Go ahead, tell me again how we're NOT going to war with Iran

[Ale]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Can you provide a damn good reason for Iran to hide the facts of its nuclear program and give anything less than full disclosure if, as its foreign minister has already said, it has nothing to hide?

I mean… honestly, why? If their program is 100% allowed, why hide anything? If the US was going to attack them anyway, why would convincing the world that the US was totally in error not be in their best interest? If the US was going to attack them anyway, why would providing full disclosure make things anything but better for Iran? Why would deception make things any better, or not make things worse? Can you think of a single rational reason?
[/QUOTE]

May I point out that the same reasoning was used as a justification for the Iraq invasion? That didn´t pan out to well, did it?

Once more, this time with feeling!

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
There’s a lttle old lady in a trailer down the way, gets around in a wheel chair. Is she a threat to me? No, or course not, she’s an LOL in a wheel chair, fer cryin’ out loud.

But “absitively, posolutely” no threat to me? Might get a downhill start, tailwind, run over my toes (I am sometimes absorbed in meditation and not as mindful of my surroundings…) Might be best put a couple slugs in her gizzard, be on the safe side.

So, if you wish to claim that no one can reasonably or honestly claim that Iran is absolutely no threat to America, you are entirely correct. But it is too thin a foundation to build an argument, you cannot balance a bowling ball on a knife edge.
[/QUOTE]
And to continue your analogy, by shooting her, you are doing way more harm to yourself with much greater certainty than she was ever likely to manage. That’s not the sort of behavior that society looks kindly upon.

If we attack Iran, the likely repercussions are almost certain to do us more harm than Iran left alone or engaged peacefully ever would. Just as invading Iraq has done us more damage than Saddam could have ever achieved even he’d tried. Over and over, America seems to insist on hurting itself.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Ale]
May I point out that the same reasoning was used as a justification for the Iraq invasion? That didn´t pan out to well, did it?

[/QUOTE]

So then, you can’t provide any rational reason for Iran to hide details of its nuclear program? Not even going to touch on the reason for any actions, just going to bring up Iraq?

Will you even attempt to answer the perfectly valid questions I posed, or is the fact that Bush made a superficially similar case in a superficially similar situation enough to discount any objective analysis of these, totally seperate facts?

I know folks are strongly opposed to Bush, but is rationality too much to ask?

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
So then, you can’t provide any rational reason for Iran to hide details of its nuclear program?
[/QUOTE]
Y’know, I think you generally have the better position in this thread, but Iran has a quite rational motive for secretly developing nuclear capability.

Iran had the most powerful nation in the world impose a ruthless dictator on them for 26 years, then had that same powerful nation provide covert (and sometimes not so covert) support to the war-mongering neighbor that attacked them once they overthrew that dicator. Acquiring a nuclear capability would appear to be a prudent defensive action. The U.S. has allowed Israel to do so without comment–and Israel has certainly hidden its nuclear program. Given that the U.S. exerts a great deal of (frequently unsuccessful) effort to prevent other nations (other than Israel) from acquiring nuclear weapons, any nation attempting to acquire a nuclear capability would demonstrate only stupidity to acknowledge their efforts.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Y’know, I think you generally have the better position in this thread, but Iran has a quite rational motive for secretly developing nuclear capability.
[/quote]

Well, thanks for that, and for engaging with an honest desire to debate the issue.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

Acquiring a nuclear capability would appear to be a prudent defensive action.
[/quote]

Except they claim that isn’t what they’re doing. Hiding details of their program isn’t an action consistent with a program that is 100% legitimate either.

You are correct that a rational reason for them hiding details would certainly be that those details are of a military nature. I was more trying to figure out some reasons why they’d hide details of a non-military program. Which, unless I miss my guess, is what many of the folks in this thread are arguing, that Iran’s nuclear program is definitely non-military in nature (and you’re a dirty stinking neocon if you disagree )

And simply for the record, I think a much more prudent course of action would be detente, allowing free elections, stopping their relation with global terror and being 100% transparent if they still want a non-weaponized nuclear program.

