NationStates Jolt Archive

Back in 1980, some swarthy, bearded guys famously took a few hostages during some revolutionary turmoil. We know the story.

Today, the US is building up tensions with Iran over its (legal) nuclear programme, because they wish to limit Middle-Eastern countries' access to nuclear technology.

Iran just had some elections, and the US government tried as hard as they could to draw attention to the deliberate sidelining of moderate candidates by the Iranian state. The thing is, the majority of the American public cannot be educated about the electoral issues of a distant constitutional theocracy. Here is the downside of keeping your citizens in an information vacuum - even when drawing attention to a foreign issue is manifestly in your interests, the public lack the ability to grasp it.

How frustrating.

But what if you try to link the new President to an act of terrorism? You don't have to say he is, just mention the distant possibility often enough, and in quite a few people's minds, the link will be made. "Iranian President. Terrorist?"

Thus you have this absurd comparison of a couple of pictures of dark-skinned bearded men, and people asking, could it be him? Yes. No. Maybe.

What is going on, is psychological conditioning again. The US government mentioned September 11 and Iraq in the same sentence enough times ahead of the invasion, that half of Americans think they might have done it. It is a sad comment on humanity that this really works.

Here we are again with Iran. Just remember, that if you enter into the "Yes, no, maybe" debate, someone in the US government thinks you're a gullible idiot. ;)

I don't care if the Iranian president was a hostage taker or not.

Nelson Mandela carried out acts considered "terrorism" and he became leader of his country. It is nothing new for a Freedom fighter/terrorist/freedom fighter/terrorist to become a national leader.

Allawi, who is in the Iraqi government, was part of a group that carried out a spate of bombings in Baghdad in the 90's.

One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter.

To many, Bush is a freedom fighter. To me, and others, Bush and his administration are terrorists, along with his little chum Blair.

Regardless of the Iranian Presiden't past, I quite agree Tactical Grace, it is all conditioning for another war.

Think they might end up invading anytime soon? I can already imagine the neo-con arguments to scarify up some public support.

Beat me to it Tactical Grace ;)

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13379415,00.html

Here's a link for anyone who wants it. The people include an army general and a CIA worker. :rolleyes:
Draw your own conclusions.

Iran wont be invaded until, a crippling sanctions regime is caried out against them. It doesnt do to go to war with someone when they can fight back.

Its a fine line though, once you've economically crippled a nation its very hard for the international community to take your intelligence seriously, when you try to paint soldiers armed with sticks as a dangerous threat. Still, with the amount of money the US throws around to get their own way they'll probably manage it.

The downside is given Iran and the US's elected representatives, cant say that most people would fancy the rule of either of these terrorist headcases.

Think they might end up invading anytime soon? I can already imagine the neo-con arguments to scarify up some public support.

The neo-con arguements have begun...

Oh, damnit, I wish the US would just stay the hell out of other people's affairs.

Every time they do anything, it's wrong. Giving $1.2 billion to Africa wasn't a great gesture and hopefully indicative of more, no, it just plain wasn't enough you Yankee bitches rah rah rah bah! Stopping a regime which employed rapists? (And I don't mean rapists were employed in jobs, I mean people were employed as rapists.) Damn them and their... wait, what's it called again when you help people who can't really do much more than say thanks? Stopping genocide? Well Europe did say 'never again', but hell, screw that! Those damn Iraqis don't deserve our help, and they never did!

I wish the US would stay out because it'dd be hella funny to watch so many places fall apart without them. Of course, as soon as they went isolationist, they'd be evil for NOT helping. :rolleyes: Damn those Americans and their amazing victim complex. It's so good the rest of the world really does blame them for things they don't do wrong!

. It is nothing new for a Freedom fighter/terrorist/freedom fighter/terrorist to become a national leader.
What about a French fighter? :D

Iran has a long history of terrorism. Probably the premier nation for terrorist activities against the westren world. You can call it Neo-con war drumming. But the fact is that Iran is what it is. At some point in time they will have to be dealt with. Same with N Korea. I would choose sooner than later with Iran. But I guess Im just part of that Neo-con vast conspiracy to bring war everywhere and profit off of arms manufacturing and nation reconstruction.

