The United States has been covertly supporting the outlawed PEJAK, the PKK’s breakaway faction in Iran, to destabilize the country's leadership, according to a report in a U.S. magazine published online on Sunday.

The CIA and the United States Special Operations Forces have long-standing ties to the PEJAK, The New Yorker magazine reported.

Turkey and Iran have long been fighting against the terrorist movements operated by both the outlawed PKK and PEJAK.

Reports of American support for the group have been a source of friction between Turkey and the United States, The New Yorker added.

U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to the article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issues. .

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/world/9309441.asp?scr=1

What the hell is wrong with the US?:confused:

Um, they didn't do it sooner? I'm against a war, but destabilizing the country from within? ...That's a good idea.

Not in Iran. You topple the government, the Ayatollah reigns.

He is the government which gets toppled.

Oh no, we're going to war. The point of all this is to get them riled up enough to do something really stupid that we can run to the UN and the American people and say "We gotta stop them!"

War = Money. Never forget that. If there is a war to be fought, the US will be there.

He is the government which gets toppled.

You're kidding, right? You shoot the Ayatollah and you'll have all the world Shias on your back.:rolleyes:


Oh no, we're going to war. The point of all this is to get them riled up enough to do something really stupid that we can run to the UN and the American people and say "We gotta stop them!"

War = Money. Never forget that. If there is a war to be fought, the US will be there.

Hmm like this?

Oil slipped from a record high above $143 a barrel on Monday as weak U.S. demand countered mounting tensions between OPEC nation Iran and Israel.

http://today.reuters.fr/news/default.aspx

What happens if Iran oil production shuts down?

Or this?

Iran threatens to shut down Persian Gulf oil lanes if attacked (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iran29-2008jun29,0,377280.story)

Not in Iran. You topple the government, the Ayatollah reigns.

Wrong on several points, Sam. The Ayatollah is ALREADY the supreme ruler. He can slap the elected government around anytime he wants.

As to the U.S. or anyone else, for that matter, attempting to destabilize Iran, they are only taking advantage of the fact that Iran's ego-centric president is already doing a FINE job of ruining the country himself.

All of his economic policies are totally reversed from sound management. First, he's TOTALLY dependent on oil sales to keep the country afloat. Second, the dummy keeps dropping the interest rate which, of course, has resulted in double-digit inflation every single year. The common people are already stretched as far as they can go - and he keeps making it worse. His latest bungling plan is to create a bank account for every individual in the country and place money in it to subsidize their cost of living. And THAT will result in even MORE inflation.

Nations that have disfavor for Iran truly love him - he's quickly destroying Iran from within.

Wrong on several points, Sam. The Ayatollah is ALREADY the supreme ruler. He can slap the elected government around anytime he wants.

As to the U.S. or anyone else, for that matter, attempting to destabilize Iran, they are only taking advantage of the fact that Iran's ego-centric president is already doing a FINE job of ruining the country himself.

All of his economic policies are totally reversed from sound management. First, he's TOTALLY dependent on oil sales to keep the country afloat. Second, the dummy keeps dropping the interest rate which, of course, has resulted in double-digit inflation every single year. The common people are already stretched as far as they can go - and he keeps making it worse. His latest bungling plan is to create a bank account for every individual in the country and place money in it to subsidize their cost of living. And THAT will result in even MORE inflation.

Nations that have disfavor for Iran truly love him - he's quickly destroying Iran from within.

And by destabilising Iran, the US wants to convert Iran from elected President to dictatorship? Again?

I would not support assassinating the Ayatollah, that's not what I meant. Do I trust the Bush administration to accomplish this properly? ...Absolutely not.

I guess we have to wait until they destabilise the US enough that everyone else can breathe.

Iran should do something really stupid, so that the US invade and I can watch awesome hardware being deployed on BBC News 24, CNN...

<disclaimer>yeah, war is nasty and families are destroyed - but if I can't see it, it's not happening</disclaimer>

Yeah, I'm waiting on the American civil war here. Be interesting to see how that plays out. Now everyone has guns.

What happens if Iran oil production shuts down?

Or this?


As soon as they make a claim to be able to bring a halt to oil production or transport on that level, they open the door for a number of solutions. First being war. Yes, war. Because once someone displays their dominance in the situation, they become a threat to the US government. And as we all know, the US government takes about as well to threats as a Muslim takes to cartoons of the Prophet. The US government can twist one threat and turn it into grounds for a preemptive strike culminating in the removal of said regime.

The second solution (they will probably go hand-in-hand) is that the government drones use this as a reason to force legislation that allows the oil companies the right to drill on protected US lands.

Don't think a threat like "I'll stop producing oil" scares us one bit. We would overthrow that government in a weekend, and have Haliburton renewing the flow of oil by Monday.

