|
Iran is next (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. |
Now wait just a minute ... I'm still not following the premise of your argument. The Americans deposed of the disobedient, AMERICAN backed Shah, and replaced him with an anti-American, Islamic fundementalist government, that subsequentely stormed the US embassy and removed ALL US interests in the region after gaining power? Where is your source for this? Orrrr are you saying that it was a plot by British oil company's to exact vengeance on Iran? Hmmm I think I got it now ... maybe there were TWO plots all along! British oil companies colluded with the American CIA to overthrow the Shah together! It makes sense since the CIA owns British oil companies. All this because they didn't buy a reactor that said made in America and because they were short selling oil to britain. I have a question for you now. After the successful CIA/BP plot I'm guessing that we achieved our objectives of selling a nuclear power plant to Iran and opening oil sales to Britain after the revolution right? |
|
|
| occrider |
Many people assume that the US is simply going into the region and will remove ALL hostile regimes and all weapons of mass destruction from the region. That is not the case and I'll tell you why Iraq is an isolated case. First off, we are not starting a war in Iraq. The war was started in the 90's when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Currentely there is a truce in place ... not a peace treaty! This truce is based on the Iraqi agreement to UNCONDITIONALLY disarm the country from all weapons of mass destruction and submit to UN inspections. Since then, Iraq has booted UN inspectors from the country (1998), has not given FULL cooperation that satisfies current weapons inspectors, and has refused to destroy contraband missiles in its possession. Therefore since the terms of the truce has been violated, the United States is not obligated to uphold its end of the bargain. People keep saying more time is needed ... this debate has been going on for almost a decade! How many resolutions and waves of inspectors have gone through that country in an attempt to allow Saddam the chance to prove to the world that he is in full compliance?
At any rate I'm straying from my point ... Iran will not come under US threat simply because Iran is not BOUND by any treaty or truce to relinquish anything. Why do you think the US is not doing more when they announced they were acquiring a nuclear reactor? Because we can't! The same goes with N. Korea. The reason why we are using diplomacy and not force in N. Korea is because the truce at the end of the Korean war stipulated that they only respect the DMZ seperating the two countries. They are not bound to abide by the nuclear non proliferation treaty nor are they restricted from any kind of military buildup or chemical weapons. So for the people that think that we're going to invade Iran after Iraq ... we simply won't. Iran could simply go to the UN and rightfully declare the US as being an aggressor state. There are rules to world politics as Iraq discovered in 1991. |
|
|
| JM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
I even think that this war on Iraq is a way of creating a war against Iran....
|
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
I have the same feeling and Syria is the next in line... |
yeah. egypt too. they want the pyramids. then all of northern africa/middle east (of course with the exception of Israel, who will aid the US)
:rolleyes:
pretty soon you guys will be saying its a war against Arabs and the Muslim religion. c'mon now...
>JM< |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
You may (or may not) be right in that the U.S. will not invade Iran because Iran isn't under truce like Iraq. But that doesn't mean that the U.S. Spec-Ops will not go to Iran.
- The U.S. allegations that Saddam's WMD may be transferred to unspecified countries are an excellent pretext to bully Iran. So the American Spec-Ops will be let operating inside Iran "to search for Saddam's unaccounted WMD, and to chase escaping Baathists who have fled to Sunni-sympathetic areas of Iran".
- There are currently Iranian-trained Shiite guerillas in Iraq near the Iranian border as an early-warning system against U.S. military activity. If/when the U.S. troops will attack them, the surviving guerillas will retreat to Iran. The U.S. can bully Iran to let their Spec-Ops chase for Iraqi guerillas inside Iran.
Also the following news story (supporting my fears of the U.S. attacking/bullying Iran) just appeared:
Army Chief: Huge Force Would Occupy Iraq
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...d=542&ncid=1480
There are several possible explanations for a huge American military presence in Iraq, but the most probable is that the military will be used to bully/attack Iran. After all, a much smaller occupation force would be better for the U.S., because keeping the troops there costs immensely, and Arab terrorists can target huge American troops more easily. So the logical conclusion is that the huge troops will be in Iraq for strategical, not tactical reasons (strategical means here that the U.S. will be a major player feared in all Middle-East) |
US Spec Ops will not be operating out of Iran unless invited by Iran, which is highly doubtful. Sending special forces into Iran illegally would be equivocal to sending special forces into Russia at the height of the cold war. There's no way they can operate secretely in a country as militarized as Iran and they are ill-equipped to even deal with Iranian regular army forces if a direct confrontation occurs. It's simply unfeasible, and no US general would recommend doing it because he would be sentencing his troops to death. An example? You didn't see roves of US special forces roving around Pakistan to catch the escaping Taliban. US forces remained primarily in Afghanistan.