Well good goshy-woshy! Now you're not accusing thoe fine folks that run the country of occassionally taking some rather un-Christian liberties with the truth are you? Something along the lines of "bearing falsy-walsy witness?"



Nahhhhh, that could never happen in that super-duper, extra-wooper country could it?





Could it?

Back in 1980, some swarthy, bearded guys famously took a few hostages during some revolutionary turmoil. We know the story.

Today, the US is building up tensions with Iran over its (legal) nuclear programme, because they wish to limit Middle-Eastern countries' access to nuclear technology.

Iran just had some elections, and the US government tried as hard as they could to draw attention to the deliberate sidelining of moderate candidates by the Iranian state. The thing is, the majority of the American public cannot be educated about the electoral issues of a distant constitutional theocracy. Here is the downside of keeping your citizens in an information vacuum - even when drawing attention to a foreign issue is manifestly in your interests, the public lack the ability to grasp it.

How frustrating.

But what if you try to link the new President to an act of terrorism? You don't have to say he is, just mention the distant possibility often enough, and in quite a few people's minds, the link will be made. "Iranian President. Terrorist?"

Thus you have this absurd comparison of a couple of pictures of dark-skinned bearded men, and people asking, could it be him? Yes. No. Maybe.

What is going on, is psychological conditioning again. The US government mentioned September 11 and Iraq in the same sentence enough times ahead of the invasion, that half of Americans think they might have done it. It is a sad comment on humanity that this really works.

Here we are again with Iran. Just remember, that if you enter into the "Yes, no, maybe" debate, someone in the US government thinks you're a gullible idiot. ;)

Good point :)

Oh, damnit, I wish the US would just stay the hell out of other people's affairs.

Every time they do anything, it's wrong. Giving $1.2 billion to Africa wasn't a great gesture and hopefully indicative of more, no, it just plain wasn't enough you Yankee bitches rah rah rah bah! Stopping a regime which employed rapists? (And I don't mean rapists were employed in jobs, I mean people were employed as rapists.) Damn them and their... wait, what's it called again when you help people who can't really do much more than say thanks? Stopping genocide? Well Europe did say 'never again', but hell, screw that! Those damn Iraqis don't deserve our help, and they never did!

I wish the US would stay out because it'dd be hella funny to watch so many places fall apart without them. Of course, as soon as they went isolationist, they'd be evil for NOT helping. :rolleyes: Damn those Americans and their amazing victim complex. It's so good the rest of the world really does blame them for things they don't do wrong!

The thing is that the US administration has a track record over the past century or so of actually providing help in minimalistic ways while it conducts a campaign of near constant regime change and manipulation. While not as overt as in the case of Iraq, it was still the same thing. One very messy failure on this particular case was the Bay of Pigs.

The US can do good. But it is just as often that it is interested in messing with other people so that they can benefit. Do all you want to help your citizens, thats fine. But when you start toppling foreign governments or manipulating their politics or robbing their economies to do so, thats not very nice. On a personal scale, it would be like me coming to your house and making off with your computer, tv and anything that isn't bolted down.

The US was partially responsible for the conditions in pre-war Iraq due to the sanctions (which never work the way their supposed to).

It was also indirectly responsible for the Taliban gaining power in Afghanistan, or are you forgetting that little detail where they started supplying stinger missiles and some training to the local bandits and militia after the place was occupied by the Soviet Union? Prior to that, the bandits were being mopped up very efficiently.

But I doubt anything I can say will affect your opinion. You are far more likely to proscribe to the "America can never do anything wrong. Its the world that is wrong" attitude.

My goodness, America can't be everywhere at the same time, can it? Since the beginning of this century...Afghanistan, Iraq, and now speculation about Taiwan, Korea and Iran? I think that's a little far-fetched... Two quagmires are enough. We don't need five, thank you.

Today, the US is building up tensions with Iran over its (legal) nuclear programme, because they wish to limit Middle-Eastern countries' access to nuclear technology.