I know that some people who caricatured views of the US, especially in this thread, but I can’t see any US administration doing anything less than positively getting orgasmic if Iran became western-friendly, democratic, and a model of what a totalitarian state in the ME could become. Hell, I’m sure even Atilla the Bush would be perfectly happy if, without a shot being fired, Iran could be trotted out as an example of peace and freedom[sup]tm[/sup] spreading across the ME.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

The U.S. has allowed Israel to do so without comment–and Israel has certainly hidden its nuclear program.
[/quote]

Personally, I’d wager that if Iran was our close ally, we’d trust them with nukes, too. We didn’t go after France when they went nuclear, after all. And they’re, ya know, the French.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

Given that the U.S. exerts a great deal of (frequently unsuccessful) effort to prevent other nations (other than Israel) from acquiring nuclear weapons
[/quote]

I’d say “other than our allies”, but that’s not quite the main point of discussion here, right?

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

, any nation attempting to acquire a nuclear capability would demonstrate only stupidity to acknowledge their efforts.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t quite believe you’re correct tom. The Shah’s nuclear program was highly advanced, and we didn’t overthrow him. There was also some pretty compelling evidence that it had weaponized potential, if not inherent designs.

This is kind of a divergent tangent from this thread, I think, but I’d wager that the US would, in general, have much less distaste for allies developing nuclear capability than enemies. IIRC, the UK developed its nuclear weapons program via collaboration with the US.

However, if your ultimate point from this post is that a rational reason for Iran to hide its nuclear program is that it has something to hide, then I’d say that would certainly qualify as a rational reason. But again, that was more in the context of those claiming that Iran hiding details of its nuclear program didn’t raise serious questions about the scope, nature, and intentions of their nuclear program.

I think we agree… kinda.
(First sign of the apocalypse?)

[XT]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Iran had the most powerful nation in the world impose a ruthless dictator on them for 26 years, then had that same powerful nation provide covert (and sometimes not so covert) support to the war-mongering neighbor that attacked them once they overthrew that dicator. Acquiring a nuclear capability would appear to be a prudent defensive action.
[/QUOTE]

We didn’t impose the Shah on Iran, Tom…if that’s what you are implying by ‘most powerful nation’. We SUPPORTED the Shah after WWII…but the Pahlavi dynasty was already in power before that. They came too power sometime in the post WWI era (in the 20’s IIRC)…and if anything it was the Europeans who got them started.

Finn already addressed the rest, but it bears repeating that an Iranian nuclear program geared toward peaceful power generation has nothing too hide…the Iranians have a perfect right through the NPT too develop peaceful nuclear power. The only ‘rational’ reason for them too hide something that there is no reason too hide is…if they actually HAVE something too hide. Like the development of a nuclear weapons capability.

I agree with you that Iran may make a calculation that acquiring nuclear weapons capability would be a ‘prudent defensive action’ for them. In fact, I’m reasonably sure that is exactly what they are doing. That isn’t what most of the folks in this thread are admitting too however. Additionally, because Iran makes a calculation that tossing out the NPT and getting nuclear being in line with their own best interests (as they see them) doesn’t mean that the US doesn’t or shouldn’t see things from a different perspective. I think that a good case can be made that it ISN’T in the US’s best interests too have Iran toss out their treaty and gain nuclear weapons. Based on the effort Europe is making THEY don’t think it’s in their best interests either.

I’m not advocating that the US should pound Iran into dust (even if we could)…I think the current efforts of diplomacy between the US and Europe (playing good cop/bad cop) are worthwhile, and I’m encouraged that they seem too be having some effect on Iran. I simply think that the situation bears watching…careful watching. This blithe complacency I’m seeing in this thread by several posters who are essentially saying let Iran do whatever they want, that Iran is no threat so the US shouldn’t bother being watchful, that there is no nuclear program (based simply on their dislike of Bush et al, a contrary attitude that if the US says so it must be wrong, and on the Iraq war seemingly), etc etc…well, I think that this attitude is a bit scary. YMMV.

-XT

[XT]

If anyone is interested in some of the history of Iran, the Shah and Mosaddeq and the Nationalists, there is a fairly good article here on Wiki:

The part that Tom was probably referring too is here:

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi replaced his father on the throne on September 16, 1941. He wanted to continue the reform policies of his father, but a contest for control of the government soon erupted between the shah and an older professional politician, the nationalistic Mohammad Mosaddegh.

