Iraq and takes over its oil we're going to raise the price of gasoline? Not only is it counterintuitive but it makes very little economic sense. If world oil prices rise its not like BP can raise gas prices, pocket all the profits, and pass the cost off to the consumer. They themselves experience the shortage of oil supplies and as a result must pay more for each barrel that they get. The oil industry is a competitive market so it's not like British oil companies can take advantage of monopolistic pricing.
Here's an excellent article about the US and the Iranian revolution with a healthy list of references:
http://www.essaybank.co.uk/free_coursework/387.html
It outlines how the Iranian revolution was everything BUT advantageous to the US. Here's the conclusion:
| quote: |
In this essay we have acccounted for the United States transition from being Iran's most powerful ally in the early 1970s to being her most hated enemy by 1980. In essence, it was because the Iranian-American relationship was largely bound and determined at the very top - it was an elite-to-elite connection. The Iranian opposition, radicalised by the Shah's authoritarian policies since the CIA had helped destroy the nationalist movement in 1953, viewed him as an American puppet. While the United States saw him as a reliable partner in their policies of containment. The Nixon Doctrine merged effortlessly with the Shah's dreams of being a regional superpower, and massive oil revenues allowed the Pahlavi regime to modernise Iran. Therefore, America's foreign policy became inextricably entwined and associated with the Shah's domestic agenda. The mistake that the American policymakers made was to associate the aspirations of the Shah with his people. The United States consistently failed to understand the broad range of social and cultural forces at play in Iran and paid the price for this ignorance in 1979.
|
|
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
The americans sold a small research reactor and trained students in the 60s because they thought Iran was going to buy nuclear technology from them, and when it didn't it pissed them off.
And yes, I agree it was more of a british plot, although US and Britain did act together in this. I guess I should have said that earlier.
The plot was not designed to raise the oil prices, the plot was designed to bring down a disobedient Shah who wanted to stop selling oil to Britain. And if you check the oil market companies ownership, you'll find that most are in British or American hands, at least most that are dealing with oil from the middle east. |
|
|
|
|
