[Medium FormatPro]

I'm starting a new thread as someone suggested.

Let's go back historically first. The united states hasn't had the best of relationships with Iran in many decades; going back to when american hostages were taken in Iran; and it lasted for well over one year. america did attempt a type of rescue but it failed miserablly. The hostages were returned after a new administration; and then things toned down for a while.

Then advance to a later point in time... An american war ship (the most advanced equipment in the world <for that time> at detecting basically anything that flies at some distance); manages to "detect" a commerical plane. This commercial plane was taking off from a commercial airport - as exactly what happens many dozens of times per day. Nothing at all unusual.

Then the american Navy decides to destroy the civilian commercial airliner. Oops.

Relations between Iran and the west resume an all time low.


Forward a bit to near history. Iran does a bit of sable rattling; much as it always has, and also much as other countries do (including america - although sometimes not as publicly). Iran verbally claims it wants to use nuclear weapons against places such as Israel and the united states; amoung other places.

And here is where it gets interesting...

While Iran is using centrifuges in it's very small nuclear weapon program... A mysterious "virus" manages to cause havoc thereby delaying the Iran weapon program. For a while nobody claims or denies this action.

More recent history...

america and Israel admit working together to create a type of "virus" to disable the Iran nuclear weapons program. Another major oops.

This one infuriates both the government and people of Iran; and also a great many other coutries; especially throughout the Middle-East region. It shows that both Israel and the united states have basically declared war upon Iran.

Sure no formal declaration has been made, but it is in fact an act of war.


Now Iran awaits it's next move. Iran would be perfectly justified in some form of retaliation. Makes one wonder about a few items.

Which country or countries will be attacked?
And How?
And it's just a matter of time as to when?

Just another shadow war day in america; a place that has more enemies than any other country in the world.

[gokenin]

As for the US firing first on the day the Islamic Republic of Iran was formed it attacked and occupied the US embassy which is considered US property (policy applied to all embassies by every country on the planet) so technically they fired first.


Just before the love fest for the Islamic Republic of Iran gets going


U.S. officials describe the Iranian regime as the world's "central banker of terrorism." Indeed, Tehran has a nine-figure line item in its budget to support terrorism, sending hundreds of millions of dollars to various groups each year; the payments to Hizballah alone are as much as $200 million annually. According to Canadian intelligence, "[I]n February 1999, it was reported that Palestinian police discovered documents that attest to the transfer of $35 million to Hamas from the Iranian Intelligence Service (MOIS), money reportedly meant to finance terrorist activities against Israeli targets." Illustrating how such support is part of official government policy, from 2001 to 2006, Iran transferred $50 million to Hizballah fronts in Lebanon by sending funds from its central bank through Bank Saderat's London subsidiary.

Iranian support for terrorism goes well beyond the financial realm, however. Its well-known sponsorship of Palestinian terrorist organizations, for example, has included training and related contributions. Shortly after the second intifada erupted in September 2000, the regime assigned Mughniyeh himself to help Palestinian militant groups. According to a former Clinton administration official, "Mughniyeh got orders from Tehran to work with Hamas"; he was tasked with assisting PIJ as well
Timely Reminder of Iranian Support for Terrorism - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Hamas: $30 million annually from 1993 – 2006, as well as several hundred million yearly between 2006 and 2009.[6] Iran has also trained almost 1,000 Hamas terrorists in Iran, supporting their travel to Iran through Syria and providing instruction in rockets and bombs, tactical warfare, weapons operation and sniper tactics.[7] Following a November 2006 visit to Iran by Hamas leaders, $250 million was pledged to help the Hamas regime deal with the Israeli embargo.[8]*Iran provides the vast majority of Hamas’ weaponry.[9] Following the Israeli offensive against Hamas in Feb. 2009, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal visited Tehran praising it for aiding its "victory."[10] In August 2009, Meshaal stated that post-election violence in Iran should not hinder Ahmadinejad’s support for Hamas.[11]

Hezbollah: Over $200 million a year,[12] plus a reported $300 million after the*Hezbollah-Israel war in the summer of 2006.[13]*The U.S. State Department's*2009 annual terrorism report states that Iran has provided "hundreds of millions of dollars" in support to Hezbollah, and has trained thousands of Hezbollah fighters at camps in Iran.*At least 4,500 Hezbollah operatives have received intensive training from Iran.[14] In violation of*United Nations Resolution 1701,[15]*Iran has re-supplied the Shia terror group with Katyusha rockets, surface-to-air rockets and anti-tank weapons;[16] Hezbollah moreover provides training camps and financial assistance to Hamas.[17] In an interview given to an Iranian news agency, Hezbollah's leader that his group would continue to be "obedient" to Iran.[18] In June 2008, the US Treasury Department designated a number of Venezuelans as aiding Iran's financial network backing Hezbollah through this South American country.[19]

Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC): Iranian terrorists allegedly trained with FARC guerillas.[20] The 2007 U.S. government’s terrorism Country Reports highlighted Iran’s close ties to Venezuela as cause for concern due to President Hugo Chavez’s ‘ideological sympathy’ for regional terror groups, which previously resulted in illicit arms smuggling and drug deals.[21]

Iraq insurgents: $3 million monthly.[22]* Insurgents regularly receive intensive training in Iran.[23]*Iran provides explosively formed penetrators and other advanced weaponry (EFP).[24]*Weapons captured from both Shia and Sunni groups bear markings of Iranian manufacture.[25] "Despite its pledge to support the stabilization of Iraq, Iranian authorities continued to provide lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqui Shia militant groups that targeted U.S. and Iraqi forces," according to a 2009 U.S. State Department terror report. []

"Iran's Qods Force continued to supply Iraqi militants with Iranian-produced advanced rockets, sniper rifles, automatic weapons, and mortars that have killed Iraqi and coalition Forces, as well as civilians," according to the U.S. State Department report. "The Qods Force, in concert with Lebanese Hezbollah, provided training outside of Iraq and advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry."

Palestinian Islamic Jihad: In April 2006 Iran reportedly transferred almost $2 million to the militant group.[26]*
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command: No direct funding,*but the terrorist organization runs Iranian training camps in Syria and Lebanon.[27]

Taliban: Iran's Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, according to a U.S. State Department terror report. Since at least 2006, Iran has arranged arms shipments to select Taliban members, including small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives, according to the 2009 U.S. State Department report.
Iran has provided rocket-propelled grenades, C-4 explosives, 107mm mortars, small arms*and surface-to-air missiles.[28]

Iran: Breakdown of Financial Backing for Terrorist Groups - The Israel Project - Archive

Now for a statement about this bastion of tolerance


‘Forty per cent of Iran’s population is made up of non-Persian minorities, yet they have almost no say in the country’s future,’ says Mark Lattimer, MRG’s Executive Director. ‘Ethnic and religious minorities face restrictions on a daily basis, but they cannot be completely excluded forever.’

Iran's constitution declares the state as Shi’a Muslim and some of those religious minorities who do not share this professed religious identity have suffered widespread abuse, says the briefing. Sunni Muslims, for example, do not have a single mosque in Tehran, where they form a sizeable population.

All Iranians seeking employment or entering higher education are subjected to screening sessions known as gozinesh, where they are assessed regarding their loyalty and commitment to the Islamic Republic. According to the briefing’s findings, non-Muslims and even Muslims who ‘fail’ these screenings are either excluded or eventually purged not only from the upper echelons of power, but also from more minor positions of influence in society, such as studying at university.

Christian converts also face dangers. In January 2011 the governor-general of Tehran Province, described ‘Evangelical proselytising Christians as a deviate [sic.] and corrupt tendency’ and reported that ‘their leaders had been arrested in the Tehran province and more will be arrested in future.’
Minority Rights Group International : Press releases : Iran's minorities forgotten victims as government repression intensifies


Yet you sit there and defend Iran as being justified whenever it decides to make a Military attack against the US or Isreal?

[Medium FormatPro]

america is not in any position to judge.

Who knows of the exact budget of government agencies such as the CIA, NSA, and many others. Only about ten living people know of what those full budgets might be.

U.S. officials describe the Iranian regime as the world's "central banker of terrorism." Indeed, Tehran has a nine-figure line item in its budget to support terrorism, sending hundreds of millions of dollars to various groups each year

... america directly (and indirectly) supports terrorism; and to a much greater extent. It goes way back before Oliver North, before the many incidents with Cuba, and even more currently then watching truckloads of guns and ammunition going across the border to Mexico - and then coming back to kill americans. Darn we even financially supoorted Osama up until the very day of 9/11 and even after the first WTC bombing. The united states also trained him. If one believes the united states version of what happened on 9/11; then look at how some of the highjackers were trained by our military.

Then there's the american military industrial complex. Sure i know the exact budget of most of our military - as most of it is even published. But also take a look at companies such as Boeing, BEA, etc... Take a look at how much military hardware they export to different countries. It goes from something as simple as ammunition, to 100+ million dollar jet fighter, to many other planes, even subs, ships, and darn even nuclear reactors.

