Iran and it's Nukes

[TweetyBird]

>>I remember 25 years ago...when a pansy named Jimmy Carter was president of the USA...Iran began what we now call terrorism against the USA, when they kidnapped 52 american hostages from the embassy in Tehran.....Wel, now we've come full circle...During the Reagan and Bush years they kept themselves out of the limelight, due mainly to the consequences they would have suffered in the event they tried to cause problems for the USA or it's allies.....Now we are faced with the most disturbing threat from a rouge nation, that frankly makes me <<

A history major you are not.

The Iran problem started in 1953 with CIA propping up Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Durring the Reagan years, the US played boths sides (Iraq and Iran) leading to problems we now have in Iraq and Iran. During the Reagan transition, Wiliam Casey negotiated with Iran and delayed the release of the hostages until the inauguration. Do you think for one second, that timing was spontaneous or fear? That was planned and the hostage's release was delayed for weeks by William Casey.

[Lizking]

The Iran problem started in 1953 with CIA propping up Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Durring the Reagan years, the US played boths sides (Iraq and Iran) leading to problems we now have in Iraq and Iran. During the Reagan transition, Wiliam Casey negotiated with Iran and delayed the release of the hostages until the inauguration. Do you think for one second, that timing was spontaneous or fear? That was planned and the hostage's release was delayed for weeks by William Casey.


Nor are you, my friend.

[TweetyBird]

Then point out the factual errors, Liz.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Staga
Shah and US terrorized Iranian people first and couldn't handle the results of their own actions.

What evidence do you offer to prove your accusation that the US terrorized or supported terrorizing the Iranian people? Enlighten me with some of this history you so smugly claim to know.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by AKIron
What evidence do you offer to prove your accusation that the US terrorized or supported terrorizing the Iranian people? Enlighten me with some of this history you so smugly claim to know.

How about you educate yourself for once? As Dowding suggested, a simple Google search should get you started. I can suggest some books dealing with modern Iranian history too if you like?

Or are you too frightened of what you may discover?

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Lets see your source

Last I heard in Falluja there were originally an estimated 3,000 insurgents, Around 1,000 were killed, around another 1,000 were captured and it is assumed around another 1,000 left before and during the fighting.

How does that equate to tens of thousands?

2 weeks of battle and the reports are over 2000 dead insurgents.  You look up the figures that the US claims to have killed thus far  for the entire war or even just after the declaration of the 'end of hostilities'.  Dont forget the civilians killed indirectly by destroyed infrastructure to their cities and towns.  The towns most likely to vote for the US interests govt are the first to get thier water and electric and medicine.  The towns most likely to suppor the Iranian friendly govt are not going to get much in the way of 'rebuilding' money until long after the elections.

[CAVY]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>I remember 25 years ago...when a pansy named Jimmy Carter was president of the USA...Iran began what we now call terrorism against the USA, when they kidnapped 52 american hostages from the embassy in Tehran.....Wel, now we've come full circle...During the Reagan and Bush years they kept themselves out of the limelight, due mainly to the consequences they would have suffered in the event they tried to cause problems for the USA or it's allies.....Now we are faced with the most disturbing threat from a rouge nation, that frankly makes me <<

A history major you are not.

The Iran problem started in 1953 with CIA propping up Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Durring the Reagan years, the US played boths sides (Iraq and Iran) leading to problems we now have in Iraq and Iran. During the Reagan transition, Wiliam Casey negotiated with Iran and delayed the release of the hostages until the inauguration. Do you think for one second, that timing was spontaneous or fear? That was planned and the hostage's release was delayed for weeks by William Casey.

I give you the Casey situation...however  I'n not buying the propping up of the Sha...The US chose the lesser of two evils and picked the Sha..which mind has nothing to do with Iraq today

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Momus--
How about you educate yourself for once? As Dowding suggested, a simple Google search should get you started. I can suggest some books dealing with modern Iranian history too if you like?

Or are you too frightened of what you may discover?

I've read what some have claimed. Hardly constitutes evidence. Staga can speak for himself I believe.

[Staga]

AKIron; I can't tell you anything more than Babek already wrote in previous page.
For refreshing your memory it's quoted here:

Originally posted by babek-
Its very easy to pick the embassy-hostage event out of the whole context for an example how barbaric and terroristic all iranians are.

But you have to see the whole history which led to this event.

During WW2 the neutral Iran has been invaded and occupied by soviets and british forces, because the Shah of Iran Reza Khan refused to join the allies and declare war to the German Reich.
The relationship between the German Reich and Iran were good - and was no reason to declare a war to this country.

After the allies invaded Iran, they deposed the Shah and replaced him with his weak son, Reza II, who became a puppet of the Allies.
Promptly Iran became a member of the Allies and declared war to Germany. Iran was used as a supply base for the Soviets.

