Iran Would Be Hell for Attackers

[MisterMike]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

TEHRAN, Iran - A month after President Bush (news - web sites) warned that the United States hasn't ruled out military action against Iran, President Mohammed Khatami responded Thursday that his country would turn into a "scorching hell" for any possible attackers.

...

"Will this nation allow the feet of an aggressor to touch this land?" Khatami asked at the crowd. "If, God forbid, it happens, Iran will turn into a scorching hell for the aggressors."


His statements drew chants of "Death to America!" from the crowd.

Khatami is widely recognized as a leader of a moderate faction in Iran.

Sounds similar to what Saddam said.

 

[OUMoose]

Khatami is widely recognized as a leader of a moderate faction in Iran.

They must be talking about the general size of the faction, as the "Death to america" doesn't sound too moderate in their temperment or thinking.

 

[MisterMike]

Well I'd hate to see the extremists...

 

[michaeledward]

If widely available reports are correct, most Iranians are 'Pro-American'.

While the 'Hostage Crisis' may still be fresh in our memories ... Most Iranians are very young, and the 'Revolution' is ancient history to them.

Of course, when the 'Leader of the Free World' groups you in the 'Axis of Evil', it is bound to bring out good feelings.

I think there was a yellow belt saying that could be said to bear on this issue....

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19339&postcount=9

Whatever the attitude, so is the response.

 

[MA-Caver]

I think there was a yellow belt saying that could be said to bear on this issue.... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19339&postcount=9

Personally I like this quotation better and honestly think it should apply to our war-mongering president...

Distance is your best friend.

Bush promised that we "will hunt down terrorist where-ever they may be found". Are there confirmed reports that there are the Terrorist that were involved in 9-11 there?
We had that intention when we invaded Iraq and said: Well as long as we're here might as well get rid of the guy in charge huh?

I don't think we need another invasion of another country that has a portion of the population that dispises us.
Intelligence community should refocus I think on the task at hand originally set on Sept. 12th to hunt the men directly) responsible for the attack on our country.
What are we going to do in Iran? Set up yet another democracy and spend more American lives helping rebuild what we destroyed and are trying to create?
A fine thing, spending our best blood. A fine thing indeed.

 

[Phoenix44]

Bush promised that we "will hunt down terrorist where-ever they may be found".

We had that intention when we invaded Iraq and said: Well as long as we're here might as well get rid of the guy in charge huh?

That's right. And as long as we got the guy in charge, we may as well "liberate" the people. And while we're "liberating" we may as well set up a government, too. And while we're doing that, we can "invest" in their oil fields, telecommunications, media, and construction industry.

 

[MisterMike]

In an age where the enemy will do whatever it takes to kill Americans, long after the two most powerful nations declared an end to the arms race, you have countries trying to develop the very arms we have worked to keep out of the hands of fanatics.

This isn't about liberation, it's about self preservation. It's a shame people politicize this while the lives of their own families are threatened.

How long should we go down the diplomatic path with this one I wonder? And when diplomacy fails, then what?

 

[michaeledward]

Are Americans the enemy of Iran? If so, Why?

What are the current United States diplomatic efforts toward Iran?

 

[MisterMike]

Are Americans the enemy of Iran? If so, Why?

What are the current United States diplomatic efforts toward Iran?

I'd say their gov't dislikes our gov't. Why? Proll'y the same reasons we're targeting them. Ideological, religious reasons, etc.

I wouldn't say diplomatic efforts have started yet. But that is the preferred approach nes't pas?

 

[Zepp]

If our "diplomatic efforts" towards Iraq were any indicator, I wouldn't count on this administration ever making a geniune diplomatic attempt towards Iran.

 

[psi_radar]

In an age where the enemy will do whatever it takes to kill Americans, long after the two most powerful nations declared an end to the arms race, you have countries trying to develop the very arms we have worked to keep out of the hands of fanatics.

This isn't about liberation, it's about self preservation. It's a shame people politicize this while the lives of their own families are threatened.

How long should we go down the diplomatic path with this one I wonder? And when diplomacy fails, then what?

Funny, I don't feel too threatened by the Iranians right now. I DO feel threatened by North Korea. Why isn't our focus there *cough oil* *cough too tough a job*?

As for nuclear arms in the hands of fanatics, how bout getting them away from Bush? He's caused more death and destruction than any world leader in the past decade, to my knowledge (perhaps excluding Kim Jong Il). I think he poses more of a threat to world peace than anyone else (besides Kim Jong Il). I believe the Iranians are making these statements as a validation of a willingness to defend themselves if they are attacked, no? We've got nothing to worry about IF we don't attack them.