As soon as they make a claim to be able to bring a halt to oil production or transport on that level, they open the door for a number of solutions. First being war. Yes, war. Because once someone displays their dominance in the situation, they become a threat to the US government. And as we all know, the US government takes about as well to threats as a Muslim takes to cartoons of the Prophet. The US government can twist one threat and turn it into grounds for a preemptive strike culminating in the removal of said regime.

The second solution (they will probably go hand-in-hand) is that the government drones use this as a reason to force legislation that allows the oil companies the right to drill on protected US lands.

Don't think a threat like "I'll stop producing oil" scares us one bit. We would overthrow that government in a weekend, and have Haliburton renewing the flow of oil by Monday.

Would it bankrupt the Americans? What would be the effect on US economy?

Would it bankrupt the Americans?

Would what bankrupt the Americans?

This is kind of old news, no ? Unless it's been significantly ramped up, recently ?

The US was running the MEK in from Iraq and arming the Baluchistan insurgents (that was good yuks, if black humor is your thing) back in '04, '05, something like that. What the Brit sailors got caught at was training. And that's just W&Co.

Yeah, I'm waiting on the American civil war here. Be interesting to see how that plays out. Now everyone has guns. "Now" ?

When we go, the world goes.

Would what bankrupt the Americans?

A war in Iran. Can they afford it? After all, no one is naive to American reactionism. It would be the ideal tool to use against them.

Heres an interesting postscript.

http://img.iht.com/images/2008/06/29/29iran-rally550.jpg

Thousands of supporters of an Iranian opposition group called on the European Union and the United States to remove the organization from terror blacklists at a large weekend rally outside Paris.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/29/europe/iran.php

Serendipity?

This is kind of old news, no ? Unless it's been significantly ramped up, recently ?

The US was running the MEK in from Iraq and arming the Baluchistan insurgents (that was good yuks, if black humor is your thing) back in '04, '05, something like that. What the Brit sailors got caught at was training. And that's just W&Co.

"Now" ?

Bush just asked for 400 million dollars last year, according to the New Yorker
http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-running-400m-covert-operation-in-iran-20080630-2zfu.html
ONE OF America's foremost foreign affairs reporters, Seymour Hersh, has claimed America is running a covert operation into Iran, funded by $US400 million ($A414 million) siphoned from other programs, with authorisation from Democratic congressional leaders.

According to Hersh, a journalist with the New Yorker magazine, Congress agreed to a request from President George Bush late last year to pay for a significant escalation of covert operations against Iran.

Its a republocrat operation.

A war in Iran. Can they afford it? After all, no one is naive to American reactionism. It would be the ideal tool to use against them.

We will never go bankrupt. Capitalism is funny like that. And considering that we are the arms dealers, we'll loan ourselves the weapons if we have to.

You guys have the wrong idea over there, by the way. Inciting us into a war does nothing to hurt us, and everything to hurt you. Seriously, we actually get upset about individual soldiers over here.

We will never go bankrupt. Capitalism is funny like that. And considering that we are the arms dealers, we'll loan ourselves the weapons if we have to.

You guys have the wrong idea over there, by the way. Inciting us into a war does nothing to hurt us, and everything to hurt you.

What guys? I'm just trying to see what other angles can be there, apart from the obvious one.

The Romans had the 1000 year illusion, IIRC. Or was that someone else?

What guys? I'm just trying to see what other angles can be there, apart from the obvious one.

The Romans had the 1000 year illusion, IIRC. Or was that someone else?

Rome didn't have nukes.

Rome didn't have nukes.

Makes no mind. There is more than one way to win a war.

Nobody is going to come onto our soil and pose a threat.

Nobody is going to come onto our soil and pose a threat.

Iran is your soil? :rolleyes:

I meant that both cultures have different time frames of existence. Iran has been around for thousands of years, so they probably share the mindset that Indians and Chinese have... of considering the future 50 years hence, not 5 years hence.

Thats why you should read Indian newspapers to learn about US economy ;)

Iran threatens to shut down Persian Gulf oil lanes if attacked

Snicker.. That will last about 15 minutes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Iranian_Navy_vessels

Snicker.. That will last about 15 minutes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Iranian_Navy_vessels

Thats not how they plan to do it. :p

Seems to me they are inviting war. Pretty strange, for Iran.

What do they know?

Bush just asked for 400 million dollars last year, according to the New Yorker So how much of an increase was that - in realistic terms, I mean, with the ABMs in Europe prorated in and so forth ?

You guys have the wrong idea over there, by the way. Inciting us into a war does nothing to hurt us, and everything to hurt you. Depends on how much they have to lose.

And we aren't talking about Iran inciting the US - we're talking about the US inciting Iran. Which even if limited to a justification for air strikes, would be fairly painful for the US. And might be worse - Iran is not quite as prostrate and defenceless as Iraq was after ten years of blockade and siege.

For a cost of a couple of dozen men and maybe a half million dollars, AQ has caused the US to lose twenty or thirty thousand trained soldiers, severely damage its military and industrial base, on top of two trillion dollars pledged to loss and the disruption of multiple alliances and economic influences world wide. That was by using the weaknesses of the US - it's newly elected fascistic government, it's citizens' naive belligerence and administration's incompetence at diplomacy, its confidence in its own wealth and power without attending to the foundations of them.