After WW2 Iran became a friend of the USA - and in these first decade it was a real friendship.
The USA were a "new" nation in this area. Unlike nations like England, France or Russia there were no diplomatic damage done to Iran by the USA.
The USA helped Iran by forcing the USSR-occupation forces to leave iranian territory after WW2 and also they supported Iran when they attacked and destroyed the first Kurdish nation, which was built in the soviet occupation area - the Kurdish Republik of Mahabad.

The soviets didnt acted when imperial iranian troops marched to the capital of this kurdish country, arresting the whole kurdish government and executed them in public after a short military trial.

The USA and the americans who worked in Iran impressed the iranians with their way of life and their democracy.

And so many young intellectual iranians, who had visited european and american universities and adopted the US way of life were more than happy, when the Prime Minister of Iran, Mr. Mossadegh, managed to depose the Shah in an unbloody revolution and sent him to italian exile.

That was the time when Iran could have become the most important stabilizing factor in the region.
It was a chance to create a democratic Iran - and this democracy would have built not by foreigners, but the Iranians themself.

But this chance failed.
The british and the US intelligence service deposed Mossadegh and put again the Shah on "power".
The US command centre of this operation was the embassy of the USA in Teheran. (And also in 1979 the CIA command centre was in this embassy).

With US help the SAVAK became a monster. This secret police of the Shah killed in the years that followed the deposal of Mossadeh tenhousands of Iranians - year by year.
Many of them just dissappeared.

The lucky one, who had relatives in powerful positions, were able to flee from Iran.

But most of them became victims of the terror regime of the Shah.
The Shah himself was considered a puppet of the USA.

And so the hate started to grow. Also the democratic forces in Iran had severe losses, because their prominent people were killed by the SAVAK.

So the radical elements - those who always fought in terroristic ways - like the communist Tudeh-partymembers and the radical islamists survived, because they were "trained" in acting with the SAVAK.

This terror lasted decades. And finally in 1979 there came the bloody revolution in Iran.

It was a time of total madness, where most of the Iranians only had the wish to end the terror regime of the Shah.

They forced the Shah to leave Iran and Ajatollah Khomeini came back to Iran to build a new iran - the Islamic Republic.

And all the time the people feared that the same could happen what happened after Mossadegh deposed the Shah in the 50ties: That the USA could start an operation to depose Khomeini and bring the Shah back to power.
The US embassy was defined as the CIA-command centre - especially by the students of the Teheran universities, who finally attacked it and took the hostages.

Most of the people didnt knew that one terror regime - the one of the Shah - was finally replaced by another one - the one of the Mullahs.

Ayatollah Khomeini - although very charismatic - was in the middle of an innerpolitical fighting for the power of Iran.
And many people didnt see what a dangerous man he was. Not only the iranians, who were so glad that the terror-regime of the Shah had ended and wished that he could continue the work of Mossadeh.

Also President Carters advisors called Khomeini "a second Ghandi who shouldnt be stopped".

That this "Ghandi" would build the next terror regime, which was responsible for the death of a million iranians wasnt seen in these days.

In these days the Iranians wanted to create their own democratic country. Many political factions were struggling bitterly how the new Iran should look like.

The one with the most power was the group of the Khomeini followers, but there were also many other factions.

And then something happened which ended any discussions: The Arabs attacked and tried to invade iran.

Saddam - in these days a nice friend of the civilized western nations - started the Iran-Iraq-War which lasted 8 long years.

Many of you think that the iranians consider Israel as the biggest enemy of Iran, but its not Isral but the arabs.
The innerpolitical fightings stopped immedeately.

And so - ironicly  it was Saddam who gave with his attack against Iran Ayatollah Khomeini the whole solidarity of all iranian factions. He united all Iranians who had only the goal to kick the arabs out of Iran as their ancestors did centuries ago.

And so Khomeini could stabilize his terror-regime in Iran.

But today many thing in Iran have chanced. The mullahs were already loosing their power and democracy was growing again in Iran.

Then 9/11 happened and the stupid Axis-of-Evil Speach of Bush helped again the Mullahs to stabilize their power.

The mullahs know that they are loosing the inner political fightings against the iranian democratic powers - so they indeed need something or someone to help them.

I am totally convinced that the iranians will replace the mullahregime with a democratic system made by iranians within the next 5 years.

But if there is an attack against Iran by foreigners then we would have the same setback we had when England and the USA destroyed the democracy in Iran in the 50ties and replaced it by a terroristic regime.

[Torque]

Originally posted by AKIron
I've read what some have claimed. Hardly constitutes evidence. Staga can speak for himself I believe.

You mean people like Dr. Donald Wilber?

His CIA docs went public back in 2000.

Knock yourself out....

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

[CAVY]

Originally posted by Staga
AKIron; I can't tell you anything more than Babek already wrote in previous page.
For refreshing your memory it's quoted here:

The botom line is this..the last people on earth who should have any type of a nuclear CAPABILITY is Iran...I don't care about how they got where they are today...Even the Finnish people should be looking over their shoulders if these people get a bomb

[Staga]

Why? We didn't shoot down their airliner.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Staga
Shah's actions, with aid from US, terrorized his own country and created the basis for "coup d'etat" and US hostages were just a tools in this overtake.