 

[psi_radar]

I got knocked in rep for my last post, this was the remark:

"Somewhat lacking in logic, but full of agenda"

I'd like to debate these points. Problem is, I don't know who you are. Care to fess up? I don't have an "agenda". An agenda might be something like buying off "credible" media representatives to sway public support for my policy. I'm just stating my opinion.

 

[MA-Caver]

In an age where the enemy will do whatever it takes to kill Americans, long after the two most powerful nations declared an end to the arms race, you have countries trying to develop the very arms we have worked to keep out of the hands of fanatics.

This isn't about liberation, it's about self preservation. It's a shame people politicize this while the lives of their own families are threatened.

How long should we go down the diplomatic path with this one I wonder? And when diplomacy fails, then what?

That there are countries and governments and fanatics who would dare to use a nuclear device (anywhere) tells me that they're not thinking too far ahead. Our country, should a suitcase sized nuke ever be used here, would retailiate so severely that it would most likely emancipate the offending country. At least that would be my expectation of the course of action by our government.
With Iran such drastic actions would probably be decried by many other countries but consenquences would be minimal, except a few more smaller scale terrorist attacks.
Against North Korea it would be unthinkable and grossly stupid. With the a country being home to one of the largest military in the world as an ally negotiations would have to be done with China before we do anything to strike back to provide assurance that we do not get into conflict with them. "Never get into a land-war with Asia!"
But we're talking Iran here. Someone said in this thread that the memory of the hostage taking is still (relatively) fresh in our minds but probably not so in the minds of the youth in Iran. I find this doubtful as assuredly the (same age group) in Iran would gladly speak of how they held us by the gnads for 444 days and that we failed in a rescue attempt and had to (diplomatically) bow down to them to get our fellow Americans back home. Since then we've developed the "no-negotiations" policy when it comes to terrorism.
So what can we look forward to with this upcoming invasion? More insurgent/guerrilla fighting, beheadings, and more of our own dying. Will it be worth it? I wonder.

 

[psi_radar]

The Romans brought destruction, and they called it peace.--
Tacitus

I wonder if we've learned anything. Perhaps the Iranians don't want our brand of life. And if they do, what about self-determination? Most of their population is young, and if they so choose, in the next 20 years or so, they can mount their own revolution, without our "help."

Allow me to postulate a scenario that might provide some perspective:

The Germans succeed in repulsing the allies in the Battle of the Bulge. We retreat to the British Isles. The Soviets overrun the Germans, and take over the allies' positions in France and Italy as we retreat. We win the war in the pacific, but lose most of Asia to Socialism. We don't get the german scientists who were so advanced in rocketry, and are therefore far behind in delivery systems for our nuclear weapons.

Effectively isolated, by the year 2000 (no man on the moon), Soviet Socialism is rampant at our borders. We state to the Soviet hierarchy that we don't believe in their system, though it is widely accepted, and will use all means we have to protect our way of life, and we state as much. Sound familiar?

Beyond the paranoia, beyond the hype, let's ask ourselves, what is the cost of "freedom" (caution, disturbing images) http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm?

First the cause was going after the terrorists of 9/11, which was fine. Send in some assassins and take the structure out. Then it was eliminating a supposed threat of WMD, which wasn't the case. Now it's "spreading freedom" (see the quote by Tacitus). Let's not kid ourselves, we're mounting a war of aggression for material goods. If, as our current administration contends, we were really trying to stamp out a nuclear menace, we would be trying to a) contain Soviet-era nuclear materials (which we're not doing enough) b) working with North Korea or killing Kim Jong Il, who will happily nuke Japan, South Korea, and possibly the West Coast as soon as he gets the missile technology while he drinks himself into a stupor with a harem in his bomb shelter.

Rather than looking at things from an American perspective, perhaps envision yourself as a member of the human race. Sooner or later, the world's going to get so small that that perspective will be an absolute necessity.

 

[michaeledward]

That there are countries and governments and fanatics who would dare to use a nuclear device (anywhere) tells me that they're not thinking too far ahead. Our country, should a suitcase sized nuke ever be used here, would retailiate so severely that it would most likely emancipate the offending country. At least that would be my expectation of the course of action by our government.

Assuming a 'suitcase sized' nuclear weapon was detonated anywhere, before anyone can retaliate, wouldn't it make sense to identify where the weapon originated, and by whom it was detonated?

* The CIA would not name Al Qaeda as the offenders on the US Cole for more than 6 months, until late Spring of 2001.
* News reports are claiming North Korea is selling nuclear material to places like 'Libia'. Watch these claims carefully. Forensic science can not tell us this material came from North Korea, but only that this material did not come from any facilities we can test. (Prove the negative?)
* So, how effective would it be, if a terrorist from Jakarta, Indonesia detonates a dirty bomb, say in Guam, for the United States to enter a Nuclear conflict in Iran?