But then again america is still the only country in the world to use an atomic/nuclear weapons on what were two largely civilian cities in Japan. Yet the full accounts rarely make american history textbooks. But america must never allow most of the world to have access to even the smallest of nuclear weapons; that's small in terms of yield, but large in terms of size. Because Iran has no delivery system for anything near that large. Plus there are some two dozen sateltes that can track any nuclear weapon; even in Iran once they do get one.

So america must prevent at all costs; countries like Iran, North Korea, and many others from ever possessing any type of nuclear weapon.

Instead america goes about it as a coward; and secretly sends a version of a virus to Iran. I sincerly wish that Iran is able to somehow hire the best hacking team in the world. If america does it to them; why not have them do it to us?

And yes, I would fully endorse that any country that has any action that is declaring an act of war (officially or not); that they are subjecting themselves to any number of retaliations. If one is willing to attack another country (just for their claimed wording); then expect not only for that country to depend themselves, but expect an attack as well.

Isn't that along the lines of what Kennedy said? Sure I could quote the text directly, but it sure is the same example.

Put yourself in different shoes. If a foreign power (or even a small group of terrorists) could take down an item like a power grid, or the ATC system.Would america attack them in return? Why should america not expect the same?

[Medium FormatPro]

Forgot to include this one of many links.

Western support for terrorism ? Global Issues

It lists many published texts as well.

...Including that america did in fact "fire the first shot", back then and also now. It was united states government direct involvement and also several intelligence agencies that have been continually trying to influence the Iranian government going back many decades; even before the 70's

[Pioneer]

This is all quite interesting. By the things that some of you are saying It certainly appears that you think of the United States as the big, bad and very nasty aggressor on the world stage and that we should be good little boys and girls and pull back all our war toys and mind our own business. You should really go back and read some of the speeches being made by many, many people in the United States and throughout the world in the period leading up to World War II. There were a lot of people using words that were almost identical to your own. They were preaching the doctrine of isolation very loudly. They really wanted to leave everyone outside of our own borders totally alone, that way they would leave us alone. What other nations were doing were quite literally none of our business.

This all sounded very nice and cuddly and a lot of people supported that viewpoint. Some did not but they certainly appeared to be in the minority. But all of a sudden World War II erupted and before the free world was able to put that world wide disaster to bed many, many of our own citizens, and the citizens of many of our allies, lay dead in foreign lands, and an entire ethnic group had almost been entirely exterminated. And the only thing that was able to bring the Pacific War to a halt without the additional destruction of countless citizens of many countries was the use of a weapon so destructive that we do not want it ever to be used again.

So the United States and our allies decided that a policy of isolation, live and let live, did not work. We immediately began to poke our nose into other people's business. We have made some spectacular mistakes in the past and I have absolutely no doubt we will make some more. But we have successfully prevented anything like World War II, and of course, far worse.

Now I travel world wide, and I know there are people who do not like US citizens at all. Even our friends to the North sometimes shake their heads and look away. And to be truthful, not all my fellow citizens are as likeable as I am. But that is fine with me. This will not last forever and I really am not sure what will come after. I try to be an optimist in most things but I somehow fear that when the United States does finally collapse, as all nations must eventually do, the result will make the Dark Ages look like a picnic. Australia may be very happy that they live on a large island, and Great Britain may regret that they built the tunnel.

But for now, I hope that this continues for a while longer. I would like my children, my grandchildren, and now my great grandchildren, to have enjoy some relative peace before the entire thing collapses. If that requires the United States to occasionally ruffle a few feathers, and even piss off a couple of neighbors in this world, then I'll live with it.

But...that having been said, I do actually read all of your critiques and I try very hard not to take offense. I for one would rather we never made any mistakes and it is good to have people watch over our shoulders and to suggest ways to improve. But at the end of the day someone has to take action or talk is only talk. Someday named Roosevelt had a saying for that but I won't repeat it here. I am sure there are those who don't believe it, and there are likely others who don't care or prefer it to be that way, but if we lived in a world dominated by Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, or even Iran, you would not be able to have any of these discussions. In fact, I seriously doubt that there would be any Internet that allowed the free exchange of thought and ideas that we all enjoy today. In short, this little forum, and many others, just would not exist. I prefer it this way.

[Tom S.]

I'm starting a new thread as someone suggested.

Yadda yadda yadda.

As someone already pointed out, the new government formed by the Ayatollah took the first step by invading the sovereign soil of the US embassy and holding our citizens hostage. The only reason the set them free when Reagan took office was their fear he would retaliate.

