This is one of the more detailed and well-written articles I have seen on what the Bush administration has been doing in Iran over the past few years. It also analyzes some of the changes in the chain of command and the communications apparatus of our military and intel services that have been re-routed in ways that threaten both our security at home and the effectiveness of our armed forces abroad.

Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008 ... ntPage=all

Very sad.

I read something yesterday I thought you might enjoy, it kind of pertains to our situation today. It's a snippet from a Kurt Vonnegut interview where he talks about the Mexican American war.

What did Abraham Lincoln have to say about such American imperialist wars? Those are wars which, on one noble pretext or another, actually aim to increase the natural resources and pools of tame labor available to the richest Americans who have the best political connections.

And it is almost always a mistake to mention Abraham Lincoln in a speech about something or somebody else. He always steals the show. I am about to quote him.

Lincoln was only a Congressman when he said in 1848 what I am about to echo. He was heartbroken and humiliated by our war on Mexico, which had never attacked us.

We were making California our own, and a lot of other people and properties, and doing it as though butchering Mexican soldiers who were only defending their homeland against invaders wasn’t murder.

What other stuff besides California? Well, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

The person congressman Lincoln had in mind when he said what he said was James Polk, our president at the time. Abraham Lincoln said of Polk, his president, our armed forces’ commander-in-chief: “Trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory, that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood —that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy, he plunged into war.”

Holy smokes! I almost said, “Holy shit!” And I thought I was a writer!

Do you know we actually captured Mexico City during the Mexican War? Why isn’t that a national holiday? And why isn’t the face of James Polk up on Mount Rushmore, along with Ronald Reagan’s?

What made Mexico so evil back in the 1840s, well before our Civil War, is that slavery was illegal there. Remember the Alamo?

I know the article, it was released in Germany a couple of days ago. No one ever here believed there is no cross-border activity. But no matter how you look at it, Iran is probably interfering across the Iraqi boarder just as much. Or as a friend of mine has put it last summer "Nobody appears to notice people speak Farsi in official offices in the municipal authorities". He's Iraqi and frequent flies home, so he should know.

Well, the larger problem currently is to keep Israel from attacking Iran. The last 20$ on top of the current oil price comes from the large air combat training they held. As foreign analyst put it they are eager to do something proactive before the Bush administration leaves office to someone who is not unconditionally supportive. But Israel probably knows they can "nuke" Iran, but they can't "nuke" Hammas sitting in the country.

The only thing, as I get repeatedly told by Iranians living here, that keeps Ahmadinedschad in power is the constant sabre rattling of Bush and Israel. Any bullet officially fired across the Iranian border would mark the end of any social stability in the middle east and therefore the end of all what people in the US are accustomed to in terms of "good living".

Oil price would explode and all states down there would be probably overrun by extremists. Russia could tighten it's firm grip on energy supply, mainly natural gas, on all Europe and the US would not only need of all their army to get wasted down there, but also hundreds of nuclear power plants and something like the ultimate break through in alternative energy production.

In such a scenario it is more than likely Pakistan will fall prey to radicals. This is the fastest way to obtain a nuclear weapon by the way. I wouldn't count on India simply standing there and looking at it. Pretending to keep Iran from developing a nuclear device may lead to an accelerated development and in my humble opinion to a disaster which makes the cold war look like a walk on the beach.

In any case this is another point of proof two egos shouldn't talk themselves up in the public, especially not if they're country leaders.

I really hope this can get worked out on the diplomatic stage, even if no one ever will know about it and no politician can claim to "have won" or "mission accomplished" or "Islamic faith prevails" or what ever they dream of.

The inevitable "but we need to stop Iran no matter what or do you want to be responsible for a nuclear attack on Israel" people may now chime in and hack my post to pieces.

Hey BNA, I'm just curious what do your Iranian friends think when Mahmoud starts up with his threats against Israel and the United States? Are they concerned?

That's a tad rude. I wouldn't have asked someone Irish a few years if they felt concerned about the IRA attacks. Actually I would, but without the inference that it was somehow their responsibility. Just as American citizens shouldn't be called selfish, imperialistic, arrogant and thick, just because of the disgraceful way their government behaves. Besides I think most people are more concerned that the US might do something stupid. They've definitely got form.

Prior to where I now reside, I lived next to an Iranian who had been in the Iranian army for 20 years. He had been forced at the age of 17 to fight for their cause. He said under the royal family, life was not perfect but people had a chance to become more, if they so desired. Now, he says, Iranians live in a class system which essentially births countless people into a life of doom with no hope of rising "above" it. He is convinced the Iranian government is developing nuclear capabilities for no other reason than to be the people that rid the Middle East of Israel. He says they do not care for anyone but their very closed circles and their entire agenda is exactly as it has been laid out time and time again: Israel must be removed from the Middle East. Perhaps it is dwelling into conspiracy, but he is also convinced that only the Supreme Leader of Iran was capable of giving the final go-ahead for the 9/11 attacks, with the intent to bring in the US, humiliate them, make them go home, and leave Israel to fend for themselves. He also believes the US knows this, and that is why they are securing their footholds in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are incidentals to the actual showdown that is coming.

Iranians, for the most part, dislike their leaders as much as Americans dislike their leaders and that is pretty much a truth across the entire globe: We all pretty much dislike leaders.

pendragon wrote:

Hey BNA, I'm just curious what do your Iranian friends think when Mahmoud starts up with his threats against Israel and the United States? Are they concerned?

They say these two issues are the only ones left to rally up enough support to keep him in power. Everything else in the meantime did spiral downwards since he got elected. In fact the whole country was pretty much surprised when all of a sudden a city major of Theran become "elected" head of state.

Not only are the normal citizens concerned, but also the Ayatollahs who by definition are the religious and therefore real country leaders (which is not an idea I'd ever support in my lifetime). Basically Ahmadinedschad's job is to keep everything in order with the religious revolution from 70ies, or in other words: keep the people in a mildly hostile mood against the western world with the declared arch enemy Israel. No one wants to risk a war really. Bombing a nuclear research facility in Iran will not be the end of the storey, but the beginning of a whole different, worse story.