But we're talking Iran here. Someone said in this thread that the memory of the hostage taking is still (relatively) fresh in our minds but probably not so in the minds of the youth in Iran. I find this doubtful as assuredly the (same age group) in Iran would gladly speak of how they held us by the gnads for 444 days and that we failed in a rescue attempt and had to (diplomatically) bow down to them to get our fellow Americans back home. Since then we've developed the "no-negotiations" policy when it comes to terrorism.

A couple of points on this ....

Between the 1979 revolution and today, Iran has suffered a much larger conflict which dominates their view of history. The Iran - Iraq war. Iran has acknowledged 300,000 fatalities during this conflict form 1980 - 1988. Many experts think the number is closer to 1,000,000. Iran lost a generation from the conflict. It lost the generation that held the Americans hostage for 444 days.

Concerning negotiating with terrorist ... you are kidding, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59235-2005Feb2.html?sub=AR

Have you heard of 'Iran-Contra'? Elliott Abrams was convicted for his actions in the arms for hostages negotiations. President Bush just promoted this criminal (Traitor?) to Deputy National Security Advisor. His role is to 'Promote Democracy'.

Regardless ... what I have heard from many news reports, but will consider skeptically, ... is that the Iranian people are the most 'Pro-United States' population in the region. I guess we'll see, eh?

BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing. And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean," Rice told reporters

 

[Makalakumu]

Funny, I don't feel too threatened by the Iranians right now. I DO feel threatened by North Korea. Why isn't our focus there *cough oil* *cough too tough a job*?

Right on, Brother! :jedi1:

People need to realize that right now, we are in nearly perfect strategic position for the invasion of Iran. If you look at a map, the Persian Gulf lies to the south and we could put troops anywhere along that unprotected coastline. To the west, lies Iraq. Thanks to the insurgency, our troop numbers will slowly build in that region. To the east lies Afghanistan. We have troops on the ground there and there are more on the way...in the guise of NATO. To the north, lies Turkmenistan. These guys are long time allies of the US because of their oil and gas resources. We already have a standing deal with them regarding the use of their country for air bases.

Is it any wonder why the Iranians are frantically pursuing nukes? Is it any wonder why the sabre rattling by Dr. Rice and the right is increasing?

There shouldn't be any wonder at all. Iran is just another step in the Project for the New American Century. This neo-conservative organization has been planning for decades how they would "reform" Islam by force in order to stabilize the US's economic (fossil fuel) interests in the middle east. Every step that we have taken so far, putting troops down in Afghanistan, invading Iraq and removing Saddam, working with Turkmenistan, increasing our navel/marine presence in the Persian Gulf, etc was laid out by none other then Paul Wolfowitz in 1991. Even the Iranian nuclear response to aggression was predicted as an estimated precursor to "further military action." This plan was put on hold because in Mr. Wolfowitz's own words, "The American People won't buy into it. We would need to be attacked first."

Yet, the Bush Administration immediately set forth the implementation of this plan in 2000. In the first nine months of the President's term, we were negotiating with the Taliban, offering them exhorbant amounts of money to let us come to their country with troops to stabilize and companies to build oil pipelines. The Taliban would not take money from "the Great Satan" and they were told in no uncertain terms, "accept our carpet of Gold (the troops and pipeline) or accept our carpet of bombs." We then informed the Indian Government in August of 2001 that "we will have troops on the ground before the snow flies..."

All of this took place before 911 behind the scenes. When the planes were hijacked and 3000 people died horribly, the new justification of this plan became, "we need to reform Islam in order to curb terrorism." Thus, PNAC was thrust on the American People.

Here is the PNAC website...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Behind the glossy right wing ideology embossed within a few clicks of the mouse lies an archive of articles written by many on the following list...

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz.

Note some of the names. Most of the ideas above can be found batted around by the above people. Warning, this will take time to read...

upnorthkyosa

 

[heretic888]

Forbes and Fukuyama?? Frightening, but unsurprising...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Was it just me, or did the villain in Steven Seagal's, "Out For Justice," (was that the one where he was in a coma?) bear an uncanny resemblance to Dan Quayle?

And on the topic of the thread--I wonder what folks would think about a government and a people (right, wrong or otherwise) that did NOT tell its enemies to get stuffed when they were threatened?

 

[heretic888]

Why, Rob, they'd probably refer to them as bunch of bleeding-heart, liberal, pacifist, panty-waists.

 

[psi_radar]

Was it just me, or did the villain in Steven Seagal's, "Out For Justice," (was that the one where he was in a coma?) bear an uncanny resemblance to Dan Quayle?

The corniest line came out of that movie--the one where he's doing Siniwali and other MA training and his love interest, the "don't hate me because I'm beautiful" woman, is observing him and says his name all breathily--"Mason Steele!" (think that was the character's name.)