US cuts contact with Iran----

I'm glad to see this president is top notch with foreign diplomacy. Has he tried a diplomatic solution to anything? Oh yeah the road map to peace. Only for some reason when it comes to that he doesn't have the fortitude to see it through, or even put any pressure on the parties involved.

 

I think diplomacy will not get you too far with these guys in Iran. They are just as bad, if not worse, as Saddam was.

 

They have a society that wants to have the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy here, we should increase the contact not decrease. They have a freely elected gov. that is for the most part against the clerics running the country, i'm not understanding the logic of our gov. on this issue.

 

Re-election.

 

Well they are not doubt a strict society, ruled relgious extremists. But that's been slowly improving over the years. But what they have now isn't too much worse or possibly even better to what they had when the U.S. propped up the Shah for so long in Iran.

Again if the U.S. wants to promote democracy, the best way to do it is by example. If a country says we dont' like you we won't talk to you anymore, or we'll invade you, the system of that country doesn't look appealing to others in the world who might otherwise want a democracy.

The recent idea of forcing democracy down the throats of countries we don't like is new, and thus far hasn't garnered to many oppressed countries wanting to emulate our style of govt.

 

You have to separate the society and the government. The society wants liberty, the government possibly encouraged terrorist bombings in Saudi Arabia which killed several Americans.

I don't believe in diplomacy for terrorists.

 

I have a question to those out there that are fans of Ronald Reagan. If Iran did indeed support Al Qaeda, in these and other bombings, does anyone blame Reagan for supporting that terrorist nation and selling it arms, even though he knew they were terrorists and had just released 50 American hostages?

I thought it was a bad move at the time, but in light of the increase in terrorist attacks on Americans, I find it almost traitorous. It's selling arms to terrorists. One of the stated reasons for attacking Iraq was to keep them from arming terrorists.

I'm curious about people's feelings on the matter. I know that many feel Reagan was a great president, and for those I wonder if this changes any of that?

 

I find the misperceptions people here have about the Iranians almost laughable. Everyone here seems to forget that the Iranians started the whole "Death to Israel, Death to the USA, Allah is great" movement. It all started in Iran 24 years ago.

There is no doubt that Iran is harboring Al Qaeda right now. There are about 500 of them in eastern Iran camped out over the border, those who fled Afghanistan in 2001-2 to the west. Iran has arrested about a dozen of them as a token move to "show its support for us in the war on terror". The rest they have simply left alone to cross the border and stir up trouble for us in Afghan.

At the same time they are doing this, they are sending agents with weapopns and cash to stir up trouble for us in Iraq. Those signs reading "No to Saddam, No to the US, Yes to Allah" that you see were paid for with Iranian money. The demonstrations are organized by Iranian agents.

While they are doing this they are funneling money and funds to Hizbollah and Hamas so that they can continue to blow up Israeli passenger buses in the hopes that the peace process will be derailed.

While they are doing that they are feverishly trying to complete their nuclear weapons program because, seeing the North Korean example, they feel that since our sh*tlist just got one member shorter their turn isn't too far off. Their hope is that once they have the bomb they can keep a surging America at bay, and in the meantime they must simply string us along, dropping the idiots at State a bone here and there to forestall the inevitable.

The comment earlier that they have a freely elected government is a sick joke which merely highlights the ignorance of some here regarding Iran's government. It is misleading, to say the least, to imply that the elected portion of their government has any real power at all; the mullahs control the army, they control the secret police, they control the press, and they *freely* dissolve any "free" election that does not turn out the way they want. The most prominent reformer in Iran has been under house arrest and threat of death for over a decade. When the people of Tehran tried to elect a reformist mayor, the mullahs nullified the election. Press agencies that report anything not to the mullahs' liking are regularly shut down, their editors jailed. There can be no free government without free press, and the mullahs know that.

The ayatollah runs Iran, and everybody over there knows it.

Oh, and Iranian intelligence makes Al Qaeda look like a bunch of choir boys.

It is time to stop playing around with these people. I am not saying that a military invasion is going to be necessary here - I hope it is not. But it is time to start working towards the overthrow of the mullahs, because they are only slightly less despicable than Saddam was, and probably more of a threat in the long run. Their people deserve better, and so do we.

After 9/11, there was only one muslim nation on the planet where pro-US demonstrations broke out. Can you guess where they happened?

 

treeman...