There however a huge differentiation needs to get made between publicly shown strength and behind closed doors negotiations. The whole threat game goes back and forth between Iran, Israel and the US. No one can afford to show some weakness. Imagine an US president shaking hands with Ahmadinedschad in the public. His (Ahmadinedschad) power would crumble within a month and reformist people would get in power. Every threat outspoken towards Iran, in my opinion, adds power to the conservatives and takes away power from the moderate leaders who could lead this country with its people towards stabilization.

The worst thing which could happen to extremists around the world would be a moderate US presidency. This has not to be mistaken with weakness.

I wasn't trying to be rude, wal. BNA has the opportunity to offer an interesting and upclose take on the situation and I was wondering if the average/majority Iranians were united behind Mahmood and his rhetoric or what. Even though we have 24/7 news channels, the internet, mags, ect. I never hear anything from actual citizens of Iran. Hell, the news sources here in the States have gotten so biased that I don't trust any of them anymore to be accurate. But thanks for the insight, BNA.

My bad then. Sorry dude. I was just pointing out that it would have been beyond ridiculous to hold any Irish people responsible for the actions of their terrorist brothers and sisters. The same should apply to Iranians, Iraqis and everyone else. Besides one or two people don't reflect the views of the majority. And if you think our media is biased, what about the propaganda that thrown around in the middle east. If we can be turned against a group of people (which plenty of easily lead westerners have been) then it's not surprising that the same applies there. I think we're worse in the sense that we tend to target broader groups. As far as I know people don't hate all Christians.

BNA. That's very interesting. It sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory, only plausible. I'm going to be an arrogant westerner here and say that I think the middle east are doing something wrong. They don't separate religion and politics like we do. Bombing Iran would be the biggest mistake we could make. Iran has the potential to emerge as the stabilising force in the middle east. That is of course if they don't do anything stupid. But if they don't and we bomb them anyway then it sends the message that we're going to stop any middle eastern country that shows promise.

pendragon wrote:

I wasn't trying to be rude, wal. BNA has the opportunity to offer an interesting and upclose take on the situation and I was wondering if the average/majority Iranians were united behind Mahmood and his rhetoric or what. Even though we have 24/7 news channels, the internet, mags, ect. I never hear anything from actual citizens of Iran. Hell, the news sources here in the States have gotten so biased that I don't trust any of them anymore to be accurate. But thanks for the insight, BNA.

I don't think you're rude. So far the topic pans out well, interesting and everyone is trying to add his viewpoint, respectively asking where the other one gets his information from. More than fair and still much better than the usual youtube linkoramas.

Outside Iran you hear only from two kinds of people how it is. On group religiously worships the deceased Shah and is pretty much extremist, the other group has a moderate view on things but still more often than not albeit on a lower level worships the Shah too.

Media is biased of course, on all sides. Especially in Iran the concept of freedom of speech is a little, well, depreciated...

If you want to get a good idea about Iran just take a Dubai vacation during the Iranian New Years period. You'll see all beaches double stacked with beautiful people in bikinis - these are Iranian. Those who wear christian cross and show obvious marks of cosmetic surgery are Lebanese (just kidding). Don't mistake them for each other since each group makes a big deal of being non-Arab respectively non-Iranian.

It's just an hour flight to Shiraz (Iran), therefore there is a lot of cross over traffic. However the current president of Iran does not do these people any justice. Do not measure the population either by the Mullahs or the current president.

wal wrote:

BNA. That's very interesting. It sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory, only plausible. I'm going to be an arrogant westerner here and say that I think the middle east are doing something wrong. They don't separate religion and politics like we do. Bombing Iran would be the biggest mistake we could make. Iran has the potential to emerge as the stabilising force in the middle east. That is of course if they don't do anything stupid. But if they don't and we bomb them anyway then it sends the message that we're going to stop any middle eastern country that shows promise.

Well, it is not as much as a consipracy theory than deeply rooted conservative analysis, undertaken buy official but less heard of US military analysts. I don't keep track of everything released, but I read what I get on my table, measure it against my knowledge of the people and that's it. I think I have spent an equal amount of time arguing with Iranians over world politics as I have with US and UK residents. I however do not have any knowledge how the blue collar factory worker of either country approaches these issues. So blame me guilty for being surrounded with potentially elitist people.

It is interesting you mention the separation of religion and politics. One of the most scary things for us around here (Germany) was the obvious drift of George Bush claiming to have god on his side (personally), holding bible hours in the white house and what not - at least he's been bragging about it. Also naming a military intervention a crusade doesn't help either to make the rest of the world think religion and politics is sort of split as it should be.

Funny side note: The only secular leader (dictator to be more specific) in the middle east was Saddam Hussein (who happens to carry the same family name as Mr. Obama carries as middle name - just to disallow pbmax from scoring another one).

As far as bombing Iran away. First of all you cannot bomb it away. You could do that with Monaco, Liechtenstein or the Maledives, but not with a country that large. Before you think I'm getting on your back - I don't, relax and read on.

There is a base concept which unites people more than anything else. A common enemy. As far as I can tell the Iranians are those in the area most prone to be western life style friendly than any other population (not sure about Lebanon, they rank in close second in my little book of homegrown foreign policy). If a country, may it be the US or Israel, drops a bomb, may it be nuclear or conventional, on a suspected nuclear research facility then you create a deeply united nation. The same happened with defeated Germany in WW2 when the armies had been destroyed and where trying to negotiate at all fronts. The allies then, hopefully, misjudged the situation and deliberately targeted the civilian cities to create as many civilian casualties as possible. The idea was to break the will to fight. However as historicans believe the will to fight was already long broken, but it was this kind of bombing runs (fire bombs on civillians all over) which created a final and last uprising.

If you map this on the current situation you'll probably conclude something similar as I do, which of course is not a requirement. You probably come up with something else.

As far as giving a bad example by bombing Iran it should be said this country does not have much in common with the leaders of the Arab league. He's on road show there more often than not to gain support. This support is not given to him automatically, no matter how hard he presses that whole Islamic brotherhood theme. There are plenty of articles on gulfnews.com you can dig up to see how very sceptical they are. A Iran:Israel or Iran:Us battle would draw them in and force to take sides. And this is the very last thing you want to do, not with Pakistan and Afghanistan around the corner and the newly created extremist recruiting and training camp called Iraq. So they'd be forced to side with Iran, at least in terms of being passive and disallowing the US to operate from their bases.