Despite his vow to act as a constitutional monarch who would defer to the power of the parliamentary government, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi increasingly involved himself in governmental affairs. He concentrated on reviving the army and ensuring that it would remain under royal control as the monarchy’s main power base. In 1949 an assassination attempt on the Shah, attributed to the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party, resulted in the banning of that party and the expansion of the Shah’s constitutional powers.

In 1951, the Majlis named Mohammad Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12, who shortly after nationalized the British-owned oil industry (see Abadan Crisis). Mossadegh was opposed by the Shah who feared a resulting oil embargo imposed by the west would leave Iran in economical ruin. The Shah fled Iran but returned when the United Kingdom and United States staged a coup against Mossadegh in August 1953 (see Operation Ajax). Mossadegh was then arrested by pro-Shah army forces.

In the context of regional turmoil and the Cold War, the Shah established himself as an indispensable ally of the West. Domestically, he advocated reform policies, culminating in the 1963 program known as the White Revolution, which included land reform, extension of voting rights to women, and the elimination of illiteracy. Major plans to build Iran’s infrastructure were undertaken, a new middle class began flourishing and in less than two decades Iran became the undisputable major economical and military power of the Middle East.

However, these measures and the increasing arbitrariness of the Shah’s rule provoked religious leaders who feared losing their traditional authority, and intellectuals seeking democratic reforms. These opponents criticized the Shah for his reforms or for violation of the constitution, which placed limits on royal power and provided for a representative government.

The Shah saw himself as heir to the kings of ancient Iran, and in 1971 he held a celebration of 2,500 years of Persian monarchy. In 1976 he replaced the calendar (year 1355) with an “Imperial” calendar (year 2535), which began with the foundation of the Persian Empire more than 25 centuries earlier. These actions were viewed as un-Islamic and resulted in more religious opposition by the clergy.

Further, here is a brief article on Mosaddeq:

Mohammad Mosaddeq (Mossadeq (help·info)) (Persian: محمد مصدق‎ Moḥammad Moṣaddeq, also Mosaddegh or Mossadegh) (19 May 1882 – 5 March 1967) served as the Prime Minister of Iran[1][2] from 1951 to 1953. He was democratically elected to the parliament, and as leader of the nationalists was twice appointed prime minister by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, after a positive vote of inclination by the parliament.[3] Mossadegh was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, today known as British Petroleum (BP).

Due to a multitude of disagreements with his former allies, especially the communists and Islamists, and disagreements with the Shah and with the parliament over his handling of talks regarding compensation of the British side, he dissolved the parliament using a referendum to avoid impeachment. This act was characterized as unconstitutional by some of his closest allies as well as opponents, and led to the Shah’s dismissing him from office on August 16, 1953 [4][5][6][7][8]. Mossadegh later insisted that the text of the constitution was subject to interpretation, and that his actions had been in accordance with its spirit rather than its text [9]. He was eventually removed from power on August 19, 1953, by military intervention. The coup d’état was supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments and was led by General Fazlollah Zahedi [10]. The American operation to encourage it was run by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.,[11][12] the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as Operation Ajax,[11] after its CIA cryptonym, and as the “28 Mordad 1332” coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar.[13] Dr. Mosaddeq was imprisoned for three years and subsequently put under house arrest until his death. He is, in many countries, considered a symbol of anti-imperialism. [citation needed]

As with a lot of things that happened during the Cold War, the issues were…complex. Too say we ‘imposed’ the Shah on Iran is, however, erroneous. As is an attempt too make the US (and the Brits, though they aren’t often mentioned, even though in this period they were as involved as the US…if not more so…in this region) the ‘bad guy’ in Iran is simplistic at best. There WERE no good guys or bad guys…only shades of gray.

Later on, as the Shah became increasingly erratic, a good case can be made that the US support might have been a bit misguided (though again, the region was considered strategically vital, and we DID have a long history with the Pahlavi dynasty…before they went off the deep end)…but during this period it was a touch call too distinguish the good guys from the bad ones.

Anyway, I was curious about when they got started and thought some folks might like a diversion into some of the history of how things got the way they are today.

-XT

[Measure_for_Measure]

Let’s run that again in slow motion.

