So Iran is next then?

Hobbes

I've seen in the last few weeks a growing number of news reports that are showing Iran in a negative light.

Based on the other events recently, the dehumanizing was the first thing to start before publically demanding action.

Btw, before people start flaming me.. Iran afaik is made up of three different states, one of these is much the same as the rest of the western world. TBH some of the stories don't make sense because of this. For example one of the stories was that women had to wear the usual black suits (instead of making them grayish), but from reports of Iran I saw a few months back women don't even wear them.

Or the demands that Iran open up it's nuclear facility. Unless something has changed in the last month or so Iran was complying fully with the nuclear commision.

Wolf

In all fairness shortly after sep 11th it was always going tobe likly that America was going to declare war on most of the Arab nation that they didnt really like in the first place.

Esp when they have the 'rightous' bush jr at the fore :mad:

The Saint

They wont be dragging Blair along this time if they do it. Britain have been strengthening relations with Iran for years and to be honest I don't think the Bushies will go ahead with it as they would have no support for it outside of America which could in turn sway the population. They wont do anything before ther election though. What ever happened to N.Korea? Chicken ****s.

bonkey

America makes disapproving noises about a nation, which may be vaguely threatening...

Conclusion : The US are a bunch of power-mad wanna-be-world-rulers who are wrong and must be opposed.

America stops making disapproving noises about a nation...perhaps because it is getting involved in a process known as negotiation or diplomacy

Conclusion : The US are a bunch of cowards.

go figure.

jc

p.pete

There is reports in the news today of US warning Iran not to get involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. Hopefully it's just a case of the Americans trying to keep as large a piece of pie for themselves as possible.

At the moment Russia is helping Iran to build a nuclear power plant and apparantly they still intend to complete the project.

Having said all that, I think they are being accused of supporting Al-Qaeda members and that could just be the start of the propeganda.

What happened to Syria?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by p.pete
What happened to Syria?

That's what I was thinking too, but I guess that was last month.

And again, the Al-Qaeda card is played! I wonder how many 'suspects' North Korea will be harbouring when their turn comes around.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2940580.stm

mrblue

I don't think America will start another war for a while yet. They'll play on the fear created by the Iraq invasion in order to get the other 'Rogue States' to step into line. In a few years time, when the Republicans are losing votes, & the Arab nations are starting to play up again, they'll blow the crap out of another poorly defended country. Repeat ad nauseum. I only cling to the small hope that one day they may destroy France (only joking).

Hobbes

Originally posted by bonkey

go figure.

jc

Indeed. I much prefer the diplomatic approach to dealing with N.Korea then a war.

p.pete

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
And again, the Al-Qaeda card is played! I wonder how many 'suspects' North Korea will be harbouring when their turn comes around.

IMHO they won't go near any countries that have definite nuclear capability like Korea.

Inspectors were in Iraq for years before they were attacked. They pretty much knew that resistance was going to be minimal.

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
America makes disapproving noises about a nation, which may be vaguely threatening...

Conclusion : The US are a bunch of power-mad wanna-be-world-rulers who are wrong and must be opposed.

America stops making disapproving noises about a nation...perhaps because it is getting involved in a process known as negotiation or diplomacy

Conclusion : The US are a bunch of cowards.

go figure.

jc

But we don't know how much of the US sabre-rattling on Iran (or N Korea) is actually aimed at those countries, and how much is aimed at building a domestic consensus behind future military action. Sure, all that aggressive blabbermouthing might just be a canny diplomatic strategem to draw reluctant countries into the light of modern international relations. But it might also be designed to antagonise and isolate the object country while fanning the flames of domestic American hostility that is necessary for war. Based on very recent experience and a judgement that Rumsfeld and Bush are not the Machiavellian geniuses they're sometimes made out to be, I'm going for the second option at the moment.

bug

so what happened to Syria?

I think that the US threatened Syria at the time because the had hundred's of thousand's of troops next door. I imagine Britain was a bit peeved at this due to the Brits trying to build up relations with the Syrian's and stating that the current leader was "progressive". Perhaps Iran is building that Nuclear facility with the aid of the Russians to deter the American's from entering the country. IMO the media will give you a hint as to the timing if they do go in. You'll see increasing reports on certain "news stations" reinforcing Iran as a haven/producer of terrorists. Or they could take the humanitarian approach... poor Iranian people being controlled and imprisioned for speaking out... yep.. I can see Dan Rathers now..*vomit*

growler

These threats towards Iran make no sense in the context of a country that is moving towards a secular society thats been trying to get away from the ayatollahs shadow for a few years now. So maybe the sabre rattling is to enforce Khatami's moderate position, ie if the mullahs continue to suppress reforms, the country fails to westernise sufficiently, then the yanks go in guns a blazing ... although conversely the threat of the US invading would probably radicalise most of the countrys youth towards the islamists who seem to be winning the internal power struggle at present.

Syria and Israel are so interwined with the Palestinian question that they need to tackle them at the same time, and of course they are a lot more organised and experienced that the Iraqi amateur army. Iran and Syria have a lot more friends in the intl. community than Saddam did.

Maybe Donald and George Jnr. they are just nuts after all

Sand

I've seen in the last few weeks a growing number of news reports that are showing Iran in a negative light.

Only in the last few weeks? Grand so

sanvean

Originally posted by growler
So maybe the sabre rattling is to enforce Khatami's moderate position, ie if the mullahs continue to suppress reforms, the country fails to westernise sufficiently, then the yanks go in guns a blazing ...

Ironically, it'll do just the opposite. The pro-government forces in Iran are already tarnishing the students and other protesters with being pro-American, or having links with America. These threats will just further their case for the idea of 'satan' america. it'll probably make any reforms even more difficult to put through.

I wonder how the war would go in iran. I wouldn't say that America could count on such a swift victory a la iraq.

SkepticOne

What the US doesn't want is Iran (or elements within Iran) working with Shia religious elements in Iraq - supplying them with funds, advice etc.

It would be unfortunate from the US point of view if Sharia law was introduced in Iraq shortly after eliminating the dictator.

More likely the US is concerned with elements within Iran rather than the Iran government itself, imo. Iranian clerics forming links with clerics in Iraq.

I don't see this as being something the US would go to war over. Plenty can be done diplomatically before that.

Captain Trips

I'd say that they will undoubedtly go to war. Iran is if you remember, part of the Axis of Evil regarding Al-Queda. Saddam being an evil bastard and eating babies is one thing - but it got a lot of USians to march in NY, LA, etc., marching against the Iraq war.

AQ did however stir up a lot of genuine hostility toward um, anybody not American. The talk of Iran being oppressive, etc., is just foreplay really. It's the usual talk. I think the AQ hiding in Iran is more likely a catalyst:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1051390302937&p=1012571727102
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aK4fdj8a3Ya4&refer=top_world_news

Ripped from infowars if you're interested. The left-wingers can't say it's about oil, etc., and the right-wingers can't say it's about introducing democracy to those unprivileged. So it's again right down the line on a common enemy to both parties. And TBH the terrorist attacks lately have been around the world. If the conspiracies are real (ooer!) then an attack on the US would need to be had like in Sep 11.

Wolf

Originally posted by bonkey
America makes disapproving noises about a nation, which may be vaguely threatening.../

Conclusion : The US are a bunch of power-mad wanna-be-world-rulers who are wrong and must be opposed.

True!

America stops making disapproving noises about a nation...perhaps because it is getting involved in a process known as negotiation or diplomacy

Conclusion : The US are a bunch of cowards.

go figure.

jc

See the latter.

Jake303

USA wants a full democratic process in Iran and would welcome regime change to achieve this BUT apparently a larger percentage of Irans population voted last year in elections than voted in the last US elections.

p.pete

Originally posted by Jake303
USA wants a full democratic process in Iran and would welcome regime change to achieve this BUT apparently a larger percentage of Irans population voted last year in elections than voted in the last US elections.

That may be true but when all the candidates are vetted to make sure they aren't the type to "rock the boat" then it kind of belittles the whole thing.

PH01

Remember when you were a kid you used to play Hide and Seek? You'll run around the house or garden trying to find your mates or hide from them.
But, sometimes someone forgot that the game was over and no one was hiding anymore. They'd run keep running around the house looking for nothing.
This is kinda what the US is like at the moment. Didn't, and won't find anything in Iraq. It must be in Iran? Oh, nothing in Iran. It must be in Syria? ....

p.pete

Originally posted by PH01
Remember when you were a kid you used to play Hide and Seek?

Thats a very lucrative game of hide and seek they have going there:)

growler

originally posted by p.pete
That may be true but when all the candidates are vetted to make sure they aren't the type to "rock the boat" then it kind of belittles the whole thing.

well there is a very real attempt at reform going on , they elected a moderate government much to the annoyance of the clerics. In a country ruled by Shahs and then the Ayatollahs it doesnt take much to rock the boat , Khatami and his government have certainly done that.

p.pete

Hopefully they can move towards a more relaxed government over the next few elections. IMHO it would be better achieved that way then by having outside involvement stirring up crap. From the Iranians I have talked to it was a fantastic country pre revolution in 78 or 79.

Johnmb

And let's not forget that the only reason Iran hasn't been a democracy for the last several decades is because the US removed the last fully democratically elected government in order to put the Shah in power as he was more willing to give the US officials large payoffs and allow US Big Business to use the locals as a form of slave labour. The US likes to claim that their problems with Iran go back to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, they conveniently like to forget that Irans hatred of the US goes back to the US coup that put the Shah in power.

bonkey

Originally posted by p.pete
That may be true but when all the candidates are vetted to make sure they aren't the type to "rock the boat" then it kind of belittles the whole thing.

AS opposed to the free and truly democratic western nations who shunned and criticised the Austrians for electing someone that they (the west) didnt approve of, and more or less said that people like that shouldnt be allowed run at all, and even if they are let run and somehow get elected, they should be booted out because they're not suitable.

Its the same with Iraq. The US want freedom and democracy for teh Iraqi people.....but apparently only as long as the people can't choose any individual or group that would be contrary to US interests.

Iranian vetting = bad
US/Iraqi/Austrian vetting = good

The only difference seems to be that its a question of whether or not you approve of the restrictions being placed on the candidates....rather than whether or not you approve of restrictions at all.


jc

p.pete

That seems to sum it up quite nicely Bonkey. It does seem a bit two faced to criticise Iranians for vetting their candidates when the same measures are being applied to achieve different results by most other countries.