A wise man once said you cannot fight anything that starts with a small letter. That means you can wage war against a nation (since they start with a capitalized letter), but you cannot go on war with the small letters like terrorism, religion, poverty, starvation, fanatism... This of course is just an analogy, but I think it suits most of the situations quite well.

If Iran would become more moderate and open over the next years, you'll see a strong contender for the emerging country & stock market of the decade award.

Thanks for reading.

I made a mistake on my last post. That was addressed at Brain Trepaning, not BNA. I make silly little mistakes a lot :oops:

As I said, Iran has the potential to be a real positive force. They could also go the other way.

wal wrote:

I made a mistake on my last post. That was addressed at Brain Trepaning, not BNA. I make silly little mistakes a lot :oops:

As I said, Iran has the potential to be a real positive force. They could also go the other way.

Ha, didn't make a difference but scored you a lengthy reply

In my opinion Iran already went the other way - decades ago. They had been on their way back a few steps until they got categorized as being a member of the axis of evil. Instant election win of the conservatives in Iran and all reformist politicians got removed.

Maybe I'm just being a hopeless optimist. Is a stable planet and economy to much to ask? The whole problem can be simplified to the fact that there's just too many people. I don't like where we're heading, never have. Maybe now I'm being a hopeless pessimist. At least I'm balanced

BNA! wrote:

wal wrote:

I made a mistake on my last post. That was addressed at Brain Trepaning, not BNA. I make silly little mistakes a lot :oops:

As I said, Iran has the potential to be a real positive force. They could also go the other way.

Ha, didn't make a difference but scored you a lengthy reply

In my opinion Iran already went the other way - decades ago. They had been on their way back a few steps until they got categorized as being a member of the axis of evil. Instant election win of the conservatives in Iran and all reformist politicians got removed.

My limited understanding of the Iranian situation is that it was effectively a student-based, political revolution that got hijacked by a religious hierarchy after the shah had been deposed.

I do feel that Israel forms the largest component of the Iranian question, largely for reasons you mentioned. To me the issue has been far too politicised for a logical conclusion, which is scary. Israel needs to maintain its nuclear deterrent and my personal feeling is that Iran's policies are far too similar to North Korea in the mid-90's.

There was an interesting article in the local Sunday papers (I believe reprinted from the English press) that said that al-qaeda's campaign has taken a recent knock from within the extremist elements of Islam. This was largely linked with the terror campaign in Iraq targetting Muslims more often than non-Muslims, thereby losing its religious credibility. A military intervention in Iran would likely regalvanise this campaign and to me is not the answer. The problem from an Israeli point of view is that they already face surrounding countries pushing for their elimination and therefore have little to lose with the exception of a nuclear armed opponent.

The main problem that the Iraq war brought on is a weakening of the UN. Today it is far easier to flought their authority than it ever was. There isn't a body that can effectivelyact in a situation like this unfortunately.

I don't expect anything but bluster to happen over Iran, the US military simply doesn't have the manpower to start another war.

asmodeus wrote:

I don't expect anything but bluster to happen over Iran, the US military simply doesn't have the manpower to start another war.

Unless the US has the expectation a bombing run with airplanes will do suffice.

The US doesn't do airstrikes, you're thinking Israel. It's all $10,000,000 cruise missiles launched from somewhere in the persian gulf.

asmodeus wrote:

The US doesn't do airstrikes, you're thinking Israel. It's all $10,000,000 cruise missiles launched from somewhere in the persian gulf.

Yes, my bad

Whatever it is they can call "clean and surgical", maybe add some clusterbombs around for decoration to make sure the next two generations of kids can grow up without hands and feet. As long as the armchair rambos at home are satisfied it's worth it, isn't it?

And here I thought I was the forum cynic.

This is one of the more detailed and well-written articles I have seen on what the Bush administration has been doing in Iran over the past few years. It also analyzes some of the changes in the chain of command and the communications apparatus of our military and intel services that have been re-routed in ways that threaten both our security at home and the effectiveness of our armed forces abroad.

Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008 ... ntPage=all

Very sad.

I read something yesterday I thought you might enjoy, it kind of pertains to our situation today. It's a snippet from a Kurt Vonnegut interview where he talks about the Mexican American war.

What did Abraham Lincoln have to say about such American imperialist wars? Those are wars which, on one noble pretext or another, actually aim to increase the natural resources and pools of tame labor available to the richest Americans who have the best political connections.

And it is almost always a mistake to mention Abraham Lincoln in a speech about something or somebody else. He always steals the show. I am about to quote him.

Lincoln was only a Congressman when he said in 1848 what I am about to echo. He was heartbroken and humiliated by our war on Mexico, which had never attacked us.

We were making California our own, and a lot of other people and properties, and doing it as though butchering Mexican soldiers who were only defending their homeland against invaders wasn’t murder.

What other stuff besides California? Well, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

The person congressman Lincoln had in mind when he said what he said was James Polk, our president at the time. Abraham Lincoln said of Polk, his president, our armed forces’ commander-in-chief: “Trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory, that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood —that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy, he plunged into war.”

Holy smokes! I almost said, “Holy shit!” And I thought I was a writer!

Do you know we actually captured Mexico City during the Mexican War? Why isn’t that a national holiday? And why isn’t the face of James Polk up on Mount Rushmore, along with Ronald Reagan’s?

What made Mexico so evil back in the 1840s, well before our Civil War, is that slavery was illegal there. Remember the Alamo?

I know the article, it was released in Germany a couple of days ago. No one ever here believed there is no cross-border activity. But no matter how you look at it, Iran is probably interfering across the Iraqi boarder just as much. Or as a friend of mine has put it last summer "Nobody appears to notice people speak Farsi in official offices in the municipal authorities". He's Iraqi and frequent flies home, so he should know.