Ah yes. A nation with no enviroment to protect and some of the world's largest oil reserves needs nuclear power. Really.

Ah yes. A nation with no enviroment to protect and some of the world's largest oil reserves needs nuclear power. Really.

Oil doesn't last forever. Iran should know that. Besides, I'm not too sure of the numbers but it might be more cost effective for them to power their own country with nuclear power while exporting the oil. Anyone can clarify this?

Iran wont be invaded until, a crippling sanctions regime is caried out against them. It doesnt do to go to war with someone when they can fight back.
And thats why the Bushites will never go to war against the likes of France or China

I bet Iran or Syria are next...

The thing is that the US administration has a track record over the past century or so of actually providing help in minimalistic ways while it conducts a campaign of near constant regime change and manipulation. While not as overt as in the case of Iraq, it was still the same thing. One very messy failure on this particular case was the Bay of Pigs.

The US can do good. But it is just as often that it is interested in messing with other people so that they can benefit. Do all you want to help your citizens, thats fine. But when you start toppling foreign governments or manipulating their politics or robbing their economies to do so, thats not very nice. On a personal scale, it would be like me coming to your house and making off with your computer, tv and anything that isn't bolted down.

The US was partially responsible for the conditions in pre-war Iraq due to the sanctions (which never work the way their supposed to).

It was also indirectly responsible for the Taliban gaining power in Afghanistan, or are you forgetting that little detail where they started supplying stinger missiles and some training to the local bandits and militia after the place was occupied by the Soviet Union? Prior to that, the bandits were being mopped up very efficiently.

But I doubt anything I can say will affect your opinion. You are far more likely to proscribe to the "America can never do anything wrong. Its the world that is wrong" attitude.

*nods*

But you're trying to talk to people who don't like complexity. They can't grasp it. They want everything to be simple, black and white, with the US on one side in pristine white, and the people it attacks necessarily "evil". Shades of grey are quite beyond them. If you point out the harm the US has done in the world, its constant violation of democracy abroad and its support for dictators and terrorists, they'll automatically jump to the conclusion that you're saying the US is "evil", that you're saying the US never does any good. Because they can't think beyond simplistic manichean patterns. The concept that the States have done both good and bad, that the US can be both praised and strongly condemned, puzzles them too much for them to consider it. Their minds are too simple to handle it. I've found it's not worth even trying any more...

If Iraq is in turmoil right now, can you imagine what will become of Iran if America gets rid of the Ayatollahs? The Iranians are more hardliners then these Iraqi/foreign Arab fighters and in more numbers. Unlike the moderate Iraqis, who prefer wealth than nationalism, Iranians as a whole population might be mobilised to be part of the war and it will take America a lot longer to declare war over (if it even occurs that way). America's force cannot attack Iran, it is impossible at this time. First, it is over stretched, and second over-burdened with Iraq and maybe now with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The least thing the American administration should be thinking about is a military confrontation with Iran, Syria, or North Korea. Nor should they make a political confrontation against China, Russia, the EU and the Arab League. Now, America mostly needs credibility.

Originally posted by Arriddia But you're trying to talk to people who don't like complexity. They can't grasp it. They want everything to be simple, black and white, with the US on one side in pristine white, and the people it attacks necessarily "evil". Shades of grey are quite beyond them. If you point out the harm the US has done in the world, its constant violation of democracy abroad and its support for dictators and terrorists, they'll automatically jump to the conclusion that you're saying the US is "evil", that you're saying the US never does any good. Because they can't think beyond simplistic manichean patterns. The concept that the States have done both good and bad, that the US can be both praised and strongly condemned, puzzles them too much for them to consider it. Their minds are too simple to handle it. I've found it's not worth even trying any more...

Our government prefers us that way. We won't question them that way. It's called blind patriotism.

Originally posted by OceanDrive2 bet Iran or Syria are next...

Iran first, then Syria. We're doing it alphabetically. We should get around to Zimbabwe by about 2032. :D

Ah yes. A nation with no enviroment to protect and some of the world's largest oil reserves needs nuclear power. Really.
Yes, it does.