The embassy was seized and hostages were taken after the Shah was deposed and departed the country to seek medical attention in the USA. (Cancer)

The hostages were taken as a barganing chip to return the Shah so the Islamic Government of Iran could deal with him.  He died in Panama before they could get him.

The hostages were held long after his death.

[Crumpp]

Bebak,

Yes - a part of my family (especially all of them who were officers in the imperial iranian army) had to leave Iran during the revolution.

Your history is spot on except for one thing:

The United States does not control the actions of other governments.  

As someone with some experience enacting American Foreign Policy I can tell you that is one of our biggest failings.  We align ourselves sometimes with rulers who tell us one thing and then do something else on the ground.

In the end we get blamed for it.  

This is one of the major changes in American Foreign Policy since 9/11.  If these governments do not enact the reforms or follow the ideals they claim to get our help in the first place then there are consequences.  Sanctions, widthdrawal of support, and in extreme cases direct action to intervene.

Just like in real life if you betray a friend then there are consequences for that friendship.

In the end it was your own countrymen who caused the situation in Iran.  

We certainly made a mistake in backing the Shah's government. However, Americans were not "pulling the strings" on the secret police.  It took Iranians serving in it and carrying out the Shah's orders while he is telling the United States what we wanted to hear.  You can only accomplish so much screaming "stop" on the side lines.

I fully agree that left alone Iran will have a Democracy of their own making in 5 years.  Unfortunately if the current regime gets Nuclear Weapons that may not happen.  It certainly will be much more painful because other democratic nations will be powerless to help.

If you think this is about oil you are both dead wrong and absolutely correct.  Your dead wrong in the belief the United States NEEDS Middle Eastern oil.  We have the technology, based off the synthetic fuel production technology the Germans developed in WWII, to not only be completely self sufficient without ANY fossil fuels but can manufacture enough to export it.  It is cheaper and better than Fossil Fuels.  Unfortunately The Middle East, Europe, and the rest of the world run off an oil based economy.  If we yank the rug out from underneath it, their economies will collapse.  This would be a bad thing all around.

You are correct in that it is about oil.  It's about Oil, minerals, rugs, Luxury Items, tourism, and all the things that make up a free market economy.  Equitable trade is how lasting peace is built.

Crumpp

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
2 weeks of battle and the reports are over 2000 dead insurgents.  You look up the figures that the US claims to have killed thus far  for the entire war or even just after the declaration of the 'end of hostilities'.  Dont forget the civilians killed indirectly by destroyed infrastructure to their cities and towns.  The towns most likely to vote for the US interests govt are the first to get thier water and electric and medicine.  The towns most likely to suppor the Iranian friendly govt are not going to get much in the way of 'rebuilding' money until long after the elections.

I'd still like to see your sources because I havent been able to find a single report that claims 2000 were killed in the last two weeks.

"U.S. officials have raised their estimates of the size and financial support of Iraq’s insurgency, The New York Times reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources. The resistance numbers between 8,000 and 12,000 rebels, counting foreign fighters, the network of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and home-grown insurgents, the Times cited the officials as saying. When sympathizers are added, the number burgeons to more than 20,000, the newspaper said. Those estimates are greater than earlier intelligence reports — in which the number of insurgents has varied between 2,000 and 7,000, the Times said. According to military and government officials in Iraq and Washington cited by the Times, the core of the Iraqi insurgency now consisted of as many as 50 militant cells that draw on “unlimited money” from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and relatives of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein."

 So how can we have killed tens of thousands of insurgants when there are barely "tens of thousands" in the insurgancy itself"
"the core of the Iraqi insurgency now consisted of as many as 50 militant cells that draw on “unlimited money” from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and relatives of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein"

Hmmm arent those the ones we went in to get out of power to begin with.

All in all in total the largest estimates for Iraqi dead since the war started are around 100K but those numbers are estimates based on surveys and not actual numbers and the way those estimates were arrived at can be questioned as to their validity as well as accuracy based on the way those surveys were conducted. and I suspect by the way those suveys were conducted that number is greatly inflated.
but I will also admit the number in the end will also be  higher then the previous estimates of 10-30K
 BUT both estimates only count total "estimated"death due to war and do not discriminate by whom or how they were killed and also includes those that were killed/executed by the insurgents themselves.

But that number doesnt really surprise me as the Iraqi military had rougly 425,000 in service prior to the invasion

As for the "towns most likely to support the Iranian friendly government"
In over an hour of searching I have yet to find a single source to back your claim or even mention an Iranian friendly government in Iraq

Unless your talking about the government in place in Falluja which was executing anyone who didnt follow their rules or spoke out against them.

Perhaps you have some credible site that can enlighten me.