Well, the larger problem currently is to keep Israel from attacking Iran. The last 20$ on top of the current oil price comes from the large air combat training they held. As foreign analyst put it they are eager to do something proactive before the Bush administration leaves office to someone who is not unconditionally supportive. But Israel probably knows they can "nuke" Iran, but they can't "nuke" Hammas sitting in the country.

The only thing, as I get repeatedly told by Iranians living here, that keeps Ahmadinedschad in power is the constant sabre rattling of Bush and Israel. Any bullet officially fired across the Iranian border would mark the end of any social stability in the middle east and therefore the end of all what people in the US are accustomed to in terms of "good living".

Oil price would explode and all states down there would be probably overrun by extremists. Russia could tighten it's firm grip on energy supply, mainly natural gas, on all Europe and the US would not only need of all their army to get wasted down there, but also hundreds of nuclear power plants and something like the ultimate break through in alternative energy production.

In such a scenario it is more than likely Pakistan will fall prey to radicals. This is the fastest way to obtain a nuclear weapon by the way. I wouldn't count on India simply standing there and looking at it. Pretending to keep Iran from developing a nuclear device may lead to an accelerated development and in my humble opinion to a disaster which makes the cold war look like a walk on the beach.

In any case this is another point of proof two egos shouldn't talk themselves up in the public, especially not if they're country leaders.

I really hope this can get worked out on the diplomatic stage, even if no one ever will know about it and no politician can claim to "have won" or "mission accomplished" or "Islamic faith prevails" or what ever they dream of.

The inevitable "but we need to stop Iran no matter what or do you want to be responsible for a nuclear attack on Israel" people may now chime in and hack my post to pieces.

Hey BNA, I'm just curious what do your Iranian friends think when Mahmoud starts up with his threats against Israel and the United States? Are they concerned?

That's a tad rude. I wouldn't have asked someone Irish a few years if they felt concerned about the IRA attacks. Actually I would, but without the inference that it was somehow their responsibility. Just as American citizens shouldn't be called selfish, imperialistic, arrogant and thick, just because of the disgraceful way their government behaves. Besides I think most people are more concerned that the US might do something stupid. They've definitely got form.

Prior to where I now reside, I lived next to an Iranian who had been in the Iranian army for 20 years. He had been forced at the age of 17 to fight for their cause. He said under the royal family, life was not perfect but people had a chance to become more, if they so desired. Now, he says, Iranians live in a class system which essentially births countless people into a life of doom with no hope of rising "above" it. He is convinced the Iranian government is developing nuclear capabilities for no other reason than to be the people that rid the Middle East of Israel. He says they do not care for anyone but their very closed circles and their entire agenda is exactly as it has been laid out time and time again: Israel must be removed from the Middle East. Perhaps it is dwelling into conspiracy, but he is also convinced that only the Supreme Leader of Iran was capable of giving the final go-ahead for the 9/11 attacks, with the intent to bring in the US, humiliate them, make them go home, and leave Israel to fend for themselves. He also believes the US knows this, and that is why they are securing their footholds in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are incidentals to the actual showdown that is coming.

Iranians, for the most part, dislike their leaders as much as Americans dislike their leaders and that is pretty much a truth across the entire globe: We all pretty much dislike leaders.

pendragon wrote:

Hey BNA, I'm just curious what do your Iranian friends think when Mahmoud starts up with his threats against Israel and the United States? Are they concerned?

They say these two issues are the only ones left to rally up enough support to keep him in power. Everything else in the meantime did spiral downwards since he got elected. In fact the whole country was pretty much surprised when all of a sudden a city major of Theran become "elected" head of state.

Not only are the normal citizens concerned, but also the Ayatollahs who by definition are the religious and therefore real country leaders (which is not an idea I'd ever support in my lifetime). Basically Ahmadinedschad's job is to keep everything in order with the religious revolution from 70ies, or in other words: keep the people in a mildly hostile mood against the western world with the declared arch enemy Israel. No one wants to risk a war really. Bombing a nuclear research facility in Iran will not be the end of the storey, but the beginning of a whole different, worse story.

There however a huge differentiation needs to get made between publicly shown strength and behind closed doors negotiations. The whole threat game goes back and forth between Iran, Israel and the US. No one can afford to show some weakness. Imagine an US president shaking hands with Ahmadinedschad in the public. His (Ahmadinedschad) power would crumble within a month and reformist people would get in power. Every threat outspoken towards Iran, in my opinion, adds power to the conservatives and takes away power from the moderate leaders who could lead this country with its people towards stabilization.

The worst thing which could happen to extremists around the world would be a moderate US presidency. This has not to be mistaken with weakness.

I wasn't trying to be rude, wal. BNA has the opportunity to offer an interesting and upclose take on the situation and I was wondering if the average/majority Iranians were united behind Mahmood and his rhetoric or what. Even though we have 24/7 news channels, the internet, mags, ect. I never hear anything from actual citizens of Iran. Hell, the news sources here in the States have gotten so biased that I don't trust any of them anymore to be accurate. But thanks for the insight, BNA.

My bad then. Sorry dude. I was just pointing out that it would have been beyond ridiculous to hold any Irish people responsible for the actions of their terrorist brothers and sisters. The same should apply to Iranians, Iraqis and everyone else. Besides one or two people don't reflect the views of the majority. And if you think our media is biased, what about the propaganda that thrown around in the middle east. If we can be turned against a group of people (which plenty of easily lead westerners have been) then it's not surprising that the same applies there. I think we're worse in the sense that we tend to target broader groups. As far as I know people don't hate all Christians.

BNA. That's very interesting. It sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory, only plausible. I'm going to be an arrogant westerner here and say that I think the middle east are doing something wrong. They don't separate religion and politics like we do. Bombing Iran would be the biggest mistake we could make. Iran has the potential to emerge as the stabilising force in the middle east. That is of course if they don't do anything stupid. But if they don't and we bomb them anyway then it sends the message that we're going to stop any middle eastern country that shows promise.

pendragon wrote:

I wasn't trying to be rude, wal. BNA has the opportunity to offer an interesting and upclose take on the situation and I was wondering if the average/majority Iranians were united behind Mahmood and his rhetoric or what. Even though we have 24/7 news channels, the internet, mags, ect. I never hear anything from actual citizens of Iran. Hell, the news sources here in the States have gotten so biased that I don't trust any of them anymore to be accurate. But thanks for the insight, BNA.