@Wiki

In 1951, the Majlis named Mohammad Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12, who shortly after nationalized the British-owned oil industry (see Abadan Crisis). Mossadegh was opposed by the Shah who feared a resulting oil embargo imposed by the west would leave Iran in economical ruin. The Shah fled Iran but returned when the United Kingdom and United States staged a coup against Mossadegh in August 1953 (see Operation Ajax). Mossadegh was then arrested by pro-Shah army forces.

Emphasis added.

@xtisme

As with a lot of things that happened during the Cold War, the issues were…complex. Too say we ‘imposed’ the Shah on Iran is, however, erroneous.

Er, I don’t see how that is an erroneous interpretation. Sure, there’s more detail – there always is. But that the US staged and funded a coup against a democratically elected Iranian leader who was nationalizing the oil industry doesn’t seem to be in dispute.

[Sevastopol]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
…Essentially he (Sevastopol) handwaved away the question…
[/QUOTE]
This is not true. You were referred to Der Trihs’s response to your question: which I will edit in

…
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
…Given that regardless of their intentions they can reasonable expect us or Israel or both to bomb their nuclear facilities, regardless of why they build them, it’s not suspicious of them at all to hide and bury and harden them.
[/QUOTE]
I can only agree.

[Sevastopol]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
…
I worry about Iran joining the club and adding that much more instability too the global situation…-XT
[/QUOTE]
As is often the case, the contrary is true. It is the increased probability of Iran stabilizing as the local power that has the USA worried. Inhibited impulses cause rage in infants and the mute beasts. No easy bang-bang, bwah-ha, baby cross!

OTOH you may mean, Iranian nuclear research increases global instability because the USA is currently governed by fucking fruitcakes, plus some Likudniks pulling a few strings in the background. Then bang on the money, you would be.

[Ale]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
So then, you can’t provide any rational reason for Iran to hide details of its nuclear program? Not even going to touch on the reason for any actions, just going to bring up Iraq?

Will you even attempt to answer the perfectly valid questions I posed, or is the fact that Bush made a superficially similar case in a superficially similar situation enough to discount any objective analysis of these, totally seperate facts?

I know folks are strongly opposed to Bush, but is rationality too much to ask?
[/QUOTE]

Well, first you have to prove they are hiding anything; second, let´s assume they are hiding something; I can think of one reason and it´s that they may not enjoy being probed up their wazoos by people they don´t really like very much.

And thirdly, frankly I would expect them to at least have preliminary research on atomic weapons, they surely wouldn´t like that to hang out on the breeze.
Do I like that?, no, not at all. The dovey side on me wishes there wouldn`t be any nukes in the world. But the fact is that Iran is on the US sights, Axis of Evil and all that. They have the right to defend themselves as they see fit, and nukes provide a very strong deterrent. And why should they refrain from doing that based on a signed treaty when its enemy uses treaties as toilet paper anyway?

Scared people make stupid decisions, so with some luck if they develop nukes Iran would feel safer and cooler heads would start permeating into the goverment.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Ale]
Well, first you have to prove they are hiding anything;
[/quote]

You first read the thread.
You might just find what you’re looking for.

[QUOTE=Ale]

second, let´s assume they are hiding something; I can think of one reason and it´s that they may not enjoy being probed up their wazoos by people they don´t really like very much.
[/quote]

So they announce that they’re intending to be fully transparent. They’re attempting to convince the global community that they have nothing to hide. But because they don’t like being “probed” they bulldoze a military facility here, refuse to offer evidence there? In international politics with the stakes being what they are, they’re hiding things because they don’t like being “probed” up the “wazoo” by “people they really don’t like”?

[QUOTE=Ale]

And thirdly, frankly I would expect them to at least have preliminary research on atomic weapons, they surely wouldn´t like that to hang out on the breeze.
[/quote]

Which, again if you read this thread, the majority of posters have been arguing that thinking such a thing makes you a neocon who is helping Bush launch a new war. I bet you didn’t even know you were a warmongering neocon, did you?

[QUOTE=Ale]

Do I like that?, no, not at all. The dovey side on me wishes there wouldn`t be any nukes in the world. But the fact is that Iran is on the US sights, Axis of Evil and all that. They have the right to defend themselves as they see fit, and nukes provide a very strong deterrent.
[/quote]

As already pointed out, numerous times, Iran’s nuclear program goes back far, far before Bush, or his “Axis of Evil” speech. Their black market relationship does. Their secret nuclear facilities buried deep underground do. A large part of what they’re hiding is what the program’s history consists of.

Believing that it is a defensive reaction to Bush’s rhetoric takes a whole bunch of faith.

There’s also the fact, again as has been pointed out numerous times, that the US has made no moves to invade, has no capability to invade, and most likely isn’t going to invade. Even the “Well, we’re just going to toss a bunch of missiles” crowd can’t explain why we haven’t already done it. The Iranian theocrats may be corrupt, evil, fanatical scumfucks, but they’re not that out of touch. Anybody who watches the news knows that the US military is stretched to the breaking point, we certainly can’t invade anybody else. Moreover if the US was actually rapacious, greedy, evil, blah blah blah, a nuclear program that most experts conclude couldn’t produce a weapon for some time wouldn’t serve as a deterrent anyways.

[QUOTE=Ale]

And why should they refrain from doing that based on a signed treaty when its enemy uses treaties as toilet paper anyway?
[/quote]

A nation’s treaty obligations have nothing to do with what other nations are doing with separate treaties. Ruining your international credibility with the excuse “he did it first!” is seldom a wise move. In any case, that sort of logic pretty much means that as soon as one country breaches treaty obligations, any other nation can be free to do the same, as long as somewhere alone the chain, some country can count as their enemy. Not, IMO, a strong basis for international policy.

And, again, as pointed out many times in this thread, it’s not just the US that has problems with Iran’s nuclear program. It’s Europe, Russia, China… Do you really think it’s a good idea for Iran to invite yet another round of sanctions because the US may or may not have violated some treaties in the past?

[QUOTE=Ale]

Scared people make stupid decisions, so with some luck if they develop nukes Iran would feel safer and cooler heads would start permeating into the goverment.
[/QUOTE]

Except, again, their nuclear program was going on for more than a decade before Bush. It was connected to the black market. It was buried underground. It wasn’t reported. Even now, they’re keeping many of its details from the IAEA. It takes a great leap of faith to assume that any military intentions developed recently and then only out of fear in response to Bush’s rhetoric.

[Ale]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Which, again if you read this thread, the majority of posters have been arguing that thinking such a thing makes you a neocon who is helping Bush launch a new war. I bet you didn’t even know you were a warmongering neocon, did you?
[/QUOTE]

I didn´t know that!, I should take some time to look inside me and see what else I´ve been missing. :rolleyes:

I´m out of here.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=spoke-]
In post #211, Finn, speaking of Iran, wrote:

So he’s talking about Iran’s supposed history of attacking the US, when in fact, that history (increasingly ancient) is of Hezbollah attacks.

Now, whether Finn is horny or not, I couldn’t say.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t tell - are you claiming that nations bear no responsibility for the actions of groups they sponsor, or not?

Because if the US and British are responsible for the coup d’etat because they supported and funded it, but Iran is not responsible for Hizbollah even though they founded, support, and fund it, then you are not making a great deal of sense.

Let’s see - the coup was fifty-some years ago, and is directly relevant. The Iranian-sponsored terror attacks were twenty-some years ago, and are ancient history.

What exactly is the expiration date on that package?

Regards,
Shodan

[Spoke]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I can’t tell - are you claiming that nations bear no responsibility for the actions of groups they sponsor, or not?

Because if the US and British are responsible for the coup d’etat because they supported and funded it, but Iran is not responsible for Hizbollah even though they founded, support, and fund it, then you are not making a great deal of sense.

Let’s see - the coup was fifty-some years ago, and is directly relevant. The Iranian-sponsored terror attacks were twenty-some years ago, and are ancient history.

What exactly is the expiration date on that package?

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

Define “sponsor.”

The US and Britain didn’t just “sponsor” a coup. They planned it in great detail. From the Wiki article on Operation Ajax:

As a condition of restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the U.S. required that the AIOC’s oil monopoly lapse. Five major U.S. oil companies, plus Royal Dutch Shell and French Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were designated to operate in the country alongside AIOC after a successful coup.

In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force in case the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of any chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly “Top Secret” documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate.

The leader of Operation Ajax was Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior CIA officer, and grandson of the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. While formal leadership was vested in Kermit Roosevelt, the project was designed and executed by Donald Wilber, a career CIA agent and acclaimed author of books on Iran, Afghanistan and Ceylon.

