(Jerusalem Post) US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday

[Ottomaton]

US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday

source (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879220977&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.

According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory."

The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the claims of an imminent attack as "myths." There was no immediate response from Washington.

The reports come as the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, was quoted on Saturday by Iran's Fars news agency warning leaders of Arab countries that Israel plans to open a "suicidal attack" on its neighbors this summer, to "prevent the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the area."

"I warn the dear leaders and Muslim brothers in the neighboring countries of the occupied territories that this suicidal attack of the Zionists is threatening them," he said.

The countries in danger, he said, were "Lebanon and Syria, and later Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia."

Also on Saturday, Russia urged Britain and Teheran to resolve the dispute over 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran last week, a local news agency reported.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin urged the two sides to provide the United Nations with their own assessments as to what happened and where exactly the detention occurred so that the body could conduct an independent probe.

"We hope these actions will provide a foundation for the soonest possible resolution of the crisis," Kamynin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that the captured British sailors and marines trespassed in Iranian waters and called world powers "arrogant" for failing to apologize, the country's official news agency reported.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery. But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech in the southeastern city of Andinmeshk.

The European Union grappled with a double bind over Iran Saturday - the country's nuclear program and its seizure of the British troops - and reported no progress on either issue.

A debate about Iran's nuclear ambitions had been scheduled as a key agenda item but "was overshadowed to a certain extent by the issue of the sailors and marines," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after hosting a two-day EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany.

The Foreign Ministry in Iran dismissed the EU's "biased and meddlesome" comments on the captured troops, saying the dispute solely involved the governments of Iran and Britain.

Speaking to reporters in Bremen, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett urged Iran to resolve the crisis over the military personnel peacefully, saying London remains open to dialogue.

"We encourage Iran to peacefully resolve this issue," she said.

"We continue to express our willingness to engage in dialogue and discussions with Iran," she added. "That is very much in the best interest of our people and that is our foremost concern."

"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," she said. "What we want is a way out of it."

AP contributed to this report.

[ChrisBosh]

Probability of this happening is 0.0001%

[A_3PO]

Probability of this happening is 0.0001%
You warmonger, it's more like 0.000000000000000000000001%. Get your facts straight and stop trying to scare people!

[glynch]

Unfortunately I still think the American people might rally around the flag initially for the intense bombing of Iran or even a ground war as long as it is fought with other people's children or the professional army.

It is just too hard for most of them to accept that the USA could be so wrong on an important issue like starting an unjust war or a massive bombing campaign with the accompnaying death of hundreds or thosands of innocents.

Eventually as Vietnam or Iraq, after much suffering with limited success, the ordinary American can realize that a mistake was made, albeit with the best of honorable intentions.

[A_3PO]

Unfortunately I still think the American people might rally around the flag initially for the intense bombing of Iran or even a ground war as long as it is fought with other people's children or the professional army.

It is just too hard for most of them to accept that the USA could be so wrong on an important issue like starting an unjust war or massive bombing campaign with the accompnaying death of hundreds or thosands of innocents.

Eventually as Vietnam or Iraq, after much suffering with limited success, the can ordinary American can realize that a mistake was made, albeit with the best of honorable intentions.
No. No. No. The majority of Americans ALREADY REALIZE the Iraq invasion was a tragic mistake and is a disaster. The vast majority of Americans no longer trust the Bush administration to conduct foreign policy adventures. Bush and his minions have zero credibility. Actually, this is very old news.

Most of the "rallies" would be against the Bush administration and politics in this country would enter a new era of hostility and radicalization we've never seen before. Right now, our country has no stomach to open another war front. Bush is already a radioactive "roast duck" on his last legs. If we bombed Iran, he may as well decapitate himself after issuing the order because the roast duck would be served for dinner.

[glynch]

No. No. No. The majority of Americans ALREADY REALIZE the Iraq invasion was a tragic mistake and is a disaster. The vast majority of Americans no longer trust the Bush administration to conduct foreign policy adventures. Bush and his minions have zero credibility. Actually, this is very old news

This is true as of the last year or two. A majority rallied around the flag for the at least the first year of the Iraqi War.