I don't think you're rude. So far the topic pans out well, interesting and everyone is trying to add his viewpoint, respectively asking where the other one gets his information from. More than fair and still much better than the usual youtube linkoramas.

Outside Iran you hear only from two kinds of people how it is. On group religiously worships the deceased Shah and is pretty much extremist, the other group has a moderate view on things but still more often than not albeit on a lower level worships the Shah too.

Media is biased of course, on all sides. Especially in Iran the concept of freedom of speech is a little, well, depreciated...

If you want to get a good idea about Iran just take a Dubai vacation during the Iranian New Years period. You'll see all beaches double stacked with beautiful people in bikinis - these are Iranian. Those who wear christian cross and show obvious marks of cosmetic surgery are Lebanese (just kidding). Don't mistake them for each other since each group makes a big deal of being non-Arab respectively non-Iranian.

It's just an hour flight to Shiraz (Iran), therefore there is a lot of cross over traffic. However the current president of Iran does not do these people any justice. Do not measure the population either by the Mullahs or the current president.

wal wrote:

BNA. That's very interesting. It sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory, only plausible. I'm going to be an arrogant westerner here and say that I think the middle east are doing something wrong. They don't separate religion and politics like we do. Bombing Iran would be the biggest mistake we could make. Iran has the potential to emerge as the stabilising force in the middle east. That is of course if they don't do anything stupid. But if they don't and we bomb them anyway then it sends the message that we're going to stop any middle eastern country that shows promise.

Well, it is not as much as a consipracy theory than deeply rooted conservative analysis, undertaken buy official but less heard of US military analysts. I don't keep track of everything released, but I read what I get on my table, measure it against my knowledge of the people and that's it. I think I have spent an equal amount of time arguing with Iranians over world politics as I have with US and UK residents. I however do not have any knowledge how the blue collar factory worker of either country approaches these issues. So blame me guilty for being surrounded with potentially elitist people.

It is interesting you mention the separation of religion and politics. One of the most scary things for us around here (Germany) was the obvious drift of George Bush claiming to have god on his side (personally), holding bible hours in the white house and what not - at least he's been bragging about it. Also naming a military intervention a crusade doesn't help either to make the rest of the world think religion and politics is sort of split as it should be.

Funny side note: The only secular leader (dictator to be more specific) in the middle east was Saddam Hussein (who happens to carry the same family name as Mr. Obama carries as middle name - just to disallow pbmax from scoring another one).

As far as bombing Iran away. First of all you cannot bomb it away. You could do that with Monaco, Liechtenstein or the Maledives, but not with a country that large. Before you think I'm getting on your back - I don't, relax and read on.

There is a base concept which unites people more than anything else. A common enemy. As far as I can tell the Iranians are those in the area most prone to be western life style friendly than any other population (not sure about Lebanon, they rank in close second in my little book of homegrown foreign policy). If a country, may it be the US or Israel, drops a bomb, may it be nuclear or conventional, on a suspected nuclear research facility then you create a deeply united nation. The same happened with defeated Germany in WW2 when the armies had been destroyed and where trying to negotiate at all fronts. The allies then, hopefully, misjudged the situation and deliberately targeted the civilian cities to create as many civilian casualties as possible. The idea was to break the will to fight. However as historicans believe the will to fight was already long broken, but it was this kind of bombing runs (fire bombs on civillians all over) which created a final and last uprising.

If you map this on the current situation you'll probably conclude something similar as I do, which of course is not a requirement. You probably come up with something else.

As far as giving a bad example by bombing Iran it should be said this country does not have much in common with the leaders of the Arab league. He's on road show there more often than not to gain support. This support is not given to him automatically, no matter how hard he presses that whole Islamic brotherhood theme. There are plenty of articles on gulfnews.com you can dig up to see how very sceptical they are. A Iran:Israel or Iran:Us battle would draw them in and force to take sides. And this is the very last thing you want to do, not with Pakistan and Afghanistan around the corner and the newly created extremist recruiting and training camp called Iraq. So they'd be forced to side with Iran, at least in terms of being passive and disallowing the US to operate from their bases.

A wise man once said you cannot fight anything that starts with a small letter. That means you can wage war against a nation (since they start with a capitalized letter), but you cannot go on war with the small letters like terrorism, religion, poverty, starvation, fanatism... This of course is just an analogy, but I think it suits most of the situations quite well.

If Iran would become more moderate and open over the next years, you'll see a strong contender for the emerging country & stock market of the decade award.

Thanks for reading.

I made a mistake on my last post. That was addressed at Brain Trepaning, not BNA. I make silly little mistakes a lot :oops:

As I said, Iran has the potential to be a real positive force. They could also go the other way.

wal wrote:

I made a mistake on my last post. That was addressed at Brain Trepaning, not BNA. I make silly little mistakes a lot :oops:

As I said, Iran has the potential to be a real positive force. They could also go the other way.

Ha, didn't make a difference but scored you a lengthy reply

In my opinion Iran already went the other way - decades ago. They had been on their way back a few steps until they got categorized as being a member of the axis of evil. Instant election win of the conservatives in Iran and all reformist politicians got removed.

Maybe I'm just being a hopeless optimist. Is a stable planet and economy to much to ask? The whole problem can be simplified to the fact that there's just too many people. I don't like where we're heading, never have. Maybe now I'm being a hopeless pessimist. At least I'm balanced

BNA! wrote:

wal wrote:

I made a mistake on my last post. That was addressed at Brain Trepaning, not BNA. I make silly little mistakes a lot :oops:

As I said, Iran has the potential to be a real positive force. They could also go the other way.

Ha, didn't make a difference but scored you a lengthy reply

In my opinion Iran already went the other way - decades ago. They had been on their way back a few steps until they got categorized as being a member of the axis of evil. Instant election win of the conservatives in Iran and all reformist politicians got removed.

My limited understanding of the Iranian situation is that it was effectively a student-based, political revolution that got hijacked by a religious hierarchy after the shah had been deposed.