You can see how staging a coup in another country for the benefit of some oil companies might tend to stick in the craw of the citizens of the affected country, even after 50 years. (Particularly since we continued to support the brutal dictator who was the beneficiary of that coup for the following 26 years.)

Twenty-year-old terror attacks on our outposts in the Middle East (or at least eleven years old, to be extra generous) just don’t quite measure up by comparison. (And that’s leaving aside the question of whether Hezbollah carried out the attacks, and the question of whether the terrorists acted independently of any Iranian guidance.)

If you go into the beehive to get the honey, you’re going to get some stings.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Er, I don’t see how that is an erroneous interpretation. Sure, there’s more detail – there always is. But that the US staged and funded a coup against a democratically elected Iranian leader who was nationalizing the oil industry doesn’t seem to be in dispute.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you know, you have too read all of that detail first. If you read the OTHER quote I cited all that complexity stuff comes out:

Due to a multitude of disagreements with his former allies, especially the communists and Islamists, and disagreements with the Shah and with the parliament over his handling of talks regarding compensation of the British side, he dissolved the parliament using a referendum to avoid impeachment. This act was characterized as unconstitutional by some of his closest allies as well as opponents, and led to the Shah’s dismissing him from office on August 16, 1953 [4][5][6][7][8]. Mossadegh later insisted that the text of the constitution was subject to interpretation, and that his actions had been in accordance with its spirit rather than its text [9]. He was eventually removed from power on August 19, 1953, by military intervention. The coup d’état was supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments and was led by General Fazlollah Zahedi [10]. The American operation to encourage it was run by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.,[11][12] the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as Operation Ajax,[11] after its CIA cryptonym, and as the “28 Mordad 1332” coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar.[13] Dr. Mosaddeq was imprisoned for three years and subsequently put under house arrest until his death. He is, in many countries, considered a symbol of anti-imperialism. [citation needed]

I added the bolded parts.

You see, it was a complex situation. However, it is erroneous too say we IMPOSED the Shah on Iran. The Shah was ALREADY the ruling monarch. Depending on how you look at it, we RESTORED the Shah (who was the constitutional monarch of Iran prior to our involvement). I suppose if you wanted to, you could say we RE-imposed the Shah. Or you could say that Mossadegh over stepped his own authority (even though he was democratically elected and all) when he staged the first coup, disbanded the parliment, suspended the constitution and tossed out the Shah.

-XT

[FinnAgain]

As long as I’m still pointing out whoppers, there’s the claim that, for instance, the marine barracks and Khobar Towers attacks are only “alleged” to have been carried out with Iran’s knowledge, support, and cooperation. I’ve already linked to two trials whose results show that there’s nothing “alleged” about it. But I guess the rule is now that if Bush says something, you are innocent until proven guilty, and then you’re still innocent.

Another whopper, of course, is that the targets were “outposts”. I’m not going to split hairs and talk about whether or not, for instance, the US marine barracks in Lebanon, part of a UN peacekeeping mission, was a US ‘outpost’. I’d hope that most Americans would object to our peacekeepers being murdered in any case, but I realize that this is not the case. Many attacks, however, were carried out against targets that cannot by any stretch of imagination, distortion or obfuscation be termed “outposts”.

Just as a small smattering, the US embassy in Lebanon as well as TWA 847 and a series of kidnappings.

From the arch-Zionist-neocons PBS (an interview with Robert Oakley):

Now, we know of the involvement of Iran, we know of involvement to some extent of Syria. What was the reasoning that Syria and Iran gave us at the time?

It was primarily Iranians, the Syrians were sort of a secondary player, if you will, a facilitator more than a principal. The Iranians wanted to drive us out of Lebanon. The Iranians also wanted to create a Hezbollah party, that is, a party based on the Shiite Islamic movement in Lebanon, which would be their tool for Islamizing Lebanon, hopefully turning it into an Islamic state similar to Iran.

But to do that there were two obstacles that had to be gotten out of the way: the United States and the French–and not merely our military presence, because the French military barracks was also blown up at that time–but our cultural presence, the American University of Beirut and things of that sort. … A number of American University of Beirut professors were taken hostage to put the pressure on us to get out of there.

And so it was a concerted effort, a well-planned effort, which succeeded in pushing the United States essentially out of Lebanon, and it also produced a big change in our policy towards the Middle East.

