US steps closer to war with Iran

by Cantaloupe Wed Aug 22, 2007 19:25

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto0820...age=2

by Cantaloupe Wed Aug 22, 2007 18:39

If the war is for oil its already over. Most of the oil is in the south, where apparently the brit army has lost:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2591095c-4f34-11dc-b485-00007....html

by Fred Johnston Wed Aug 22, 2007 18:12

Will Bertie permit the US to use Shannon airport to ferry his troops and aircraft to Iran, if need be?

by Cynic Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:46

Lets agree to disagree.

Hit the Coalition! This am on Morning Ireland there were reports about the utter unreliability of the Iraqi Army. There is no one for the Yanks or Brits to hand over to. The same is true of Afghanistan. The Coalition will not have the forces for a ground assault. They might resort to bombings and cruise missiles.

by Garry Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:25

Lexmark posted the findings of a survey. Surveys are always dismissed by those whose opinions are not ratified by them. That would seem to the case here.

The only person speaking on anyones behalf is you, dismissing information out of hand because it doesnt suit you and dictating to people what and what is not acceptable for garnering support.

You said your piece, you dismiss the survey despite not even reading it in full because the survey is very critical of aspects of the Iranian regime. This clearly shows they had no undue influence nor could they.

And for the second time. This survey was carried out by an American firm not an organ of the Iranian State.
It makes for some disconcerting reading and certainly dispells the notion that we in the west know whats best for the Iranians. But I consider it to be a reliable and accurate survey of the views of the Iranian people.

by Cynic Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:09

How do you carry out an accurate and fair survey in a dictatorship? I wouldnt believe such a survey if it was carried out in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Burma or China. I dont accept this Iranian survey as being valid.

by Garry Wed Aug 22, 2007 09:57

The survey was carried out by Intermedia which is a an American company. The figures are not distorted by the Iranian regime because they have nor had any access to it.

Nobodies white washing the Iranian governemnt. This is a result of the a survey of the Iranian people. It is their views you are dismissing.

by Cynic Wed Aug 22, 2007 09:47

Dont believe in surveys carried out in a dictatorship. I'm sure a survey in Saudi Arabia would also produce a result of 4% in favour of secularism. The protesss by students, women and workers in Iran show your survey is worthless.

You won't win support against a US/UK invasion by whitewashing the Iranian administration. Tell the truth and we will get more people to oppose the "Coalition of the Killing".

by Lexmark Tue Aug 21, 2007 21:30

This survey by ‘Intermedia’ conducted in Iran threw up some interesting results after Iranians where polled on an array of topics.

‘Asked about the overall path their country is taking, 71 percent think Iran is headed ‘in the right direction’ 18 points higher than in 2005 while 12 percent disagree with this assessment.
Significantly, 18 percent either refused to answer or said they ‘don't know,’

‘Selecting the political system best suited to Iran’s future, 47 percent chose the ‘Islamic Republic as it is now, based on the clergy's guardianship,’ with less than 4 percent wanting a ‘secular, democratic republic’ or ‘democratic, constitutional monarchy.’

“Rising anti-U.S. sentiment may be attributed to the presence of American troops next door in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as to the stand-off between Tehran and Washington over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program,”

This survey was conducted last year so it not unreasonable to assume anti-US sentiment has increased even further in line with US sabre-rattling and threats to Iran.

link:http://www.intermedia.org/news_and_publications/publica...l.pdf

by paddytheplank Tue Aug 21, 2007 14:21

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1654188,....html

"Prelude to an Attack on Iran"

"Reports that the Bush Administration will put Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the terrorism list can be read in one of two ways: it's either more bluster or, ominously, a wind-up for a strike on Iran."

"Strengthening the Administration's case for a strike on Iran, there's a belief among neo-cons that the IRGC is the one obstacle to democratic and a friendly Iran. They believe that if we were to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years war with Iran over. It's another neo-con delusion, but still it informs White House thinking. "

"And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran."

by Anto Cliff Tue Aug 21, 2007 13:48

"An attacks looking imminent."

Paddy, like yourself I despise Bush and his cabal. But the article you are posting is from March of this year. It hardly sustains the idea that the material supports the proposition that an attack is imminent. Please post more recent articles if you are going to make such claims.

by paddytheplank Tue Aug 21, 2007 13:35

The boys in Washington are turning up the heat. An attacks looking imminent.

Look at this.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2002/Mar_200...2.htm

Some snippets

"We had hoped that after the 11 September attacks, the Iranian regime would end its support for terrorists", Mr. Khaliazad said. "But Iran did not stop its support for terror. Indeed, the hard-line elements of the Iranian regime facilitated the movement of Al-Qa’eda terrorists escaping from Afghanistan".”

“Blasting the Islamic Republic for its human rights abuses and repression of women, the American Envoy assured that America "will stand beside all people, – including Iranians – who seek a freer future".”

“Washington also accuses Iran to send professional saboteurs, money and weapons to local Afghan commanders in the Western province of Heart in order to destabilise the interim government of Mr. Hamed Karzai.”

“Mr. Khaliazad warned that the Iranian regime was "aggressively pursuing" nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic missile programs, which coupled to Iran's support for terrorism, created "a threatening mix".”

by Marlboro Man Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:18

This is a move to damge the Iranians financially as well. The Iranian guard have business interests which the Bush regime maybe trying to either destabilise or drain.

Good cover for them though and under the Patriot act it will allow the US military to behave in an alrmingly more hostile manner toward Iran.

The next step will be the branding of all Iranian as terrorists, ratcheting up the fear of Islam, demonising Iran and portraying the US as liberators with the streets of Tehran overrun with jubilant Iraninans.

Sound familiar

by Skeptic Al Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:17

an 'Al Qaeda' terrorist hijacks a plane and demands to go to Iran. Of course he gives himself up and nobody is hurt, but the news headline has 'terrorist' 'Al Qaeda' and 'Iran' planted in the public mind.
I wonder where our little hijacker is now?