Iran

Well........I have the links for several threads that people abruptly exited on me and I would like to get them resolved. I had invested some time researching the topics and it was to my consternation that the conversations basically died after I posted. If you can get them to post in those threads again and admit that they ran away from the topic, then I will help you out.

I have cut back on posting after that happened several times and try to limit it to spots that someone will give me a response. If they have a reputation for running, then I am likely to let it pass if I would need to invest some time on building a quality post.


A self-policing action for both sides of the aisle? Doubt we could get everybody to participate and that would lead to a higher level of frustration when the renegades balked at keeping their end of the bargain to <i>take the sword</i> when they lost in a thread. Actually, it is hard to imagine a <i>Kinder & Gentler</i> BBS with everybody bowing and giving sincere <i>Pardon Me</i> posts.

 

Mango - don't worry about it. Not interested in anything that Batman has to say, as it is probably devoid of actual content and substance, and is simply a thinly disguised personal attack. He went on my list when I realized that that was the only type of post I had seen from him in months. I'm no longer interested in conversations with persons who are not willing to actually discuss topics at hand rationally, hence my recent decision to start building an ignore list...

 

What a total cop-out. People say stuff that you don't agree with, and call BS on some your posts, so you put them on your ignore list, because you can't tolerate anything that upsets your narrow, predetermined world view.

Then to top it all off, you parade your ignore list around like a ten year old girl bragging to her friends about not inviting the fat kids to her birthday party.

I don't like to personalize or judge other posters on this bbs, but that is really, really, really, really, really lame.

 

Here's an interesting article. Particularly interesting is the way Wolfowicz and Pipes cynically maniuplate the word "terrorism", seeking to take the tag away from an Iranian opposition group that they wish to currently use to destabilize Iran. It is policies like these that make all but the hardiest of true believers wonder whether these guys are really interested in democracy or even anti-terrorism.

*****************
Paris Raid Reveals Washington's Fractured Iran Policy
Commentary/Analysis, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Jun 20, 2003

Editor's Note: Student protests in Iran and the arrests in France of members of an Iranian opposition group cast light on splits and confusion within the Bush administration about what to do about the clerical regime in Iran.

When masked French police swooped in to arrest 150 members of the People's Mujahedeen recently, they did more than deal a crippling blow to the armed Iranian opposition group. From distant Paris suburbs, the raid shed a light on Washington's confusion about what to do about Iran's inconvenient clerical regime.

Hopes of regime change in Iran are high in Washington's consciousness these days, playing out against a backdrop of continuing student protests in Tehran. Washington neoconservatives had been betting on the Mujahedeen-e Khalq organization, known as the People's Mujahedeen, to strike the blow that might finally oust the mullahs, or at least contribute significantly to the effort. With the arrest of key leaders of the Iranian opposition group in Paris, these plans appear to have been disrupted.

The People's Mujahadeen is the military branch of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a secular group that helped overthrow the Shah in 1979. When the Council itself was then ousted from the Islamic Republic because it wanted a more participatory system, it took up residence in exile, in France, Norway, and in the United States, where it still operates. Later, it installed itself in Iraq as a paramilitary organization with troops, tanks and guns, sheltered and supported by Saddam Hussein.

Washington is split over the People's Mujahedeen. Those who dislike them include the State Department and some Congress members. Those who like them include sectors of the Defense Department and other members of Congress. (Iranian monarchists like them, while most Iranians regard them as traitors.)

The State Department declared the People's Mujahedeen a terrorist organization in 1997. One hundred and fifty U.S. congress members protested, but the designation remains in place. The European Union, too, considers them terrorists.

Despite that branding, the Defense Department and its supporters see the group as an asset in toppling Tehran's clerical regime. On April 15, the U.S. Central Command revealed it had negotiated a cease-fire with the People's Mujahedeen that would have allowed them to keep weapons and maintain their organization intact. Clearly they were meant to be kept in reserve as a source for intelligence briefings, and to intimidate the mullahs. Following protests from Iran and the United States, however, the fighters were only nominally disarmed, turning in their heavy weapons.

Patrick Clawson and Daniel Pipes, conservative commentators with ties to Paul Wolfowitz and other Washington hawks, wrote in May in the New York Post that Washington should remove the group's "terrorist" designation, since their efforts would further U.S. policy in the region . They referred to the fighters by their initials, MEK or MKO: "Maintaining the MKO as an organized group in separate camps in Iraq offers an excellent way to intimidate and gain leverage over Tehran."

Clawson and Pipes reflected current Pentagon thinking. A June 6 article in the New York Daily Forward quoted Larry Johnson, former CIA and State Department official: "The Office of Special Plans has been willing to reach out to the MKO and use them as a surrogate to pressure Iran."

The Paris raid was a serious blow to the organization. It accomplished the arrest of symbolic leader Maryam Rajavi, and her husband Masoud Rajavi, acknowledged as the group's real leader, and confiscated 1.3 million dollars. It touched off protests throughout Europe, including at least three self-immolations.

Instead of commenting specifically on the Paris arrests, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said only, "We certainly applaud efforts around the world to take these actions against terrorist groups." But the U.S. overseer in Iraq, Paul Bremer, was more forthcoming. "The Mujahedeen ... is a terrorist group, it has been identified as that ... If (the French) have arrested some people, I am glad to hear it," he said at a Baghdad briefing.

Iranian opposition groups suspected that the raid came out of a deal between the governments of France and Iran. However, London's Financial Times and The New York Times reported that important U.S. intelligence contributed to the operation.

The People's Mujahedeen adventure should raise a red flag for Americans. There are too many dissonant voices speaking in too many different directions to constitute a comprehensive Iran policy -- from a split Washington to U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq. There is much wishing that the clerics would simply disappear, and half-hearted, ineffectual feints at making that happen.

However, lasting change in Iran will not come from better plots and schemes from Washington. Iranians themselves see such notions as both naïve and arrogant. Eventually, the Iranian people will create the changes they need to realize their aspirations as a nation and a people. They know, and Americans should know, that outsiders cannot do it for them, particularly not outsiders who have been feuding with them for more than 20 years. Washington should learn that frequently, the most effective strategy is to do nothing.

PNS contributor William O. Beeman (William_beeman@brown.edu) teaches anthropology and is director of Middle East Studies at Brown University. He is author of "Language, Status and Power in Iran," and two forthcoming books: "Double Demons: Cultural Impediments to U.S.-Iranian Understanding," and "Iraq: State in Search of a Nation."

more

 

re: thread disappearance - that's almost turning the bbs into a staring contest. Who can last the longest? When I go to meetings at work, I don't constantly argue my point over and over or raise the volume. Either the other people are listening or they aren't and repetition does not improve someone else's manners.

 

Woofer, I've almost never mentioned this sort of thing for the reasons you mentioned. I don't always see posts asking me questions either. The difference here was that tree posted a silly assertion, got slapped down and KEPT posting in the same thread while ignoring repeated entreaties to admit he'd been wrong about the New York Post. It was a remarkable display and therefore merited remarks.

 

Glynch thanks for the article. It's shameful to manipulate terrorism to serve whatever means people in govt. find convenient at the time. After 9/11 I would've hoped that people had more respect for terrorism and the seriousness of the issue. I guess that didn't happen.

 

Batman Jones,

It goes beyond somebody asking a direct question. If I saw somebody <b>actively</b> posting on a topic, I took that as a sign that they had an <b>actual interest</b> in discussing the topic. I would get up to speed on the topic and post against them if I felt my viewpoint/position was more credible than the one they were presenting in the thread. Often, they would ignore my post and go on to post in other threads, while never offering a rebuttal to my post. I have leared the hard way that many here are not interested in a back and forth discussion......they would rather throw posts up in a thread and keep going until they get called on actually discussing the topic. After that happens, <i>disappear</i> from that thread and find another one to post in.

I can appreciate that viewpoint, but there does seem to be a trend to <i>throw things against the wall and see if it sticks</i>.....rather than actually discussing things.

There was a recent thread that was a vehicle/platform to bash the Bush Adminsitration and the members from the left of the aisle were eager to post in it. Once it was pointed out that the blame was misplaced and the sequence of contested events was initiated during the Clinton Administration, the BBS members from the left lost the urge to post in the thread. It wasn't so much the actual topic that they were interested in, but rather the ability to take a shot at the right. Once that was taken away........the interest by the left on the topic vanished. I was actually interested in discussing the <b>topic</b>, but the thread had gone to sleep.

If the urge/desire to <b>bash</b> the current Adminstration is that strong, then create a thread titled:

<b>Vote for Change in 2004</b>

or something similar.

When it is about to slip off the front page of thread listings, somebody can

<b>Bump it to the Top</b>

or even better, ask Clutch to create a <b>sticky</b> at the top for the thread and save the left the burden of keeping the thread from dropping too far down.

 

Most Americans want to go in. Or they want someone else's children to go in, just like Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23974-2003Jun23.html?nav=hptop_tb



By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 23, 2003; 7:09 PM


Most Americans would support the United States taking military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons despite growing public concern about the mounting number of U.S. military casualties in the aftermath of the war with Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

President Bush last week said the rest of the world should join the United States in declaring that it "will not tolerate" nuclear weapons in Iran -- a vow that most Americans appear willing to back with force. By 56 percent to 38 percent, the public endorsed the use of the military to block Iran from developing nuclear arms.

Support for a military solution in Iran came despite rising concern about the growing number casualties among U.S. military personnel in neighboring Iraq. About half said the current level of U.S. dead and wounded was "acceptable" -- down from two-thirds in early April.

The survey also found that support for the war with Iraq as well as for the way Bush is handling the situation in that country remains strong, but may be slowly ebbing.

Two in three -- 67 percent -- of those interviewed said they approved of the way Bush was dealing with Iraq. That's still a strong majority but down from 75 percent in late April, at the end of the conflict. Nearly as many -- 64 percent -- said the benefits of the war outweighed its cost, a drop from 70 percent in the late-April survey. Seven in 10 said they were concerned that the United States would become involved in a long and costly peacekeeping mission in Iraq, a figure unchanged in recent months.

The survey also suggests that the fog of war extended far beyond the Iraq battlefield. About one in four Americans incorrectly believes Iraq used chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces during the conflict. Slightly more than six in 10 said Iraq had not, while the remainder weren't sure.

The national survey of 1,024 randomly selected adults conducted June 18-22 found that Bush's overall job approval rating remains strong. Nearly seven in 10 -- 68 percent -- approved of the job Bush was doing as president, down negligibly from April.

More than six in 10 said the decision to go to war was justified even if the United States does not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. One in four said the conflict could be justified only if the U.S. locates chemical or biological weapons, or uncovers evidence that Iraq was actively trying to build or acquire nuclear arms.

Before the war, the Bush administration had claimed the reported existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was the primary justification for using military force to topple President Saddam Hussein.

As the war ended and weeks passed without the discovery of such weapons, some Democrats questioned whether Bush or members of his inner circle deliberately exaggerated the threat in order to justify going to war -- an argument that the latest Post-ABC poll suggests has had negligible effect on the president's public standing.

Concerns over mounting U.S. military casualties have soared largely among Democrats and independents, the survey found. In April, 56 percent of all Democrats believed U.S. troop losses had been acceptable; today 35 percent share that view. The proportion of those who viewed current casualty levels as acceptable dropped by 23 percentage points among political independents to 43 percent. There was no change among Republicans.

Concern among women also has increased, with the proportion calling the casualties unacceptable increasing from 33 percent to 50 percent in the past seven weeks.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

 

This is really scary to me. It seems like any military action taken against a mid-east country would be popular with the majority of Americans. I don't say it's intentional on the part of the administration, but it seems the climate has been created that middle-easterners in general are seen as a threat. The Patriot acts I & II as well as Bush's recent stance on racial profiling are frightening when taken in the large picture and pieced together with all the other info. When more than half of the population believe that a number of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi just adds to the over generalization. I'm not going to compare this to the holocaust or anything, though the conditions are headed in the direction where the kind of generalization and attitudes of feeling threatened by a group of people that are needed for crimes such as the Japanese internment camps or Europe in the late 20's and early 30's.

This doesn't mean that the same steps would be taken, just the slowly one piece at a time it looks like the environment that would allow for such action is being created.