Its rate of oil extraction has been in exponential decline for over a decade, not for lack of investment, but due to reservoir mechanics. Its reported reserves are vastly inflated in order to cheat the OPEC production quota rules of 1988. A matter which the US can't acknowledge because the world's stock markets are propped up by that old lie. And even if this were not so, and I do happen to be the authority on the energy industry in these forums ;) oil is a finite non-renewable resource. I point you to the American domestic oil industry by way of proof. The US was last self-sufficient around 1955.

They are wisely addressing an energy security concern which the US has failed to solve for itself, but one which France, ironically, has.

To say that Iran has no environment to protect is breathtaking arrogance. The entire western half of the US has no environment to protect, by that measure.

Lastly I would like to mention the IAEA, which exists to assist any nation wishing to develop nuclear power generation technology in its efforts. Let's see the US try to disassociate itself from that.

No, the fact remains that for many years Iran has been addressing a legitimate economic concern by legal means under the auspices of one of the most powerful and highly regarded UN bodies. And the US has been trying to undermine it, now stooping to a comparison of a couple of photos taken a quarter century apart, to slur an elected leader for domestic consumption.

That is sooo low.

I thought that the AP were the first to write an article about this, citing a couple of former hostages, and thats how the world (and President Bush) found out about it. I didn't think that Bush or the US government in general were the ones who made the original alligations. Anyway, the US government still has to deal with Iran, and I doubt their going to invade Iran to replace him.

Two quagmires are enough. We don't need five, thank you.

They've just gotten so used to idea of bulk purchasing at Wal-Mart, I guess they figured they could get a better deal with five quagmires instead of two.

As I understand the issues with US and Europe vs. Iran, they are primarily about the possible production of nuclear weapons (and all that entails). Specifically that they may be in violation of the NPT to which they are a signatory.

Is it cynical supposition to say that it's about oil and US wanting world domination?

As I understand the issues with US and Europe vs. Iran, they are primarily about the possible production of nuclear weapons (and all that entails). Specifically that they may be in violation of the NPT to which they are a signatory.

Is it cynical supposition to say that it's about oil and US wanting world domination?
The oil is the primary strategic consideration. Nuclear weapons are a secondary strategic consideration, but one better suited to public consumption.

I hate being treated like an idiot in this manner. Resource wars are natural and understandable. Having politicians contort themselves into all sorts of stupid positions like we don't know what's going on, that's weak.

The oil is the primary strategic consideration. Nuclear weapons are a secondary strategic consideration, but one better suited to public consumption.

I hate being treated like an idiot in this manner. Resource wars are natural and understandable. Having politicians contort themselves into all sorts of stupid positions like we don't know what's going on, that's weak.

I happen to agree.

But the nukes remain an issue worthy of international concern and debate, there remains disagreement between Europe and the US on how to handle this - or whether to deal with it at all.

The nuke issue may be capitalized upon to further long-term strategic objectives, but that does not diminish the fact that another wannabee is trying to join the nuclear club. Or whether they should.

I'm thinking that the order of concern at the moment is nukes first, oil second. I could be wrong.

As I understand the issues with US and Europe vs. Iran, they are primarily about the possible production of nuclear weapons (and all that entails). Specifically that they may be in violation of the NPT to which they are a signatory.NorthKorea and Israel have kissed the NPT good bye...its time for iran to do the same...

It would only be fair.

NorthKorea and Israel have kissed the NPT good bye...its time for iran to do the same...

It would only be fair.

I know that if the US was speaking about my nation as part of an axis of "evil", I'd want my nation to get nukes fast as hell.

I know that if the US was speaking about my nation as part of an axis of "evil", I'd want my nation to get nukes fast as hell.

Its that whole MAD thing. Having nuclear arms and the appropriate delivery methods means having a good chance of wiping out a large chunk of an invading force or flattening one of their cities. Yes, you will lose out in the end for using it, but the US doesn't like to fight against countries that can hurt it on its own soil badly when their troops get sent out.

...with no enviroment to protect...
:rolleyes: