IRAN-Deja vu all over again?

by JWdaughter 318 Replies latest social current

  • leavingwt
  • The Almighty Homer
    The Almighty Homer

    In hindsight of the US and allies going to war with Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait and dismantling that country's government completely,

    may actually have a purposeful after effect in that the leaders of the surrounding countries still remember what happened.

    Iran knows how protective and supportive the US is toward Israel , so even if Iran were to developed their own nuclear armament the chances of

    Iran attacking Israel are very slim to none.

    Mind you it would be inappropriate to underestimate the influence those religious clerics have in running that countries government and what might pop into

    their heads one day.

  • aligot ripounsous
    aligot ripounsous

    I agree with David, Ahmadinejad (must ask Sarah Palin how she would pronounce) is anything but ignorant, but where he wants to get at is unclear, since he knows the western countries are not going to be taken for another ride for long. Or maybe his goal is all to clear : he's hating the western heathen hedonistic world, and its Israeli extention, to the extent he's ready to set the whole middle east area, and beyond, ablaze, with the sole aim of putting the Occident on its knees. It is to be hopped, as someone wrote in a previous post, that cool heads will take over in Iran before it's too late.

  • llbh

    The leaders of Iran enjoy power, to use a wmd against Israel or the US would be political and physical suicide. They are though close to less than stable regimes that do have them, like India, and Pakistan, the plan of Obama to reduce nuclear weapons may well address the anxieties that they could legitimately have.

    We in the West need to engage with Iran, to diffuse tensions.

    Regards David

  • beksbks

    There is pride to think of too. I think we need to treat Iran with all the respect they think they deserve. How must it feel for a nation to be told they must do as we say? This seems to me to be a part of our problem in that region. We have been disrespectful and untrustworthy. There is obviously a change happening in the citizenry of that country, a change for the better. If we go in like cowboys again, we would likely be hurting that progress.

  • leavingwt

    With North Korea, the U.S. demonstrated that it's not serious about giving ultimatums. The West is happy to negotiate forever, so why wouldn't the Iranians proceed with building a bomb? Once they have the bomb, they have more leverage during the indefinite negotiations.

    Obama says "the time for talk is over". If Russia and China are unwilling to support real sanctions, those words are pretty meaningless.

    Below is some sobering commentary on how there is a faction in the U.S. that would love to bomb Iran.

    The reason such accusations deserve so much scrutiny is obvious: there is a substantial faction in our political culture which craves a military attack on Iran -- the same faction, more or less, that caused us to attack Iraq -- and will seize on anything to justify that. Anyone who doubts that should look at this creepily excited and chest-beating statement yesterday from Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, GOP Sen. John Kyl, and Sen. Joe Lieberman: Iraq War supporters all. Contradicting the 2007 NIE, they declare as an "inescapable conclusion" that "Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons." Their joint statement threatens "catastrophic consequences" against Iran and vows that "we are prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Iran's nuclear breakout." Just in case anyone is still confused by what they are threatening, they favorably cite a "bipartisan" report from former Senators Chuck Robb (D) and Dan Coats (R) which urges the President to begin preparing for military action against Iran, and lays out a detailed plan for what it would entail, beginning with a naval blockade and extending to "devastating strikes" against "assets" inside Iran that "would probably last up to several weeks and would require vigilance for years to come." That's what three key U.S. Senators are explicitly threatening.

    In the absence of what they call "immediate" compliance, the Senators call for "crippling new sanctions against Iran." In The Washington Post today, AIPAC's most trusted House member -- Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D) -- similarly recommends sanctions that would "cause the Iranian banking system to collapse" and impose other severe economic hardships. So much for all of that oh-so-moving, profound, green-wearing concern for the welfare of The Iranian People. Time to bomb them or, at best, starve them until their government complies with our dictates. The Post Editorial Page repeats the same claim made for two decades about Iran ("officials say that when it is operational, it could deliver the material for a bomb in a year") and warns: "If it had not been discovered, the Qom plant could have given Iran the means for a bomb by 2011 without the world knowing about it. And if there is one clandestine facility, most likely there are others."

    So we can all see where this is headed. Obama, to his credit, is one of the least inflammatory and fear-mongering establishment voices in all of this. And whatever else one might think of the whole Iran question, Obama officials -- just on a strategic level, in terms of negotiating tactics -- are infinitely smarter and more calculating than the ones who preceded them. They seem intent on formulating a negotiation strategy that will be most likely to resolve the matter through mutual agreement. But the drooling, belligerent sentiments being unleashed by the reporting of this story -- eagerly fueled by the always-war-hungry Bayh/Kyl/Lieberman faction -- could easily produce its own momentum.

  • Farkel

    :This seems to me to be a part of our problem in that region. We have been disrespectful and untrustworthy.

    Yeah, like that region has really earned our respect after 9/11.

    There is also the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, the Pentagon, the soldiers quarters in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the suicide bombings in Spain and Britain, over 100 major Palestinian bombings since 2000, the assassination of Robert Kennedy by a Palestinian, the Pan Am bombing in Rome, the bombing of TWA Flight 841 in Greece, the bombing of the US Embassy in Lebanon, bombing of Gulf Air Flight 771, the Marine Headquarters in Lebanon, bombing the US Embassy in Awkar, bombing the US Embassy in Torregon Spain, a favorite US soldier restaurant in Madrid Spain, suicide attacks in Rome and Vienna Italy airports, Pan Am Flight 747 to Frankfurt, the Pan Am Lockervie bombing, French UTA Flight 772, Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.

    Here is the list:

    I'm only up to 1996, so I'm about halfway there in listing the number of bombings and suicide attacks people from "that region" have done since the early 1970's, but thousands and thousands of people were killed.

    We don't "respect" them, so they blow everybody up in sight. Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me.

    But I'm sure Obama will show them the respect they deserve when he and France formally surrender to them, while holding their hands and singing Kumbya. Out of respect, of course.

    I'm only joking about Obama surrendering. He will merely give them just about everything they want and the rest of us will wait around until they finally decide they want more. And then more. And after that some more. Until there is nothing left to give them but absolute theocratic control over our Country and the world.


  • beksbks

    So the exact same people did all that huh? Thanks for proving my point.

  • JeffT

    Yes, it is deja vu all over again. Reminds me of 1979, only this time I'm afraid they're going to do more than violate international law by taking over an embassy. These people don't care about the rule of law as we understand it. Nor are they interested in talking out disagreements.

  • SixofNine

Share this