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

[Agnapostate]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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:

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.

The desperation of the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad is revealed by the fact that some of the "Militia" are Arab speakers, unable to speak Farsi [they are imported thugs who are much more willing to club Iranians into obedience than their own people in the military or police are willing to do] (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. [and, in Iraq, unlike the justice they get in Iran]

But [they do have an evil regime to oppose, and something that has happened before is seen more do-able in the present] it could easily be said that what&#8217;s happening in Iran right now is a direct result of the freedom in Iraq. [as a great inspiration, an incentive and example right next door] 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.

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]

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]

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’s interested in why their cause might be inspired by America and its recent policies (re - Bush) highted in blue text:

Their question is “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: “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 [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.

The desperation of the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad is revealed by the fact that some of the "Militia" are Arab speakers, unable to speak Farsi [they are imported thugs who are much more willing to club Iranians into obedience than their own people in the military or police are willing to do] (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. [and, in Iraq, unlike the justice they get in Iran]

But [they do have an evil regime to oppose, and something that has happened before is seen more do-able in the present] it could easily be said that what’s happening in Iran right now is a direct result of the freedom in Iraq. [as a great inspiration, an incentive and example right next door] 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.

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 “game changer” 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’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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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."

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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]

[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]

[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.
.

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]

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.
.

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.

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

 

[American Horse]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

Go to Stormfront - White Nationalist Community

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

 

[elvis]

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

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

Go to Stormfront - White Nationalist Community

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

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