Iran has a typical Middle East mentality of respecting only power, and as long as the US has had Democrats in office, they have viewed the US as weak. The reality of the Iran situation is the only reason they are still around is their oil. Otherwise, they would be nothing more than a parking lot for camels without owners. Personally, I would prefer if the US could stop the Iranian nuclear program with a virus that would prevent bloodshed on either side, but if Iran wants war, even at my advanced age, I would be happy to give it to them.

BTW: Google has a spell checker and it's free, though I will say for a Islamic speaker, you didn't do too awful bad.

[GeneV]

The only reason the set them free when Reagan took office was their fear he would retaliate.

Iran has a typical Middle East mentality of respecting only power, and as long as the US has had Democrats in office, they have viewed the US as weak. ....

Really, Tom? Do you have any direct support for that? Remember Iran-Contra? Reagan's people actually negotiated release of Iranian hostages in exchange for arms. The allegation has been made by former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr, former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick; and former Reagan/Bush campaign and White House staffer Barbara Honegger that the release of hostages taken under Carter was actually delayed until after inauguration as a result of the arms agreement.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 07-24-2012 at 02:32 PM.

[Blue]

For those that are so pro-Iranian, emigrate to Iran. Then criticize the current regime openly and loudly and denounce their actions and then report back.

[ihasa]

Wasn't the Iran Contra affair the US selling arms to a sponsor of terrorism (Iran) so they could fund a bunch of terrorists (Contras).

[ihasa]

Not supporting a strike on Iran is not the same as being pro-Iran and certainly not wanting to live there!

[Talisker]

To add a little more historical perspective.

The widespread Iranian dislike for the US (and the UK) goes back in a major part to the unseating of the democratically elected Mosaddeq government by the US and British secret services, and the subsequent US backing of the increasingly represive regieme of the essentially weak and increasingly hated Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (aka the Shah of Iran). It doesn't work to set the formation of the Iranian Republic as some kind of year zero: things happened to get to that position.

The statement that "The only reason the (sic) set them free when Reagan took office was their fear he would retaliate" is based on either ignorance or predudice. There was a negotiated treaty in place in which, among other things, the US transferred 50 tonnes of gold to Iran, effectively disregarding its own sanctions. The Iranians are thought to have delayed the release to punish the Carter administration for its support of the Shah, although the idea that a Republican administration would have behaved differently stretches credibility. There is also the widespread, and previously mentioned, belief that the Republicans interfered with the negotiations to their own end.

At the end of the day its likely that most Iranians, although supporting the fall of the Shah, did not expect, or want, the equally repressive medievalist theocracy that resulted. Beware the 'law' of unintended consequnces...

[Blue]

Not supporting a strike on Iran is not the same as being pro-Iran and certainly not wanting to live there!

I didn't say it was and it wasn't directed at you. Plus, I think Daddy Bush was the real master of that whole scandal going back to his CIA days even before he was their director.

[GeneV]

Wasn't the Iran Contra affair the US selling arms to a sponsor of terrorism (Iran) so they could fund a bunch of terrorists (Contras).

Something like that, but it was not the threat of Reagan that got the hostages released. His people had the Israelis give them guns. The "weak" Democrat, Carter, launches a military strike to try to get the hostages back, while the "tough" Reagan negotiates and gives them a bribe.

[jeffkrol]

Something like that, but it was not the threat of Reagan that got the hostages released. His people had the Israelis give them guns. The "weak" Democrat, Carter, launches a military strike to try to get the hostages back, while the "tough" Reagan negotiates and gives them a bribe.

and if it wasn't for the dust storm.................... who knows...

Iran Hostage Crisis

In late April, Carter decided upon an ultra-secret mission to rescue the hostages. The operation, dubbed "Eagle Claw," seemed hastily thrown together by some, doomed to failure by others. Teheran was surrounded by 700 miles of desert on all sides; the city itself was crammed with four million people, and the embassy was huge and well guarded. It was to have been a two-night process requiring a minimum of six helicopters and a handful of C-130 cargo aircraft. To be on the safe side, eight copters were prepared for the mission.

Once inside Iranian borders and advancing under cloak of night to a predetermined staging area 50 miles outside Teheran in the Great Salt Desert, one "helo" had to turn back with operating problems. Another helo and then another succumbed to a swirling dust storm, known in that area as a "haboob." The mission was aborted.

Upon attempting their retreat, a miscommunication gave one helo the okay to lift off. The storm slammed the helo into a C-130, causing a gigantic fireball, killing three in the chopper and five in the airplane.

The aftermath, as Iranians eventually found and mockingly paraded the wreckage on worldwide television, was total humiliation for the United States, and spurred an onslaught of investigations and congressional hearings. Cyrus Vance, the secretary of state who had objected to the plan, resigned in protest. Back to square one

.

back to "bribery" and back room deals....