How did the TWA 847 hijacking change the debate? How did that affect the way that we looked at dealing with the terrorist threat?

The hijacking, which was televised live had a very profound effect upon the United States, because it was in our homes, much as the bin Laden attack on the Trade Towers and the Pentagon. It produced some drastic changes, some big improvements in airline security, a separate task force–which eventually became part of the Bush task force-- to step up airline security. It increased our awareness of the fact that the Iranians were directly involved in terrorist activity against the United States, because one of the groups on the plane that was conducting the terrorist activity turned out to be related to Iran, not related to Syria as we’d earlier thought. So it exposed the Iranians in a way that we’d not understood before.

The frustrations of Beirut, of inability to deal with it militarily, did that push us towards covert operations?

Yes, it did, and as it turned out, we were not very successful about covert operations either. And so that eventually led us to make a deal with the Iranians, because this particular series of events, including the kidnappings, were very cleverly conceived by the Iranians. And the people they kidnapped and held hostage were those best-guaranteed to touch the nerve of the American public who demanded that they be released: priests, Catholic priests, a Protestant pastor, a journalist, professor. And this had a tremendous effect, as we know later, upon the Reagan White House, who eventually was pushed into providing arms to the Iranians in exchange for release of the hostages.

That was the object of the TWA hijacking, hijackings later on of a Kuwait airliner and a French airliner to Iran, and a number of other actions conducted against the United States. That was a constant theme with the hostages and with other terrorist activities conducted by the Iranians,

From a separate PBS piece:

Kuwait Airways Flight 221, on its way from Kuwait to Pakistan, was hijacked and diverted to Tehran. The hijackers demanded the release of the Kuwait 17. When the demand wasn’t met, the hijackers killed two American officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development. On the sixth day of the drama, Iranian security forces stormed the plane and released the remaining hostages.

Iran arrested the hijackers, saying they would be brought to trail. But the trial never took place, and the hijackers were allowed to leave the country.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
As already pointed out, numerous times, Iran’s nuclear program goes back far, far before Bush, or his “Axis of Evil” speech. Their black market relationship does. Their secret nuclear facilities buried deep underground do. A large part of what they’re hiding is what the program’s history consists of.

Believing that it is a defensive reaction to Bush’s rhetoric takes a whole bunch of faith.
[/quote]
So ? So does our hostility towards Iran

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
There’s also the fact, again as has been pointed out numerous times, that the US has made no moves to invade, has no capability to invade, and most likely isn’t going to invade. Even the “Well, we’re just going to toss a bunch of missiles” crowd can’t explain why we haven’t already done it.
[/quote]
I already have, several times. Bush and friends didn’t expect to get stuck in Iraq, which threw off their timetable. And given the present political situation, the time to instigate a war with Iran is either after they’ve been goaded into doing something we can pretend is a casus belli ( I recall warhawks cursing Britain when they got those sailors away from Iran without a war ); or, wait until just before Bush is due to leave office. Since even our spineless Congress might impeach him or defund the war if he did it earlier; doing it late means he starts the war and leaves the disaster in his successor’s hands.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Moreover if the US was actually rapacious, greedy, evil, blah blah blah, a nuclear program that most experts conclude couldn’t produce a weapon for some time wouldn’t serve as a deterrent anyways.
[/quote]
Which is a reason to continue it to completion now, while we’ve crippled ourself.

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
And, again, as pointed out many times in this thread, it’s not just the US that has problems with Iran’s nuclear program. It’s Europe, Russia, China… Do you really think it’s a good idea for Iran to invite yet another round of sanctions because the US may or may not have violated some treaties in the past?
[/quote]
Yes. Getting nukes is a matter of national survival. And personal survival for a great many Iranians, including the leadership.

[vibrotronica]

Isn’t it funny how some folks can argue that it’s ridiculous to think the US will go to war with Iran while giving lots of reasons why we should go to war with Iran?

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
Isn’t it funny how some folks can argue that it’s ridiculous to think the US will go to war with Iran while giving lots of reasons why we should go to war with Iran?
[/QUOTE]

Really? Has anybody in this thread, at all, given any reasons why we should go to war? Could you quote someone saying that anything Iran has done is a casus belli?

Or would you prefer to retract your statement?