I do feel that Israel forms the largest component of the Iranian question, largely for reasons you mentioned. To me the issue has been far too politicised for a logical conclusion, which is scary. Israel needs to maintain its nuclear deterrent and my personal feeling is that Iran's policies are far too similar to North Korea in the mid-90's.

There was an interesting article in the local Sunday papers (I believe reprinted from the English press) that said that al-qaeda's campaign has taken a recent knock from within the extremist elements of Islam. This was largely linked with the terror campaign in Iraq targetting Muslims more often than non-Muslims, thereby losing its religious credibility. A military intervention in Iran would likely regalvanise this campaign and to me is not the answer. The problem from an Israeli point of view is that they already face surrounding countries pushing for their elimination and therefore have little to lose with the exception of a nuclear armed opponent.

The main problem that the Iraq war brought on is a weakening of the UN. Today it is far easier to flought their authority than it ever was. There isn't a body that can effectivelyact in a situation like this unfortunately.

I don't expect anything but bluster to happen over Iran, the US military simply doesn't have the manpower to start another war.

asmodeus wrote:

I don't expect anything but bluster to happen over Iran, the US military simply doesn't have the manpower to start another war.

Unless the US has the expectation a bombing run with airplanes will do suffice.

The US doesn't do airstrikes, you're thinking Israel. It's all $10,000,000 cruise missiles launched from somewhere in the persian gulf.

asmodeus wrote:

The US doesn't do airstrikes, you're thinking Israel. It's all $10,000,000 cruise missiles launched from somewhere in the persian gulf.

Yes, my bad

Whatever it is they can call "clean and surgical", maybe add some clusterbombs around for decoration to make sure the next two generations of kids can grow up without hands and feet. As long as the armchair rambos at home are satisfied it's worth it, isn't it?

And here I thought I was the forum cynic.

Don't forget the radiation poisoning caused by the "surgical use" of depleted uranium bombs.

Clusterbombs are pure evil! They should be called random people maimers. Then they would be banned

This is one of the more detailed and well-written articles I have seen on what the Bush administration has been doing in Iran over the past few years. It also analyzes some of the changes in the chain of command and the communications apparatus of our military and intel services that have been re-routed in ways that threaten both our security at home and the effectiveness of our armed forces abroad.

Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008 ... ntPage=all

Very sad.

I read something yesterday I thought you might enjoy, it kind of pertains to our situation today. It's a snippet from a Kurt Vonnegut interview where he talks about the Mexican American war.

What did Abraham Lincoln have to say about such American imperialist wars? Those are wars which, on one noble pretext or another, actually aim to increase the natural resources and pools of tame labor available to the richest Americans who have the best political connections.

And it is almost always a mistake to mention Abraham Lincoln in a speech about something or somebody else. He always steals the show. I am about to quote him.

Lincoln was only a Congressman when he said in 1848 what I am about to echo. He was heartbroken and humiliated by our war on Mexico, which had never attacked us.

We were making California our own, and a lot of other people and properties, and doing it as though butchering Mexican soldiers who were only defending their homeland against invaders wasn’t murder.

What other stuff besides California? Well, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

The person congressman Lincoln had in mind when he said what he said was James Polk, our president at the time. Abraham Lincoln said of Polk, his president, our armed forces’ commander-in-chief: “Trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory, that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood —that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy, he plunged into war.”

Holy smokes! I almost said, “Holy shit!” And I thought I was a writer!

Do you know we actually captured Mexico City during the Mexican War? Why isn’t that a national holiday? And why isn’t the face of James Polk up on Mount Rushmore, along with Ronald Reagan’s?

What made Mexico so evil back in the 1840s, well before our Civil War, is that slavery was illegal there. Remember the Alamo?

I know the article, it was released in Germany a couple of days ago. No one ever here believed there is no cross-border activity. But no matter how you look at it, Iran is probably interfering across the Iraqi boarder just as much. Or as a friend of mine has put it last summer "Nobody appears to notice people speak Farsi in official offices in the municipal authorities". He's Iraqi and frequent flies home, so he should know.

Well, the larger problem currently is to keep Israel from attacking Iran. The last 20$ on top of the current oil price comes from the large air combat training they held. As foreign analyst put it they are eager to do something proactive before the Bush administration leaves office to someone who is not unconditionally supportive. But Israel probably knows they can "nuke" Iran, but they can't "nuke" Hammas sitting in the country.

The only thing, as I get repeatedly told by Iranians living here, that keeps Ahmadinedschad in power is the constant sabre rattling of Bush and Israel. Any bullet officially fired across the Iranian border would mark the end of any social stability in the middle east and therefore the end of all what people in the US are accustomed to in terms of "good living".

Oil price would explode and all states down there would be probably overrun by extremists. Russia could tighten it's firm grip on energy supply, mainly natural gas, on all Europe and the US would not only need of all their army to get wasted down there, but also hundreds of nuclear power plants and something like the ultimate break through in alternative energy production.

In such a scenario it is more than likely Pakistan will fall prey to radicals. This is the fastest way to obtain a nuclear weapon by the way. I wouldn't count on India simply standing there and looking at it. Pretending to keep Iran from developing a nuclear device may lead to an accelerated development and in my humble opinion to a disaster which makes the cold war look like a walk on the beach.

In any case this is another point of proof two egos shouldn't talk themselves up in the public, especially not if they're country leaders.

I really hope this can get worked out on the diplomatic stage, even if no one ever will know about it and no politician can claim to "have won" or "mission accomplished" or "Islamic faith prevails" or what ever they dream of.

The inevitable "but we need to stop Iran no matter what or do you want to be responsible for a nuclear attack on Israel" people may now chime in and hack my post to pieces.

Hey BNA, I'm just curious what do your Iranian friends think when Mahmoud starts up with his threats against Israel and the United States? Are they concerned?

That's a tad rude. I wouldn't have asked someone Irish a few years if they felt concerned about the IRA attacks. Actually I would, but without the inference that it was somehow their responsibility. Just as American citizens shouldn't be called selfish, imperialistic, arrogant and thick, just because of the disgraceful way their government behaves. Besides I think most people are more concerned that the US might do something stupid. They've definitely got form.