Most of the "rallies" would be against the Bush administration and politics in this country would enter a new era of hostility and radicalization we've never seen before. Right now, our country has no stomach to open another war front. Bush is already a radioactive "roast duck" on his last legs. If we bombed Iran, he may as well decapitate himself after issuing the order because the roast duck would be served for dinner.

Unfortunately I think an intense bombing capaign in which no Americans were killed yet we kill thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iranians (if we destroy their sewer and water systems as some bombing plans I have hear of propose), would be supported or passively accepted by most Americans. this would of course depend on the mainstream media continuing efforts to demonize Iran and Iranians. You can count on Fox and the right wing media to support such an air attack.

A ground war would be a different matter, as we now have the "Iraqi Syndrome", in which the American people are at least temporarily wary of losing even the soldiers of the volunary army in wars against countries that don't attack us.

[SuperYanthrax]

The Russians predicted correctly/found out by FSB spying that the US would attack Iraq before it happened. Their track record is pretty decent...

I can see this happening though. Bush is a warmonger and has been from the start of his administration, even before 9/11.

[rodrick_98]

i'd like to reiterate what i said in the other thread. you bring up vietnam and iraq as examples of failure, i would like point to the success we had in japan and germany as examples...

but seeing that we aren't going to reinstate the draft, and the other 4 following conditions, i think any sort of campaign at this point would be unwise to say the least.

1) we, the US, are already bogged down and couldn't commit to help the UK.
2) as already mentioned, an attack on iran will likely only strengthen the mullah's rule. nationalism is powerful.
3) iran, for the most part is one of the more secular middle eastern countries, and if it weren't for the past 50 years of screw-ups by many different administrations we could be flying planes off their runways.
4) until there is an alternative fuel source, we can't afford to knock out 10% of the worlds oil.


also, if we engage in any sort or attack on them, bombing or otherwise, it would be fairly easy for them to move their million man army through the zagros mountains and right in to iraq. the american people have no stomach for the type of war it would take for this to actually work.

look how well israel did against hezbollah. :rolleyes:

[ymc]

I agree with glynch that we won't have massive protest against Bush during a massive bombing campaign.

Look back in 1999 when we bombed Yugoslavia, at least 2000+ civilians were killed and we only lost two pilots. People in the States barely knew anything about Yugoslavia and nobody even cared.

Similar thing will happen during a similar campaign against Iran. This should continue until Iran starts to retaliate against our troops in Iraq. If we do lost many soldiers in this retaliation, then people might do something.

We Americans are not cold-blooded but unfortunately we are indifferent to other people's suffering.

[ymc]

look how well israel did against hezbollah. :rolleyes:

Israel was stupid to invade Lebanon on the ground. I think we will just stay put in Iraq and bomb the Iranians if they cross the border en mass. If they are smart, they shouldn't march in a large army, instead they should sneak in and conduct insurgent type attacks in a large scale.

[Mr. Clutch]

Where are you guys getting the idea that it will be a "massive" bombing campaign that will kill millions of civilians? It would be a targeted missile strike aimed at

[Mr. Clutch]

also, if we engage in any sort or attack on them, bombing or otherwise, it would be fairly easy for them to move their million man army through the zagros mountains and right in to iraq. the american people have no stomach for the type of war it would take for this to actually work.

Yeah, right. If it was so easy they would do it now.


look how well israel did against hezbollah. :rolleyes:

That was totally different, those weren't targetted strikes against nuclear capability. A successful example of this is Israel destroying Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.

[Zac D]

Dear Jerusalem Post,

That's one hell of an inappropriate April Fool's joke.

Zac

[conquistador#11]

This is true as of the last year or two. A majority rallied around the flag for the at least the first year of the Iraqi War.



Unfortunately I think an intense bombing capaign in which no Americans were killed yet we kill thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iranians (if we destroy their sewer and water systems as some bombing plans I have hear of propose), would be supported or passively accepted by most Americans. this would of course depend on the mainstream media continuing efforts to demonize Iran and Iranians. You can count on Fox and the right wing media to support such an air attack.

A ground war would be a different matter, as we now have the "Iraqi Syndrome", in which the American people are at least temporarily wary of losing even the soldiers of the volunary army in wars against countries that don't attack us.


