Peaceful Iran

[Dan.Linehan]

It seems that Bush and McCain are saying that Iran is the biggest threat to the United States? How? Well we don't know exactly. They don't have a nuclear weapons program, and no history of attacking anyone.

[Iran] is a third rate nation. They're not going to attack us. They're incapable of even attacking their neighbors. They're incapable of it and they have no history of doing this. So to stir up this... hatred... that is so unnecessary and needless, just doesn't make any sense. I mean, the Pakistanis have [nuclear weapons]. There's a lot of nuclear weapons floating around in the old Soviet Union. So it isn't the nuclear weapons. We're just looking for an excuse. This is war propaganda to get the American people behind the bombing of Iran, just like the war propaganda got us all worked up and we thought we had to go get Saddam Huessin, which was absolutely unnecessary.

- Ron Paul, November 2, 2007.


Though, Iran did call the US currency worthless and encouraged OPEC to start trading in a non-dollar currency.

Apparently, that's enough for the US to attack you nowadays.

[escapee]

Yeah, this is more like a war between the resurrection of Gold dinar Vs US Paper Dollar. My guess is there will be continuing struggle in middle east as long as US paper money remains to be the medium of exchange for oil and gas.


The Moral Imperative from the Muslim Perspective as Perceived in the West
Financial Sense University ~ Resurrection of the Islamic Gold Dinar by J. Kent Willis 12/02/2004

In conclusion, all of this combined makes our opponent VERY dangerous, all rhetoric aside. Martyr-like zeal in the heart of a few warriors can achieve “great” things. This establishes the mindset; they will continually refine their methods and techniques until they succeed. If they fail in battle, for example, they will take a closer look at the reasons; it must be due to something in the Koran that they failed to do correctly or completely. If they keep refining their strategies, sooner or later they will have removed every flaw and failing in their service to Allah. Then, and only then, will he reward them with success, however it is defined from their perspective. It most assuredly would include complete destruction of the Western economy and our way of life. The method to their madness is not necessarily military in nature. Certainly those that wish to die a martyr’s death in the service of Allah can go to their reward tonight. Or they can live to fight another day with a much more sophisticated weapon: sound money. Economic “jihad” is much more insidious and more difficult to eradicate. It has the potential to cause the loss of far more innocent lives than all the car bombs, plane crashes and beheadings ever perpetrated in the name of justice. For the sake of western and ultimately global stability, I pray that our leaders wake up to this reality.

© 2004 J. Kent Willis

NOTE: DO NOT TAKE THE COMMENTS IN THE ABOVE LINK OUT OF CONTEXT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. WE ARE NOT DEFENDING THE CAUSE OF MILITANT, VIOLENT, CORROSIVE ISLAM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Though, Iran did call the US currency worthless and encouraged OPEC to start trading in a non-dollar currency.

Apparently, that's enough for the US to attack you nowadays.

IMO, the intent of the U.S. to attack Iran was already born at least months before that, if not years. Here's something I wrote at the moment I felt the inevitability of the intent:

August 14, 2005

Overwhelmed with bad news
Not too long ago, I saw a clip on the news from the swearing-in of the new Iranian president. After seeing that man speak a few words, I got the feeling once again - writhing here like a worm pierced to the wall with a pin, how can I escape this world? All I could see was the determination and defiance in this man and an answer to those who keep asking who is next on America's invasion list. I foresee Iran taunting the West, and in particular, the U.S., like a lion tamer with his chair - unlike civilized beasts, however, the US will not be tamed.

I was recently in Algeria where I was able to watch Al Jazeera in English and, indeed, I saw on the news that they [American gov't] has begun to push and spin reasons to attack Iran. [Gee, I can't understand why I stopped watching the news...]

[Somi]

I'm Iranian myself and I'm doing a PhD in Political Philosophy in Scotland! All I can say is that the Iranian government is in such a big internal trouble with their own economic and social issues that they will drift apart sooner than later! I don't undersand how the American government can't see this!

All they need to do is to use this situation to encorage a social change in the country, that is already taking place, rather than to attack it. Attacking Iran will not buy them any friends among the Iranian people whereas as at the moment and even more so before US had attacked Iraq the Iranian people had and still do have a very positive attaitude towards the US. But this will not remain the same if US bombs starts falling on them.

One should always remember to seperate the people of Iran from the government of that country. The people want to change and they want their country to change! At the moment they are under preasure both from outside and from inside. They need to be given a moment to breath...!

[Tasaio]

Originally Posted by Somi

All they need to do is to use this situation to encorage a social change in the country, that is already taking place, rather than to attack it. Attacking Iran will not buy them any friends among the Iranian people whereas as at the moment and even more so before US had attacked Iraq the Iranian people had and still do have a very positive attaitude towards the US. But this will not remain the same if US bombs starts falling on them.

One should always remember to seperate the people of Iran from the government of that country. The people want to change and they want their country to change! At the moment they are under preasure both from outside and from inside. They need to be given a moment to breath...!

That's a good point. Before the 1970s Iran could be considered 'progressive' when compared to other Muslim countries. But then the Shaw was displaced and Khomeini arrived on the scene.

Is ~30 years really enough time to convince people that their new theocracy better than what they used to have? I doubt it.

If you listen to people living in Iran, they aren't very happy with Ahmadinejad. They think he's an irrational extremist who's just putting them in harm's way.

[Somi]

Originally Posted by Tasaio

If you listen to people living in Iran, they aren't very happy with Ahmadinejad. They think he's an irrational extremist who's just putting them in harm's way.

That's absolutely true! Every time he give a new speach, everyone is worried that he going to make another stupid "un-studied?!" remark that is going to put the country into even more trouble!

People in Iran do realise how one dictatorship has been replaced with another. And let me put it this way. In fact they feel what I would describe as betrayed! That's not what they expected when they said yes to the Islamic republic! It was meant to be a "republic" but it is far from that!

I am not old enough to remember those days, I was born several years after the revolution but I was brought up in Tehran and only left it 3 years ago to go to Europe and complete my postgraduate studies! I can tell you, the people of the west will change their mind about Iranians if they go and visit the country, however unfortunately the government does not allow for free interaction between Iran and the West

But that's all about to change! No regime will be able to supress the Iranian youth's quest for understanding themselves and communicating the world around them.

[escapee]

Somi, you do realize that a mere "government change" is not enough to avert the possible aggression against Iran ( Have you forgotten the 1950s Coup )?

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My opinion is to avert this potential war crisis, Iran may need to sell "some" or all of oil in dollars ( like the Saudis dictator ).

As to whether the Bush administration would start a war to defend dollar hegemony; that's a question that should be asked of Saddam Hussein. Iraq was invaded just six months after Saddam converted to the euro. The message is clear; the Empire will defend its currency.

.

Fragile Dollar Hegemony: Iran's Oil Bourse could Topple the Dollar

[Somi]

escapee, I certainy here you there!

[Dan.Linehan]

Here it comes: Iran dumps U.S. dollar for oil trades.

Of course, the reason The Bush Admin will use to attack isn't that. No, no.

They will say that "Iran is killing our service men and women in Iraq"

What a farce.

[Dan.Linehan]

Now CBS is reporting that the USS Liberty went into the Persian Gulf today. The Pentagon has ordered military commanders to develop "new options for attacking Iran."

The USS Liberty is the same aircraft where Bush made his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech about Iraq. Isn't it ironic.. don't ya think?

[Marco Polo]

Peaceful Iran? Bwahahaha.

Thankyou.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

Peaceful Iran? Bwahahaha.

Thankyou.

I don't understand?

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I don't understand?

They're not peaceful.

Let me specify that: the current Iranian regime is not peaceful, and coincidentally neither were several of the previous ones.

[Dan.Linehan]

Dr. William O. Beeman, Brown University's Middle East Studies program professor, who spent years in Iran, says that the Iranian nuclear issue is a unified point of their political discussion:

The Iranian side of the discourse is that they want to be known and seen as a modern, developing state with a modern, developing industrial base. The history of relations between Iran and the West for the last hundred years has included Iran's developing various kinds of industrial and technological advances to prove to themselves--and to attempt to prove to the world--that they are, in fact, that kind of country.

Iran believes it has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Iranian authorities assert that they cannot simply trust the United States or Europe to provide Iran with nuclear energy fuel, and point to a long series of agreements, contracts and treaty obligations which were not fulfilled. source


@ Marco Polo

Keeping all that in mind - when you say Iran is not a peaceful country, why exactly? Who have they attacked? I mean, the United States has caused between 400,000 and 1,200,000 excess deaths by attacking and occupying Iraq. Seems a bit like we're the pot calling the kettle black here.

[Somi]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Dr. William O. Beeman, Brown University's Middle East Studies program professor, who spent years in Iran, says that the Iranian nuclear issue is a unified point of their political discussion:



Iran believes it has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Iranian authorities assert that they cannot simply trust the United States or Europe to provide Iran with nuclear energy fuel, and point to a long series of agreements, contracts and treaty obligations which were not fulfilled. source

As an Iranian having been born and lived in the country until 3 years ago, I can tell you that the main reason for the Iranian government to have the nuclear program going on is not to attack anyone BUT it is to secure their own position mainly INTERNALLY as well as to prevent any foreign attempts at overthrowing the regime.

The Iranian regime knows all too well that their own people are VERY unhappy with the situation as it is. But also they know, given the mentality of the Iranian people, i.e. nationalism, pride in their history, and upto a point mistrust towards the west given the background of the country's unsuccessful interaction with the big powers since the Qajar era, Iranians are most likely to be fooled by the "nationalistic", "populist", remarks of people like the current president.

HOWEVER and this is a BIG, however, what they don't realise is that this trend can not go on forever. No matter how much they try to keep the country "closed" with modern technology and ever growing people's access to what is going on in the rest of the world, sooner rather than later there will come a time that no one will buy into their rhetoric anymore.

[escapee]

At the end of the day, bread and butter still do matter the most to general population.

The situation is similar in Asia where Taiwan's pro-democracy/independence party took a huge defeat in the latest election due to sinking economy and sour relationship with big red China.

A hungry man is an angry man. People tend to choose food over "liberty", "patriotism" or "independence" in time of crisis. We are living in the world of Fascist Capitalism (or Corporate Fascism ).

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Dr. William O. Beeman, Brown University's Middle East Studies program professor, who spent years in Iran, says that the Iranian nuclear issue is a unified point of their political discussion:



Iran believes it has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Iranian authorities assert that they cannot simply trust the United States or Europe to provide Iran with nuclear energy fuel, and point to a long series of agreements, contracts and treaty obligations which were not fulfilled. source


@ Marco Polo

Keeping all that in mind - when you say Iran is not a peaceful country, why exactly? Who have they attacked? I mean, the United States has caused between 400,000 and 1,200,000 excess deaths by attacking and occupying Iraq. Seems a bit like we're the pot calling the kettle black here.

Certainly, the US has no business propagating war against Iran. I never suggested that.

However, I daresay that "peaceful" is a slightly misleading term to use for Ahmedinejad and the Ayatollahs.

1. Hezbollah is essentially a strategic arm of Iran. It was created by them during the 1982 Lebanon war, and has been maintained by them ever since [source]. So Iran was essentially fighting a proxy war against Israel in 2006.
Iran also controls imporant levers in Iraq, and there is concern about their involvement with various Shiite militias. If you want you can read more on meib.org about their dichotomous two-track policy.

2. The kidnapping of US diplomats in 1979 and the regime's unwillingness to end the siege was a blatant act of hostility.

3. I also vaguely remember the RG randomly kidnapping British sailors in the Persian Gulf, treating them like scum and parading them on international television (despite major ambiguities over maritime borderlines). Very peaceful-like behaviour, oh ya.

Take a second to consider their position: two of Iran neighbours are at war, and two regional powers, their enemy Israel and their geographical neighbour Pakistan, posses nuclear warheads. Suddenly the hawkish neocons pick a fight with them. Would it REALLY surprise you if they were pursuing nuclear capabilities as a detterent from attacks?

Again, I will reiterate that I'm strongly against any attack on Iran -- mainly for strategic reasons. And as a free nation they are fully entitled to peaceful nuclear aspirations.

[escapee]

2. The kidnapping of US diplomats in 1979 and the regime's unwillingness to end the siege was a blatant act of hostility.

3. I also vaguely remember the RG randomly kidnapping British sailors in the Persian Gulf, treating them like scum and parading them on international television (despite major ambiguities over maritime borderlines). Very peaceful-like behaviour, oh ya.

THe hostage crisis is made in USA

It's a blowback of the Iranian Coup in 1953 ( installation of Shah ). What I meant is if you have Canada and Mexico staging a coup to replace a democratically elected president of US with a corporate linked-dictator to interfere with the "oil policy" of the nation . The "blowback" will occur in the future, meaning to say that American will fight back and may even transform into an ultra-nationalist nation.

The oil in middle east ( accounts for ~ 70% of world's oil reserve ) is really a curse ....

YouTube - CIA coup of 1953 Blowback

[Brutha]

Iran also controls imporant levers in Iraq, and there is concern about their involvement with various Shiite militias. If you want you can read more on meib.org about their dichotomous two-track policy.

The US is also involed with various Iraqi militias (and Kurdish militas who kill Iranian soliders in Iran).
Being a neighboring country Iran has more right to be involved in Iraq than the US.

Now CBS is reporting that the USS Liberty went into the Persian Gulf today. The Pentagon has ordered military commanders to develop "new options for attacking Iran."

The problem is that it is difficult to tell, what is a bluff and what is a real threat.

[theimp]

I don't get why Iran keeps saying it needs nuclear power when it has so much oil!
Wouldn't it be easier/much less costly in the long run to use oil powered generators?

I've been reading about the electricity problems in Tehran - HUH? that makes no sense whatsoever unless the gov is doing it deliberately or else would rather spend on weapons than infrastructure. (eg recent long range missile testing)

If Iran was really serious about having only peaceful nuclear applications then why hasn't it accepted one of the multitudinous offers of help
(Russia's offer a few years ago was particularly generous)? Why hide the nuclear fact for 18 years? why restrict IAEA inspections?

btw - Please don't throw the environmental issue at us - in the long run, nuclear waste pollutes much more than oil and nuclear waste storage can never be guaranteed even close to 100% secure (take a course in environmental geology!). Many isotopes have half-lives of thousands of years!

[WanderingOak]

Originally Posted by theimp

I don't get why Iran keeps saying it needs nuclear power when it has so much oil!

For one thing, while Iran is an oil producer, we don't now much about the remaining capacity of the Iranian oil fields. For all we know, Iranian oil production may have peaked long ago. Only the Iranians would know for certain, and they aren't telling. No country in their right mind who had an oil based economy would.

Also, I do not think Iran has much in the way of refining capacity, so any oil produced in Iran would have to be refined elsewhere and shipped back as fuel. If Iran has peaked, then the production of new refineries would be a waste of time, as soon, there will not be enough oil produced for them to refine.

As far as the Russian offer to help Iran develop nuclear power, I was under the impression that Iran had accepted that offer. In addition to providing power, Nuclear power can also be used to run desalinization plants to provide drinking water.

Finally, with all of the anti-Iranian rhetoric flying about in the media, of course Iran wants people to think that they are going to become members of the 'nuclear club'. It doesn't matter if they actually are members, or if they are going to nuke somebody or not. Everybody else is rattling their nuclear sabers, and they want to do the same, to ensure that nobody actually get's the idea into their head that Iran is a soft target ripe for attack.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The US is also involed with various Iraqi militias (and Kurdish militas who kill Iranian soliders in Iran).
Being a neighboring country Iran has more right to be involved in Iraq than the US.
The problem is that it is difficult to tell, what is a bluff and what is a real threat.

so the US is no better than hezbollah?

You know maybe not but I know which side I'm on.

I'd be against the US doing any more preimptive strikes however I'd hope that the world would be just as critical of Iran as they are the US.

[Brutha]

so the US is no better than hezbollah?

That like saying that Iran is no better than Al-Qaeda in the time the Russians were in Afganistan (a organisation build on US aid).

Just because you support an organisation financially doesn't mean that you are identical with that organisation.

[Still Growing]

Brutha, I think you missed my context. Also I may have missed yours.

I do get from your tone though that the US is no better than the hezbollah. Maybe I'm just reading into what you're saying though.

And also I'm not so sure myself sometimes that the US isn't better than the hezbollah but well... what more can I say.

[Brutha]

You made the argument that a state is as bad as groups that the state funds.
If Iran is bad because it funds the bad group hezbollah, by the same logic the US is bad because they funded Al Quede and similar groups during the Russian occuption of Afgahnistan.

I don't think that a state is as bad as the group that it funds.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You made the argument that a state is as bad as groups that the state funds.
If Iran is bad because it funds the bad group hezbollah, by the same logic the US is bad because they funded Al Quede and similar groups during the Russian occuption of Afgahnistan.

I don't think that a state is as bad as the group that it funds.

How do you compare Hezbollah in 2008 to Al Qaeda in 1980?

Let's examine the motives....

The US gave weapons to Afghan groups (many who became Al Qaeda) to defend the country from Russia's invasion.

Whomever funds Hezbollah is doing so to for what motivation?

I'm not saying the US is perfect or has a higher moral ground I'm saying that the two are not equal comparisons.

Furthermore war and security is often unfair and unjust. Every country has made mistakes in agression as you well know, however in the end it often comes down to whose side you're on.

I often find that people are more and more not on the US's side. I understand why that's happening. The US dethroned Saddam and often plays world police.

To be contrary may extreme liberals often compare GW to being no better than Kim Jon Il of North Korea. Or you compare funding Hezbollah in 2008 to the US funding Al Qaeda in 1985.

Te entire stance of being liberal is standing up for the week and pulling for the underdog. Since the US has historically been the self proclaimed king of the hill it creates and under surgency that wants knock the person on the hill.

Often our positions in political and economic positioning come down to a hidden agenda based upon our sub conscience level.

The contstant siding against the US is built somewhat out of emotions rather than analytical thought.

I'll bet that you and most reading this will not follow me because my writings are usually misunderstood. I find it difficult to communicate in writing; I find verbal communication much easier.

[Brutha]

Or you compare funding Hezbollah in 2008 to the US funding Al Qaeda in 1985.

I don't see why Hezbollah is much worse than Al Qaeda.

Hezbollah creates schools and hospitals while Al Qaeda doesn't that much.

Hezbollah was also created to free parts of the country (Lebanon) that are under foreign occupation.
And they have democratic legitimation in Lebanon to do so.

Hezbollah is also no terrorist organisation according to the European perspective (it's not on the EU list of terrorist organisations).

Hezbollah is no nice group but I don't see that much difference between them and a lot of resistence groups that the US funds or has funded.

[Barcs]

^Exactly. Hezbollah was defending Lebanon from Israel's occupation that lasted 20 something years. It makes sense that Iran supported them, just as we support Israel, who's killed more innocent people than the entire middle east put together. If you read about Hezbollah from unbiased (not US sources) or from their side even, many Lebanese consider them a peace force, not a terrorist group. It's all one big game of who's supporting who. An enemy of an enemy is a friend. It's just the reality of the world, and many have vested interests in supporting groups like this, usually financial gain or for power/influence in the region. The US is no angel, and neither is Iran. It's really silly that we have to play sides like this all the time, and put out so much propaganda. I agree with the founding fathers about not getting involved in foreign politics. It's a shame their advice was completely ignored.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't see why Hezbollah is much worse than Al Qaeda.

Hezbollah is no nice group but I don't see that much difference between them and a lot of resistence groups that the US funds or has funded.

Its not really a question of who is worse. You said that the US funded Al Qaeda in the 80s and that it was the same as Iran funding Hezbollah in the now.

As I mentioned, funding Hezbollah for some of their activities is completely different than giving weapons to Afghan warriors who are fighting off Russia.

I'm sorry but I don't think that they are comparable.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Barcs

^Exactly. Hezbollah was defending Lebanon from Israel's occupation that lasted 20 something years. It makes sense that Iran supported them, ...

. I agree with the founding fathers about not getting involved in foreign politics. It's a shame their advice was completely ignored.

Of course from Iran's perspective it may make since to fund Hezbollah due to their beliefs. The US happens to be sided with Israel; that much is clear.

If you found yourself in the middle of the Hezbollah militia you'd probably realize that they are not on your side Barcs.

There is one comment that Bush made "They hate our freedom" This was a stupid comment however if you really think about it from a Muslim extremists point of view they do think we're really horrible people. Not all muslims think this but when you break it down to groups like Hezbollah they do despise the Western way of life. I've personally spoken with muslim extremists who have told me that they would just as soon kill me as be around me. I told them that I understood the way my country has behaved and that I disagreed with US policy. He told me "Look this is a holy war and you're either muslim or your my enemy; are you willing to convert?" Fortunately someone intervened on my behalf. Its times like these that you realize, "Oh ****, there is a war going on and it doesn't matter what you think ; it only matters which side they perceive you to be on."

What I'm trying to say is that I feel that some people are missing the point of whose side you are on. I think you are saying the same thing too.

The US is a thug dealing in a world of thugs. I would agree with that.... But I know that when the dust settles which team I'm on. Its hard to say that on a site like this because people will mistake it with agreeing with US policy or Bush. Its difficult to make points that are based upon the reality that is. We all are not on the front lines and so we can speak about what should or should not be.