Prior to where I now reside, I lived next to an Iranian who had been in the Iranian army for 20 years. He had been forced at the age of 17 to fight for their cause. He said under the royal family, life was not perfect but people had a chance to become more, if they so desired. Now, he says, Iranians live in a class system which essentially births countless people into a life of doom with no hope of rising "above" it. He is convinced the Iranian government is developing nuclear capabilities for no other reason than to be the people that rid the Middle East of Israel. He says they do not care for anyone but their very closed circles and their entire agenda is exactly as it has been laid out time and time again: Israel must be removed from the Middle East. Perhaps it is dwelling into conspiracy, but he is also convinced that only the Supreme Leader of Iran was capable of giving the final go-ahead for the 9/11 attacks, with the intent to bring in the US, humiliate them, make them go home, and leave Israel to fend for themselves. He also believes the US knows this, and that is why they are securing their footholds in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are incidentals to the actual showdown that is coming.

Iranians, for the most part, dislike their leaders as much as Americans dislike their leaders and that is pretty much a truth across the entire globe: We all pretty much dislike leaders.

pendragon wrote:

Hey BNA, I'm just curious what do your Iranian friends think when Mahmoud starts up with his threats against Israel and the United States? Are they concerned?

They say these two issues are the only ones left to rally up enough support to keep him in power. Everything else in the meantime did spiral downwards since he got elected. In fact the whole country was pretty much surprised when all of a sudden a city major of Theran become "elected" head of state.

Not only are the normal citizens concerned, but also the Ayatollahs who by definition are the religious and therefore real country leaders (which is not an idea I'd ever support in my lifetime). Basically Ahmadinedschad's job is to keep everything in order with the religious revolution from 70ies, or in other words: keep the people in a mildly hostile mood against the western world with the declared arch enemy Israel. No one wants to risk a war really. Bombing a nuclear research facility in Iran will not be the end of the storey, but the beginning of a whole different, worse story.

There however a huge differentiation needs to get made between publicly shown strength and behind closed doors negotiations. The whole threat game goes back and forth between Iran, Israel and the US. No one can afford to show some weakness. Imagine an US president shaking hands with Ahmadinedschad in the public. His (Ahmadinedschad) power would crumble within a month and reformist people would get in power. Every threat outspoken towards Iran, in my opinion, adds power to the conservatives and takes away power from the moderate leaders who could lead this country with its people towards stabilization.

The worst thing which could happen to extremists around the world would be a moderate US presidency. This has not to be mistaken with weakness.

I wasn't trying to be rude, wal. BNA has the opportunity to offer an interesting and upclose take on the situation and I was wondering if the average/majority Iranians were united behind Mahmood and his rhetoric or what. Even though we have 24/7 news channels, the internet, mags, ect. I never hear anything from actual citizens of Iran. Hell, the news sources here in the States have gotten so biased that I don't trust any of them anymore to be accurate. But thanks for the insight, BNA.

My bad then. Sorry dude. I was just pointing out that it would have been beyond ridiculous to hold any Irish people responsible for the actions of their terrorist brothers and sisters. The same should apply to Iranians, Iraqis and everyone else. Besides one or two people don't reflect the views of the majority. And if you think our media is biased, what about the propaganda that thrown around in the middle east. If we can be turned against a group of people (which plenty of easily lead westerners have been) then it's not surprising that the same applies there. I think we're worse in the sense that we tend to target broader groups. As far as I know people don't hate all Christians.

BNA. That's very interesting. It sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory, only plausible. I'm going to be an arrogant westerner here and say that I think the middle east are doing something wrong. They don't separate religion and politics like we do. Bombing Iran would be the biggest mistake we could make. Iran has the potential to emerge as the stabilising force in the middle east. That is of course if they don't do anything stupid. But if they don't and we bomb them anyway then it sends the message that we're going to stop any middle eastern country that shows promise.

pendragon wrote:

I wasn't trying to be rude, wal. BNA has the opportunity to offer an interesting and upclose take on the situation and I was wondering if the average/majority Iranians were united behind Mahmood and his rhetoric or what. Even though we have 24/7 news channels, the internet, mags, ect. I never hear anything from actual citizens of Iran. Hell, the news sources here in the States have gotten so biased that I don't trust any of them anymore to be accurate. But thanks for the insight, BNA.

I don't think you're rude. So far the topic pans out well, interesting and everyone is trying to add his viewpoint, respectively asking where the other one gets his information from. More than fair and still much better than the usual youtube linkoramas.

Outside Iran you hear only from two kinds of people how it is. On group religiously worships the deceased Shah and is pretty much extremist, the other group has a moderate view on things but still more often than not albeit on a lower level worships the Shah too.

Media is biased of course, on all sides. Especially in Iran the concept of freedom of speech is a little, well, depreciated...

If you want to get a good idea about Iran just take a Dubai vacation during the Iranian New Years period. You'll see all beaches double stacked with beautiful people in bikinis - these are Iranian. Those who wear christian cross and show obvious marks of cosmetic surgery are Lebanese (just kidding). Don't mistake them for each other since each group makes a big deal of being non-Arab respectively non-Iranian.

It's just an hour flight to Shiraz (Iran), therefore there is a lot of cross over traffic. However the current president of Iran does not do these people any justice. Do not measure the population either by the Mullahs or the current president.

wal wrote:

BNA. That's very interesting. It sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory, only plausible. I'm going to be an arrogant westerner here and say that I think the middle east are doing something wrong. They don't separate religion and politics like we do. Bombing Iran would be the biggest mistake we could make. Iran has the potential to emerge as the stabilising force in the middle east. That is of course if they don't do anything stupid. But if they don't and we bomb them anyway then it sends the message that we're going to stop any middle eastern country that shows promise.

Well, it is not as much as a consipracy theory than deeply rooted conservative analysis, undertaken buy official but less heard of US military analysts. I don't keep track of everything released, but I read what I get on my table, measure it against my knowledge of the people and that's it. I think I have spent an equal amount of time arguing with Iranians over world politics as I have with US and UK residents. I however do not have any knowledge how the blue collar factory worker of either country approaches these issues. So blame me guilty for being surrounded with potentially elitist people.