I never thought someone other than charles Barkley could offend me with their Ignorance,then I made the mistake of tuning into Sean hannity's show just out of curiosity.It is almost like these evil doers(right wing media) have their own version of Wolrd History,the scary thing is that they believe it :eek:

[ymc]

Where are you guys getting the idea that it will be a "massive" bombing campaign that will kill millions of civilians? It would be a targeted missile strike aimed at

I don't think we can kill millions with targeted bombing but certainly at 5-digits if we extrapolate from the 1999 NATO bombing.

But I suppose even though the bombing themselves might not kill many people in the beginning, the breakdown in social order, disease, destruction of infrastructure in the aftermath can cause further death no one documents. Iraq is a tragic example.

[Mr. Clutch]

I don't think we can kill millions with targeted bombing but certainly at 5-digits if we extrapolate from the 1999 NATO bombing.

But I suppose even though the bombing themselves might not kill many people in the beginning, the breakdown in social order, disease, destruction of infrastructure in the aftermath can cause further death no one documents. Iraq is a tragic example.

The 1999 NATO war and the invasion of Iraq are totally different from a targetted strike on nuclear facilities.

[glynch]

I never thought someone other than charles Barkley could offend me with their Ignorance,then I made the mistake of tuning into Sean hannity's show just out of curiosity.It is almost like these evil doers(right wing media) have their own version of Wolrd History,the scary thing is that they believe it :eek:

Si. Hannity es muy igonorante. Es decir ques es un derechista y un warmonger.
:p

[ymc]

The 1999 NATO war and the invasion of Iraq are totally different from a targetted strike on nuclear facilities.

You said '"massive" bombing campaign". That's what I am responding to. I suppose strikes against nuclear facilities only can't be called "massive", right?

[Mr. Clutch]

You said '"massive" bombing campaign". That's what I am responding to. I suppose strikes against nuclear facilities only can't be called "massive", right?

Huh? I'm saying that this is NOT a massive bombing campaign. Targeted strikes against nuclear strikes do not have to be massive.

[ymc]

Huh? I'm saying that this is NOT a massive bombing campaign. Targeted strikes against nuclear strikes do not have to be massive.

Sorry about my misunderstanding.

[Mr. Clutch]

Sorry about my misunderstanding.

No problem

[Amel]

April 6? No.

Before the end of this year? Yes.

[Azadre]

April 6? No.

Before the end of this year? Yes.
Before the end of this year? No.

Never? Yes.

[tigermission1]

I call BS and a half.

Typical 'saber rattling' to pressure Iran into cooperating. I would be a rich man if I had a dime for every article I've come across that claims to have come across 'secret memos' or 'sources' trying to pin down a date for the beginning of the bombing campaign. And believe me, I've come across quite a few.

[glynch]

I call BS and a half.

Typical 'saber rattling' to pressure Iran into cooperating. I would be a rich man if I had a dime for every article I've come across that claims to have come across 'secret memos' or 'sources' trying to pin down a date for the beginning of the bombing campaign. And believe me, I've come across quite a few.

It is hard to know the truth exactly. I think that it is clear that strong elements in the Bush Admin want to waste Iran. BUSH/Cheney l might think a war would not only be good for their defense stocks, but perhaps good for the GOP's political chances.


It is also true that important members of the CIA and the military do not want this war. . Thus, I would not be surprised if the CIA and the military are leaking to try to stop the war. chances.

[blazer_ben]

Instead of impowering the opposition gropus(students, free thinkers) the us is gonna impower the bad guys the goverment by a sustained air attack. a sustained air attack is not gonna result in a regime change. helping the people to choose there own destiny will result in a regime change. iran is no iraq and i wanna keep it that way thank you. i know the current situation in iran better then anyone on this board. bombing is not the answer. helping the younger generation who want theb religiouse fanatics gones is.

[StupidMoniker]

bombing is not the answer. helping the younger generation who want theb religiouse fanatics gones is.
Unfortunately, we can't make them revolt and they don't seem inclined to do it on their own. They can be as dissatisfied with their government as they want, but until someone does something about it, it isn't going to change. While an internal revolution would be the best way to get rid of that regime, that may never happen, so something else may need to be done.