I intentionally didn't post in here until you did, because I saw this argument coming, and I expected you to contradict yourself. In a discussion we had way back when, before the war, and I pointed out the various problems with our pro-war arguments, you agreed that many nations ( including the US) had problems, and it wasn't our place to retify them, but that Iraq was in the "unique" position of having all of them: Human rights violations, terrorism, opposition to UN mandates, WMD, etc. I said that they were just excuses, you claimed that the sheer weight of them justified our actions...


Now you have contradicted yourself, and are back to saying it's ok to invade merely because we don't like certain aspects about them.

 

Great post Treeman.

Iran is guilty of the exact same sins that forced our hand in Afghanistan. The Libs who supported the effort in Afghanistan but now bash President Bush for our stance against Iran are the hypocrites.

I have to say though, I am a bit surprised. I think that Syria needs to be dealt with first.

 

It was only a matter of time before we demonized Iran (again). Because we have an army already in place in Iraq, it shouldn't be too difficult to launch a few salvos in the corporate-controlled media, get this show on the road.

Why would Iran be so stupid as to be behind the Saudi attacks? God****it, no one says anything about the culpability of the Saudis. But because Iran harbors a few bad guys, time to roll them up as well.

Let's get'em all. Because our empire isn't really complete until we find a way to make everyone else a bad guy.

In the meantime, yet another page 5 article, buried, about the stonewalling of the administration about events leading up to 9/11. Doesn't matter I guess. They'll stonewall until the investigation is required to wrap up (May 2004) and by then we'll have taken Iran and Syria and...well, who's next?

We preach about state-sponsored terrorism and I guess it's OK because we seem to be the best sponsors of it in the world.

 

The best thing the US can do is let Iran's government crumble on its own. The people there are fed up with it and given time, that situation will take care of itself. There is no point in the US wasting time and resources on something that will eventually happen.

 

You have to look at his intent. I seriously doubt that Reagan's intent was to arm terrorists so they could attack America in the future. If that was the truth, of course many people would change their mind about America. But Reagan was fighting a Cold War, he had to make tough decisions with significant downsides. And of course, he made mistakes.

 

Everybody has a short memory here. Reagan knew nothing about Iran Contra (either that or he prejured himself).

 

Macbeth:

You said:

I said:

Please read more carefully in the future.

As far as invading goes, I would say that a nuclear Iran is far more of a threat than Saddam Hussein ever could have hoped to be. In the event that covert methods do not work, I would say that invasion - or more likely limited precision strikes aimed at coercive destabilization - would be warranted, given the mullahs' repeated statements of intent and efforts to kill Americans over the past quarter century. But again - and for at least the tenth time on this BBS - I do not think that an invasion of Iran would be either necessary or desirable unless circumstances become more dire. As I have said for over a year, I favor overthrowing the mullahs by promoting the reform/revolution movement that is already active there. Not rolling in with the tanks.

But thanks for trying to mislead.

rezdawg:

For once I largely agree with you. Only that I would give the people there any support that they may desire to accomplish that goal... And a nudge here and there to speed things up.

johnheath:

Syria is already being dealt with, although there is one issue that is not being dealt with: Hizbollah/Lebanon. Personally, I get the impression that Powell didn't push this issue too hard, and therefore nothing will come of it. The problem there is that the peace process will get nowhere as long as Hizbollah is still firing rockets into Israel and training suicide bombers in the Bekaa... I hope we will deal with that issue at some point.

The Syrians seem to be cooperating on other issues, however. I think they have successfully avoided any military (probably even economic) action on our part. Hizbollah will still have to be dealt with though. Personally I'd just let the IDF loose on them.

 

He didn't need intent for the future. Iran had only recently released 50 plus American hostages. Everyone knew that they were trouble. I didn't mean to imply that Reagan intended to sell arms for terrorists to use against us, but he was still selling them to a nation that supported terrorism, and he was definitely aware of the hostage situation.

 

Reagan's arming of certain factions appears stupid now. Backing the Northern Alliance or whatever government we eventually establish in Iraq might seem like bad ideas likewise years from now. Then again, sometimes you get Japan.


There are three lessons there, I suppose.

1. Be wary of supporting factions based only on common short-term goals. It might be necessary at times, but still a high risk long-term proposition.
2. Sometimes it might be best to avoid meddling at all. One of the real problems of the Cold War was the ridiculous emphasis placed on commitment prestige rather than assets and capabilities (which led to situations like Iran contra).
3. If you do meddle, see your support through to the end to form the basis for a positive future relationship.

 

Likewise. Thats amazing. Im almost ashamed to say it.

 

hhhmmmmm . . . . If i recall . . back then you were of the mind NO LIBERAL supported bush on the Afghanistan thing . . . Where did these Pro-Afghanistan liberals come from?

Rocket River