It is interesting you mention the separation of religion and politics. One of the most scary things for us around here (Germany) was the obvious drift of George Bush claiming to have god on his side (personally), holding bible hours in the white house and what not - at least he's been bragging about it. Also naming a military intervention a crusade doesn't help either to make the rest of the world think religion and politics is sort of split as it should be.

Funny side note: The only secular leader (dictator to be more specific) in the middle east was Saddam Hussein (who happens to carry the same family name as Mr. Obama carries as middle name - just to disallow pbmax from scoring another one).

As far as bombing Iran away. First of all you cannot bomb it away. You could do that with Monaco, Liechtenstein or the Maledives, but not with a country that large. Before you think I'm getting on your back - I don't, relax and read on.

There is a base concept which unites people more than anything else. A common enemy. As far as I can tell the Iranians are those in the area most prone to be western life style friendly than any other population (not sure about Lebanon, they rank in close second in my little book of homegrown foreign policy). If a country, may it be the US or Israel, drops a bomb, may it be nuclear or conventional, on a suspected nuclear research facility then you create a deeply united nation. The same happened with defeated Germany in WW2 when the armies had been destroyed and where trying to negotiate at all fronts. The allies then, hopefully, misjudged the situation and deliberately targeted the civilian cities to create as many civilian casualties as possible. The idea was to break the will to fight. However as historicans believe the will to fight was already long broken, but it was this kind of bombing runs (fire bombs on civillians all over) which created a final and last uprising.

If you map this on the current situation you'll probably conclude something similar as I do, which of course is not a requirement. You probably come up with something else.

As far as giving a bad example by bombing Iran it should be said this country does not have much in common with the leaders of the Arab league. He's on road show there more often than not to gain support. This support is not given to him automatically, no matter how hard he presses that whole Islamic brotherhood theme. There are plenty of articles on gulfnews.com you can dig up to see how very sceptical they are. A Iran:Israel or Iran:Us battle would draw them in and force to take sides. And this is the very last thing you want to do, not with Pakistan and Afghanistan around the corner and the newly created extremist recruiting and training camp called Iraq. So they'd be forced to side with Iran, at least in terms of being passive and disallowing the US to operate from their bases.

A wise man once said you cannot fight anything that starts with a small letter. That means you can wage war against a nation (since they start with a capitalized letter), but you cannot go on war with the small letters like terrorism, religion, poverty, starvation, fanatism... This of course is just an analogy, but I think it suits most of the situations quite well.

If Iran would become more moderate and open over the next years, you'll see a strong contender for the emerging country & stock market of the decade award.

Thanks for reading.

I made a mistake on my last post. That was addressed at Brain Trepaning, not BNA. I make silly little mistakes a lot :oops:

As I said, Iran has the potential to be a real positive force. They could also go the other way.

wal wrote:

I made a mistake on my last post. That was addressed at Brain Trepaning, not BNA. I make silly little mistakes a lot :oops:

As I said, Iran has the potential to be a real positive force. They could also go the other way.

Ha, didn't make a difference but scored you a lengthy reply

In my opinion Iran already went the other way - decades ago. They had been on their way back a few steps until they got categorized as being a member of the axis of evil. Instant election win of the conservatives in Iran and all reformist politicians got removed.

Maybe I'm just being a hopeless optimist. Is a stable planet and economy to much to ask? The whole problem can be simplified to the fact that there's just too many people. I don't like where we're heading, never have. Maybe now I'm being a hopeless pessimist. At least I'm balanced

BNA! wrote:

wal wrote:

I made a mistake on my last post. That was addressed at Brain Trepaning, not BNA. I make silly little mistakes a lot :oops:

As I said, Iran has the potential to be a real positive force. They could also go the other way.

Ha, didn't make a difference but scored you a lengthy reply

In my opinion Iran already went the other way - decades ago. They had been on their way back a few steps until they got categorized as being a member of the axis of evil. Instant election win of the conservatives in Iran and all reformist politicians got removed.

My limited understanding of the Iranian situation is that it was effectively a student-based, political revolution that got hijacked by a religious hierarchy after the shah had been deposed.

I do feel that Israel forms the largest component of the Iranian question, largely for reasons you mentioned. To me the issue has been far too politicised for a logical conclusion, which is scary. Israel needs to maintain its nuclear deterrent and my personal feeling is that Iran's policies are far too similar to North Korea in the mid-90's.

There was an interesting article in the local Sunday papers (I believe reprinted from the English press) that said that al-qaeda's campaign has taken a recent knock from within the extremist elements of Islam. This was largely linked with the terror campaign in Iraq targetting Muslims more often than non-Muslims, thereby losing its religious credibility. A military intervention in Iran would likely regalvanise this campaign and to me is not the answer. The problem from an Israeli point of view is that they already face surrounding countries pushing for their elimination and therefore have little to lose with the exception of a nuclear armed opponent.

The main problem that the Iraq war brought on is a weakening of the UN. Today it is far easier to flought their authority than it ever was. There isn't a body that can effectivelyact in a situation like this unfortunately.

I don't expect anything but bluster to happen over Iran, the US military simply doesn't have the manpower to start another war.

asmodeus wrote:

I don't expect anything but bluster to happen over Iran, the US military simply doesn't have the manpower to start another war.

Unless the US has the expectation a bombing run with airplanes will do suffice.

The US doesn't do airstrikes, you're thinking Israel. It's all $10,000,000 cruise missiles launched from somewhere in the persian gulf.

asmodeus wrote:

The US doesn't do airstrikes, you're thinking Israel. It's all $10,000,000 cruise missiles launched from somewhere in the persian gulf.

Yes, my bad

Whatever it is they can call "clean and surgical", maybe add some clusterbombs around for decoration to make sure the next two generations of kids can grow up without hands and feet. As long as the armchair rambos at home are satisfied it's worth it, isn't it?

And here I thought I was the forum cynic.

Don't forget the radiation poisoning caused by the "surgical use" of depleted uranium bombs.

Clusterbombs are pure evil! They should be called random people maimers. Then they would be banned