[blazer_ben]

Unfortunately, we can't make them revolt and they don't seem inclined to do it on their own. They can be as dissatisfied with their government as they want, but until someone does something about it, it isn't going to change. While an internal revolution would be the best way to get rid of that regime, that may never happen, so something else may need to be done.
With Help the younger generation will get rid of the mollah's. the army will never side with the mollah's. only a rouge element of the IRGC which are bought over from syria or lebbanon might do anything. but the iranian Amy would take them out in days.

[Sishir Chang]

Unfortunately, we can't make them revolt and they don't seem inclined to do it on their own. They can be as dissatisfied with their government as they want, but until someone does something about it, it isn't going to change. While an internal revolution would be the best way to get rid of that regime, that may never happen, so something else may need to be done.

I agree with Blazer_Ben. If I was running Iran strategy I would recommend more communication with them and more openness regarding cultural and economic exchange. The Mullahs might want to keep their country culturally a closed hermit kingdom but that will be hard to resist once goods and culture start flowing to the Iranians. Externally imposed sanctions and saber rattling strengthens the Mullahs hand as they present themselves as defenders of the country. OTOH if the young Iranians realize there isn't much of an external threat and the Mullahs are the ones depriving them of YouTube and Ipods you will see change.

There were many mistakes made by the US and the West in general on Iran but one of the worst wasn't siezing the opportunity of having Khatami in power to further open Iran. The Axis of Evil speech dealt a hard blow to Khatami's internal credibility by making the Mullah's point that Iran had external enemies out to get it. If instead we had worked with Khatami to open up Iran I believe things would be different now with Iran.

[Mr. Brightside]

I don't think this would happen as Iran has reportedly 40,000 suicide bombers signed up and ready to die for their country. The group is called the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards. That would be a scary thought for anyone participating in these proposed attacks.

[StupidMoniker]

With Help the younger generation will get rid of the mollah's. the army will never side with the mollah's. only a rouge element of the IRGC which are bought over from syria or lebbanon might do anything. but the iranian Amy would take them out in days.
I have been reading/hearing about the dissatisfaction of the Iranian people with their government for as long as I can remember. The people are the one's who put the Ayatollah in power in the first place, and they haven't interrupted the rule of the theocrats since. It's a nice dream, but when is it gonna happen? With Iran developing nukes, I don't know that we can wait for homegrown regime change.

[Sishir Chang]

I have been reading/hearing about the dissatisfaction of the Iranian people with their government for as long as I can remember. The people are the one's who put the Ayatollah in power in the first place, and they haven't interrupted the rule of the theocrats since. It's a nice dream, but when is it gonna happen? With Iran developing nukes, I don't know that we can wait for homegrown regime change.

The election of Khatami was a rebuke to Theocractic rule. The election of Ahmedinajad was also a rebuke since he wasn't the main choice of the Mullahs and had campaigned on a platform of domestic economic reform, a politician who doesn't live up to campaign promises and is side tracked by foreign threats who would've thunk it.

There have been opportunities to strengthen the hand of reformers but the problem is that US policy has been less about strengthening reformers in Iran than trying to externally punish the government.

[DonkeyMagic]

^ good points.

there is a good contingent in iran thats apposed to Ahmedinajad and they are just not happy that he is bringing so much pressure onto iran. i've got the feeling that the younger generations are very 'modern' and they do want major reform in their country. There is a great opportunity there.

[ymc]

Looks like this is no April joke :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070403/pl_nm/iran_usa_russia_dc

U.S. could strike Iran but not win: Russian general

Tue Apr 3, 6:17 AM ET

MOSCOW (Reuters) - The United States cannot inflict a military defeat on
Iran and any attack would be a huge political mistake, Russia's top general said on Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

"It is possible to damage Iran's military and industrial potential, but it is impossible to win," Russian news agencies quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky, head of the Russian general staff, as saying.

"The United States has a contingent in the region capable of launching a strike on Iranian territory.

"However, such possible strikes would be a huge political mistake. Shockwaves from this attack could be felt around the world."

Washington and its Western allies accuse Iran of wanting to build nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran denies. Tensions have been further aggravated by Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines in the northern Gulf on March 23.

Russia sells weapons to the Iranian military and is helping Tehran build a nuclear power station on the Gulf although work there is on hold over a payment dispute.

Russian media late last month quoted unnamed sources in Russian military intelligence as saying the United States could launch a strike on Iran as early as April 6.

RIA news agency quoted a Russian security source as saying Moscow has military intelligence reports that the U.S. has already approved a list of Iranian targets for bomb and missile strikes. The source said a land operation could follow.

U.S.
President George W. Bush has said he will pursue diplomatic means to persuade Iran to drop its uranium enrichment plan but he has refused to rule out the use of force.

Baluyevsky said military involvement in
Iraq and
Afghanistan showed the United States would face a fiasco if it took on Iran as well.

"The Americans must think twice (about attacking Iran)," he said. "They have already got stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq."

[ymc]

^ good points.

there is a good contingent in iran thats apposed to Ahmedinajad and they are just not happy that he is bringing so much pressure onto iran. i've got the feeling that the younger generations are very 'modern' and they do want major reform in their country. There is a great opportunity there.

Not sure why people are still talking about Ahmedinajad for any military affair. Iranian Constitution says their President has zero power over the armed forces (I wish it's the ame here... :o ) So his BS is just as good as you and me. Okay. Maybe his gets more attention but it is still BS nonetheless.

[StupidMoniker]

The election of Khatami was a rebuke to Theocractic rule. The election of Ahmedinajad was also a rebuke since he wasn't the main choice of the Mullahs and had campaigned on a platform of domestic economic reform, a politician who doesn't live up to campaign promises and is side tracked by foreign threats who would've thunk it.

There have been opportunities to strengthen the hand of reformers but the problem is that US policy has been less about strengthening reformers in Iran than trying to externally punish the government.
Voting is not going to get things done. They could elect Mother Teresa as president, but the Mullahs and the Supreme Leader are still in charge, and not subject to the will of the people. Sure it is nice that they elected a reformer (though I don't want to give to much credit for electing "Kill all the Jews" Ahmedinajad). To have a real change there is going to require revolution, and that hasn't happened since the people chose theocracy and I have doubts that it will ever happen. Can the world afford to sit and wait?

[FranchiseBlade]

Voting is not going to get things done. They could elect Mother Teresa as president, but the Mullahs and the Supreme Leader are still in charge, and not subject to the will of the people. Sure it is nice that they elected a reformer (though I don't want to give to much credit for electing "Kill all the Jews" Ahmedinajad). To have a real change there is going to require revolution, and that hasn't happened since the people chose theocracy and I have doubts that it will ever happen. Can the world afford to sit and wait?
Voting can get things done. Since the Supreme leader is elected by the assembly of experts which are elected by direct public vote.

So voting is the best way to remove the supreme leader. It is incorrect to say that the supreme leader is not subject to the will of the people. The congress is directly elected by the people, and they in turn vote for the supreme leader.

[Sishir Chang]

Voting is not going to get things done. They could elect Mother Teresa as president, but the Mullahs and the Supreme Leader are still in charge, and not subject to the will of the people. Sure it is nice that they elected a reformer (though I don't want to give to much credit for electing "Kill all the Jews" Ahmedinajad). To have a real change there is going to require revolution, and that hasn't happened since the people chose theocracy and I have doubts that it will ever happen. Can the world afford to sit and wait?

Given the negative implications of a war and the fact that we will have a very hard time fighting on three fronts against a foe greater than ones we are fighting now combined I would say yes the world can afford to wait.

I would never absolutely rule out using the military against Iran but that seems like the worst choice out of other possibilities. Its very questionable whether Iran will develop a nuke anytime soon and even more questionable whether they can deploy it and even more questionable whether they would ever use it, crazy rhetoric aside the Mullahs want to live too. I don't think them having a nuke is a good thing but I don't think we are anywere near where they are a nuclear threat.

[ymc]

Voting can get things done. Since the Supreme leader is elected by the assembly of experts which are elected by direct public vote.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Assembly_of_Experts_election%2C_2006

Interesting that it is true that this assembly of experts are elected by direct public vote. But to be a candidate you need to be a mujathid (ie Doctor of Islam) and then pass written and oral exams.

I suppose that's another way to run parliamentary based on their cultural values.

[olliez]

US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday
source (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879220977&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.

According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory."

The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the claims of an imminent attack as "myths." There was no immediate response from Washington.

The reports come as the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, was quoted on Saturday by Iran's Fars news agency warning leaders of Arab countries that Israel plans to open a "suicidal attack" on its neighbors this summer, to "prevent the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the area."

"I warn the dear leaders and Muslim brothers in the neighboring countries of the occupied territories that this suicidal attack of the Zionists is threatening them," he said.

The countries in danger, he said, were "Lebanon and Syria, and later Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia."

Also on Saturday, Russia urged Britain and Teheran to resolve the dispute over 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran last week, a local news agency reported.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin urged the two sides to provide the United Nations with their own assessments as to what happened and where exactly the detention occurred so that the body could conduct an independent probe.

"We hope these actions will provide a foundation for the soonest possible resolution of the crisis," Kamynin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that the captured British sailors and marines trespassed in Iranian waters and called world powers "arrogant" for failing to apologize, the country's official news agency reported.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery. But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech in the southeastern city of Andinmeshk.

The European Union grappled with a double bind over Iran Saturday - the country's nuclear program and its seizure of the British troops - and reported no progress on either issue.

A debate about Iran's nuclear ambitions had been scheduled as a key agenda item but "was overshadowed to a certain extent by the issue of the sailors and marines," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after hosting a two-day EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany.

The Foreign Ministry in Iran dismissed the EU's "biased and meddlesome" comments on the captured troops, saying the dispute solely involved the governments of Iran and Britain.

Speaking to reporters in Bremen, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett urged Iran to resolve the crisis over the military personnel peacefully, saying London remains open to dialogue.

"We encourage Iran to peacefully resolve this issue," she said.

"We continue to express our willingness to engage in dialogue and discussions with Iran," she added. "That is very much in the best interest of our people and that is our foremost concern."

"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," she said. "What we want is a way out of it."

AP contributed to this report.

Hey, it's about time to pump up the oil price !

:cool:

[StupidMoniker]

Voting can get things done. Since the Supreme leader is elected by the assembly of experts which are elected by direct public vote.

So voting is the best way to remove the supreme leader. It is incorrect to say that the supreme leader is not subject to the will of the people. The congress is directly elected by the people, and they in turn vote for the supreme leader.
It can't go both ways. Either the people are fed up with the theocrats, but they can't get rid of them, or the people are able to get rid of them, but aren't fed up with them. I don't know about you, but I have heard about the people of Iran being fed up, wanting to change the government, the government is bad but the people are good, etc for years and years. If the people were fed up with the theocrats and they could get rid of them through voting (Supreme Leader included) then it would be done by now. Something in there is bullsh!t, be it the ability or the desire of the people to change the government. So, we can live in a world where Iran continues to have a government like they have now, or some outside force can change it, but I have zero confidence that the people of Iran are going to be voting a secular moderate into power under the current system in any of our lifetimes.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that Saddam Hussein was regularly elected with over 99% of the vote.

[blazer_ben]

Voting can get things done. Since the Supreme leader is elected by the assembly of experts which are elected by direct public vote.

So voting is the best way to remove the supreme leader. It is incorrect to say that the supreme leader is not subject to the will of the people. The congress is directly elected by the people, and they in turn vote for the supreme leader.
You would'nt be creepy floyd by any chance? they majes has no power or real power in keeping the supreme leader. the IRGC military force is keeping the Supreme leader in place. as for the majles members being voted by the people, the securty council chooses the majles members who can be put up for election. anyone with a view against the supreme leader is refused and cannot be putup for election to run for the majles or congress. nice try buddy.

[blazer_ben]

It can't go both ways. Either the people are fed up with the theocrats, but they can't get rid of them, or the people are able to get rid of them, but aren't fed up with them. I don't know about you, but I have heard about the people of Iran being fed up, wanting to change the government, the government is bad but the people are good, etc for years and years. If the people were fed up with the theocrats and they could get rid of them through voting (Supreme Leader included) then it would be done by now. Something in there is bullsh!t, be it the ability or the desire of the people to change the government. So, we can live in a world where Iran continues to have a government like they have now, or some outside force can change it, but I have zero confidence that the people of Iran are going to be voting a secular moderate into power under the current system in any of our lifetimes.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that Saddam Hussein was regularly elected with over 99% of the vote.

People want to get rid of them, but they cant. the mollah's will kill millions if they have to. just look at the womans day fiasco. about 4 thousend woman went on a peacfull protest and they were beaten and raped and arrested. some were shot. in 2003 the younger generation revolted and they were put down with insane amount of force. in iran the mollahs will notlet go of the power without bloodshed.

[tigermission1]

You would'nt be creepy floyd by any chance?

:rolleyes:

Why do you do that? Whenever anyone challenges/disagrees with your assertions, you start screaming out "Creepy FloyD!!!" or "Mullah Lovers!!!" or whatever other cheap slogan of the day in an attempt to discredit the other poster, instead of arguing based on the merits.

FB is now Creepy Floyd? Are you kidding me?

Here is what I think: you're not interested in a 'debate' around Iran, you're merely interested in spewing your propaganda without backing up most of your assertions, which is what a lot of 'dissidents' tend to do about the regimes back home (see: INC with Chalabi and the rest of the crew that manipulated us into attacking Iraq by outright lying about their WMD program). You rarely, if ever, back up your assertions with a legitimate source.

You have the same approach as Creepy, the only difference is while he was a staunch supporter of everything the current regime does, you're disgusted by them. Same difference...

You're not the only 'qualified' authority on Iran, feel free to state your opinions but don't take cheap shots at other posters when they argue otherwise.

I thought we had been over this in the past and were going to put these 'tactics' behind us, but now you're resorting back to the same silly 'debating' tactics in an attempt to silence anyone that disagrees with you on the topic.

Enough of that garbage already!

[Sishir Chang]

It can't go both ways. Either the people are fed up with the theocrats, but they can't get rid of them, or the people are able to get rid of them, but aren't fed up with them. I don't know about you, but I have heard about the people of Iran being fed up, wanting to change the government, the government is bad but the people are good, etc for years and years. If the people were fed up with the theocrats and they could get rid of them through voting (Supreme Leader included) then it would be done by now. Something in there is bullsh!t, be it the ability or the desire of the people to change the government. So, we can live in a world where Iran continues to have a government like they have now, or some outside force can change it, but I have zero confidence that the people of Iran are going to be voting a secular moderate into power under the current system in any of our lifetimes.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that Saddam Hussein was regularly elected with over 99% of the vote.

I don't think they will get rid of the Mullahs through election but more likely through a peoples power revolution. Its also possible that as new generations of Mullahs come up their might be a change in their views.

The problem with having an outside froce come in and change their government is obvious. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US can ill afford another costly occupation and as many have noted Iran is much larger than either of those countries.

[Sishir Chang]

FB is now Creepy Floyd? Are you kidding me?

That's because I am Creepy Floyd. ;)

[FranchiseBlade]

You would'nt be creepy floyd by any chance? they majes has no power or real power in keeping the supreme leader. the IRGC military force is keeping the Supreme leader in place. as for the majles members being voted by the people, the securty council chooses the majles members who can be put up for election. anyone with a view against the supreme leader is refused and cannot be putup for election to run for the majles or congress. nice try buddy.
I know that you have an Iranian background, but from what I've read it contradicts what you've said. The Assembly of expers which are directly elected by the people are the one's who choose the supreme leader, not the IRGC military force.

I found this about it on the internet.
The Assembly of Experts[1] (also Assembly of Experts of the Leadership) of Iran (Persian: ???? ?????? ?????, Majles-e-Khobregan or Majles-e-Khebregan), is a congressional body of 86 Mujtahids which elects the Supreme Leader and supervises his activities. Members of the assembly are elected by direct public vote to eight year terms. Current laws requires the assembly to meet for at least two days, twice annually.[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_Experts


Furthermore I found this.

The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, which is also in charge of overseeing the Supreme Leader, and has the power to dismiss and replace him at any time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

Since the council of experts are the ones that can remove the Supreme leader, and are elected directly by the people, it seems that electing council members in favor of change would be the most hassle free method of removing the Supreme leader. It may not be entirely possible, but it would be the least bloody.

A long time ago I was Sleepy Floyd, and some other screen name that I can't remember. But for a long time I've been FranchiseBlade. I've never been Creepy Floyd.

Because I post information showing how the Supreme leader could be replaced via voting and elections, doesn't make me Creepy Floyd.

[FranchiseBlade]

It can't go both ways. Either the people are fed up with the theocrats, but they can't get rid of them, or the people are able to get rid of them, but aren't fed up with them. I don't know about you, but I have heard about the people of Iran being fed up, wanting to change the government, the government is bad but the people are good, etc for years and years. If the people were fed up with the theocrats and they could get rid of them through voting (Supreme Leader included) then it would be done by now. Something in there is bullsh!t, be it the ability or the desire of the people to change the government. So, we can live in a world where Iran continues to have a government like they have now, or some outside force can change it, but I have zero confidence that the people of Iran are going to be voting a secular moderate into power under the current system in any of our lifetimes.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that Saddam Hussein was regularly elected with over 99% of the vote.Elections in Iran are far different than those in IRaq. To compare the two is comparing to two totally different things.

It could be that the people are fed up with the Supreme leader, but not enough to elect officials that would replace him, or people are too fearful to run on a campaign of removing the Supreme leader. It could be that they are only elected every 8 years, so it is a long time between elections, and would require a significant shift in elections to have a move drastic enough to remove the Supreme leader.

[Major]

Since the council of experts are the ones that can remove the Supreme leader, and are elected directly by the people, it seems that electing council members in favor of change would be the most hassle free method of removing the Supreme leader. It may not be entirely possible, but it would be the least bloody.


One thing to consider, though, is how the candidates are selected. It's one thing to have a free vote, it's another to have eligible candidates. For example, the way the current Pres got elected is that the most popular reformist choices were simply not allowed to run.

[FranchiseBlade]

One thing to consider, though, is how the candidates are selected. It's one thing to have a free vote, it's another to have eligible candidates. For example, the way the current Pres got elected is that the most popular reformist choices were simply not allowed to run.
True, but I've seen that they have to be educated and knowledgable and take tests, and I don't doubt that is how the candidates could be weeded out to have only pro supreme leader candidates run, but I just hadn't seen that much to indicate that's how the council members were chosen.

I wouldn't doubt it, though. I also mentioned that running a public anti-Supreme leader campaign might get it shut down , and ruin their chances of getting elected as well.

But at the same time the candidates aren't always the same shade of the same color, so there is some diversity. I would just hope that the diversity would branch out far enough to have some genuine dissent in the mix.

[emjohn]

For what it matters, Debka backed up the initial report:
http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=4007
Senior Russian general warns Washington to think twice before attacking Iran
This warning from Moscow against a US attack on Iran comes from a named source. Last week, “Russian intelligence circles” claimed a US strike against Iranian nuclear installations codenamed Operation Bite had been scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours. They claimed missiles and air raids will conduct strikes designed to be devastating enough to set Tehran’s nuclear program several years back.

Evan

[RocketMan Tex]

Glad I have Friday off. Must stop off at the store for more beer while I watch CNN all day.

[DonkeyMagic]

Glad I have Friday off. Must stop off at the store for more beer while I watch CNN all day.


you are a brave man. i can only take about 30 minutes of the news and then the blood pressure gets dangerously high...and dont even let me see an Anna Nicole story :mad:

[Saint Louis]

Glad I have Friday off. Must stop off at the store for more beer while I watch CNN all day.

To paraphrase John Paul Jones from The Song Remains The Same, "Friday, why that is tomorrow!?"

[DaDakota]

Tomorrow is the day.....Iran's nuke program is going down !!!!

Unless of course all this is bunk.

:D

DD

[JeopardE]

Tomorrow is the day.....Iran's nuke program is going down !!!!

Unless of course all this is bunk.

:D

DD

You have to wonder if Ahmadmanejad released those sailors out of fear of this actually happening.

Last I heard, his local approval ratings weren't doing too well and he supposedly did this as an attempt to create a distraction.