"October Surprise"

Upon the death of the shah in July (which neutralized one demand) and the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September (necessitating weapons acquisition), Iran became more amenable to reopening negotiations for the hostages' release.

In the late stages of the presidential race with Ronald Reagan, Carter, given those new parameters, might have been able to bargain with the Iranians, which might have clinched the election for him. The 11th-hour heroics were dubbed an "October Surprise"* by the Reagan camp — something they did not want to see happen.

Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages' release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration's defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.

Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released. Under Reagan, the Iran-Contra Affair completes this story.

After holding many positions within the U.S. government, he was appointed the Director of Central Intelligence by President Ronald Reagan on January 20, 1981.

During his career as CIA director, Casey was involved in many such politically-sensitive situations as the Iran-Contra Affair, the Manuel Noriega Crisis, and the trafficking and dealings of drugs by CIA agents.

Although Casey was deeply involved in politics and events around the world, his efforts were not well known, including his part in the authorization of the assassination of Ayatollah Mohammed Fadlallah in 1985.

Casey died of brain cancer in May 1987.

some dots are easy to connect.........................

As a military aide to the National Security Council, North had been the main negotiator. During his hearings he repeatedly explained that he was "under orders from his superiors." North's plea of innocence was overlooked, and in May 1989, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and unlawfully destroying government documents. A few years later, when George H.W. Bush was president, North's conviction was expunged on the grounds that he had acted strictly out of patriotism.

Poindexter was convicted in April 1990 on five counts of deceiving Congress and sentenced to six months in prison. Two years later, Weinberger also was convicted of five counts of deceiving Congress. Both Poindexter and Weinberger's convictions were overturned — which relieved them of any accumulated responsibility.

On Christmas Eve 1992, President Bush issued presidential pardons to all indicted in the scandal. The Iran-Contra Affair was ended.

[Wheatfield]

This is all quite interesting. By the things that some of you are saying It certainly appears that you think of the United States as the big, bad and very nasty aggressor on the world stage and that we should be good little boys and girls and pull back all our war toys and mind our own business. You should really go back and read some of the speeches being made by many, many people in the United States and throughout the world in the period leading up to World War II. There were a lot of people using words that were almost identical to your own. They were preaching the doctrine of isolation very loudly. They really wanted to leave everyone outside of our own borders totally alone, that way they would leave us alone. What other nations were doing were quite literally none of our business.

This all sounded very nice and cuddly and a lot of people supported that viewpoint. Some did not but they certainly appeared to be in the minority. But all of a sudden World War II erupted and before the free world was able to put that world wide disaster to bed many, many of our own citizens, and the citizens of many of our allies, lay dead in foreign lands, and an entire ethnic group had almost been entirely exterminated. And the only thing that was able to bring the Pacific War to a halt without the additional destruction of countless citizens of many countries was the use of a weapon so destructive that we do not want it ever to be used again.

So the United States and our allies decided that a policy of isolation, live and let live, did not work. We immediately began to poke our nose into other people's business. We have made some spectacular mistakes in the past and I have absolutely no doubt we will make some more. But we have successfully prevented anything like World War II, and of course, far worse.

Now I travel world wide, and I know there are people who do not like US citizens at all. Even our friends to the North sometimes shake their heads and look away. And to be truthful, not all my fellow citizens are as likeable as I am. But that is fine with me. This will not last forever and I really am not sure what will come after. I try to be an optimist in most things but I somehow fear that when the United States does finally collapse, as all nations must eventually do, the result will make the Dark Ages look like a picnic. Australia may be very happy that they live on a large island, and Great Britain may regret that they built the tunnel.

But for now, I hope that this continues for a while longer. I would like my children, my grandchildren, and now my great grandchildren, to have enjoy some relative peace before the entire thing collapses. If that requires the United States to occasionally ruffle a few feathers, and even piss off a couple of neighbors in this world, then I'll live with it.

But...that having been said, I do actually read all of your critiques and I try very hard not to take offense. I for one would rather we never made any mistakes and it is good to have people watch over our shoulders and to suggest ways to improve. But at the end of the day someone has to take action or talk is only talk. Someday named Roosevelt had a saying for that but I won't repeat it here. I am sure there are those who don't believe it, and there are likely others who don't care or prefer it to be that way, but if we lived in a world dominated by Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, or even Iran, you would not be able to have any of these discussions. In fact, I seriously doubt that there would be any Internet that allowed the free exchange of thought and ideas that we all enjoy today. In short, this little forum, and many others, just would not exist. I prefer it this way.

I'm quoting this in it's fullness because it is well worth reading twice (or perhaps more often).
Thank you for the very good read.