With regards to your last statement, what evidence is there that a large occupying force will be used to bully or attack Iran? What you're doing is that you're taking a lot of current events and adding them together to achieve your conclusions when that evidence doesn't hold enough weight to fully support that conclusion. Yes I suppose it's possible that the US declaration that Iraq may try to harbor WMDs in other countries COULD be a sign that the US may try to attack Iran, but you could just as easily guess that the US will end up attacking Iceland from such little peices of information. You can't simply jump from A)unspecified countries to B) The US is going to attack Iran! Back to the occupying force you're missing the most simplest explanation of all ... that occupying such a large country will take a lot of troops to maintain order. Japan required 120,000 troops after WW2. With homogenous populations that were generally law-abiding, that's a relatively small number. Now take into account that Iraq is comprised of some 150 different tribes divided by religion and ethnicity, and it being a relatively new country established in the past century, and you come to the conclusion that it would take a lot of troops to maintain order!
And to start a second, full scale war while basing operations out of an already hostile country would be sheer stupidity. |
|
|
| JM |
finally some intelligent comments. thank you Vesa!
| quote: |
My own guess is that it's just a co-incidence that Al-Qaidas are prominent around the oil countries. Well may be no co-incidence in the last analysis, but still a co-incidence for our practical purposes. |
US--->oil money
oil money ---> al qaida
al qaida--->terrorize US
heh. well not exactly...:D
| quote: | | There are some allegations of an American conservative-Jewish plot to get control of Middle-East |
haha. thats a GRAND allegation, although probably believed by many...
| quote: |
One more proof of American aspirations in Northern Africa were the recent U.S. "friendship" program with Arab countries. The American military doctrine is to befriend the locals when they want CIA and their Spec-Ops to operate inside the country. |
not too bad of a move. those sly government officials, they;)
>JM< |
|
|
| occrider |
| It's pointless to jump to conclusions so soon ... only time will tell. My prediction however ... the same approach that is being taken with N. Korea will be taken with Iran. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| I think US infact might go after Iran when they're done with Iraq (unless of course, Bush suddenly gets smarter and sees that what he's doing isn't the best course of action). There are two reasons why this situation should be considered different than the one with NK. First one is that Iran is actively supporting islamic terrorists. Second one is that Iran has a much weaker army than the NK. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| - Ironic how once the US gave Iraq ( back in the 80's ) chemical weapns,beoligical and big time weapons to Iraq in order to use them against Iran ( which is what the US wanted, and knew that Saddam would do it ).. and now, US is after both of them .. hehehehe. |
|
|
| montie |
I think the american politicians will do whatever will bring them the most power.
I'm sure many of them want to go after Iran after we take over Iraq and thus take over oil interests over there. And I won't be surprised that after the war with Iraq there will be alot of talk about Iran and Bush and his posse will look for reasons to attack Iraq.
I don't think it will happen though.
Not because the politicians have some compassion left in them, but because they will realize that a war with Iran will be very costly in both money and american lives.
And when amricans die in a war (especially one which will have the support of just a little over half the nation, if not less), more and more of the population will start to oppose the war.
America is attacking Iraq because it thinks it can crush it easily.
Iran, N. Korea, and Pakistan are all countries who pose a much more dangerous threat to us than Iraq. (hell the prez of N. Korea, Kim Jong II, is much more "evil" than saddam).
War with any of these three countries would be devistating though, US casualties would be incredibly high.
And thus our leaders aren't opting for war with them.
and god i hope that they don't decide to go after them in the future. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
The american government is slowly using Irans nuclear energy program as a "threat"....
I see the same pathetic attempts to point the finger at the "evil enemies" in the middeast.
The American government makes me sick. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
The american government is slowly using Irans nuclear energy program as a "threat"....
I see the same pathetic attempts to point the finger at the "evil enemies" in the middeast.
The American government makes me sick. |
Cyrus ... nothing has even HAPPENED yet to arrive at the conclusion that the US will do anything militarily with Iran. Don't you think you're being a tad bit extremist??? I personally resent the remark that you're in disgust with my government about this when there is no THIS. People so far have been merely quoting CNN and using that as a basis in determining what the US foreign policy is before that policy is even established much less made clear to the public!!! If this isn't an example of prejudiced preconceptions I don't know what is. It's not like I go around saying that Arafat will reject ANY peace treaty Israel proposes because everything has failed in the past. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Cyrus ... nothing has even HAPPENED yet to arrive at the conclusion that the US will do anything militarily with Iran. Don't you think you're being a tad bit extremist??? I personally resent the remark that you're in disgust with my government about this when there is no THIS. People so far have been merely quoting CNN and using that as a basis in determining what the US foreign policy is before that policy is even established much less made clear to the public!!! If this isn't an example of prejudiced preconceptions I don't know what is. It's not like I go around saying that Arafat will reject ANY peace treaty Israel proposes because everything has failed in the past. |
"Iran now openly says it is pursuing a complete nuclear fuel cycle. We completely reject Iran's claim that it is doing so for peaceful purposes," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...lear/index.html |
|
|
|
|