I meant that both cultures have different time frames of existence. Iran has been around for thousands of years, so they probably share the mindset that Indians and Chinese have... of considering the future 50 years hence, not 5 years hence.

OK...

And we aren't talking about Iran inciting the US - we're talking about the US inciting Iran. Which even if limited to a justification for air strikes, would be fairly painful for the US. And might be worse - Iran is not quite as prostrate and defenceless as Iraq was after ten years of blockade and siege.

This is true. I was speaking in Spin terms. As in, how the government would turn the story on its head so to be suitable for mass consumption.

Whoops...I missed that last part about it being painful for the US. Sorry, but Iran would get mowed in a long weekend. They simply could not stand up to us.

Like Iraq? What was that supposed to be? Six weeks?

Will they institute the draft?

Nations that have disfavor for Iran truly love him - he's quickly destroying Iran from within.

He does make for good SNL humor spots.

So Americans love Ahmedinejad?

Thats not how they plan to do it. :p

Seems to me they are inviting war. Pretty strange, for Iran.

What do they know?

Doesnt matter how they plan to do it, what will happen is their navy will be destroyed in about 15 minutes and their air strike capacity will be smoking rubble before we start sinking boats.

Doesnt matter how they plan to do it, what will happen is their navy will be destroyed in about 15 minutes and their air strike capacity will be smoking rubble before we start sinking boats.

I think their plan was to blow up a warship in the gulf. At least in Jan that was what they were touting. They can still do that under attack I believe. Its not 1987 anymore.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDE163FF937A3575AC0A9619482 60

I think their plan was to blow up a warship in the gulf. At least in Jan that was what they were touting. They can still do that under attack I believe. Its not 1987 anymore.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDE163FF937A3575AC0A9619482 60

Whos warship? One of their own?

Sorry, but Iran would get mowed in a long weekend. They simply could not stand up to us. They wouldn't have to. They're on defense - they win by surviving, and their opponent incurring too much damage.

I think their plan was to blow up a warship in the gulf. At least in Jan that was what they were touting. They can still do that under attack I believe. Its not 1987 anymore.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDE163FF937A3575AC0A9619482 60

Quite true. Oil would double the price overnight.

Sorry, not warship, I kept getting google hits on warships, but I meant oil tanker.

As soon as they make a claim to be able to bring a halt to oil production or transport on that level, they open the door for a number of solutions. First being war. Yes, war. Because once someone displays their dominance in the situation, they become a threat to the US government. And as we all know, the US government takes about as well to threats as a Muslim takes to cartoons of the Prophet. The US government can twist one threat and turn it into grounds for a preemptive strike culminating in the removal of said regime.

The second solution (they will probably go hand-in-hand) is that the government drones use this as a reason to force legislation that allows the oil companies the right to drill on protected US lands.

Don't think a threat like "I'll stop producing oil" scares us one bit. We would overthrow that government in a weekend, and have Haliburton renewing the flow of oil by Monday.


Yea, just like the did in Iraq!!!!

Exactly, easier said than done. Fool me once... Iran is not Iraq, hundreds of thousands of people would die, Israel would be bombed, oil would skyrocket (they like that though), and for whatever stupid reason, McCain would benefit.

So Americans love Ahmedinejad?

Not in the least!!!! But the part of the U.S. government that wants to see Iran crushed surely does!

The opposition in Iran is Sunni, so... what could go wrong?

We are talking about Iran.

Nice. About time to destabilize that nest of snakes. And at the same time the Americans float around the idea of opening a low level diplomatic mission in Iran! Bush is a f8cking genius! (Or his advisers.)

Evil Christian chimp > Evil Nazi Shiite chimp.

I would blame bush jr. if he were not actively trying to destabilize Iran. Iran is doing it to Iraq. So what is good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.

But none of this would have been necessary had bush jr. not screwed things up when he invaded Iraq. If he had played his cards like he should have, it is likely we would be on much better terms with Iran by now.

What i dont understand it this:

With so much oil money for so many years, enormously obscene amounts of money. Why is the Middle East in the condition it is in?

There are small pockets of obscene wealth and then.....

poverty.

What i dont understand it this:

With so much oil money for so many years, enormously obscene amounts of money. Why is the Middle East in the condition it is in?

There are small pockets of obscene wealth and then.....

poverty.

Maybe that is what Bin Laden refers to when he says the Arab kings and rulers are hopelessly corrupt?

Though in the Emirates things are looking good. The desert is turning into an oasis with lots of multinationals setting up shop. Moreover, it is now those Emiraties that are saving the American economy, with the money that Americans are throwing at them.

Maybe there is an Allah that created his peoples right above massive seas of free cash.

No. I think it is the climate.

Maybe that is what Bin Laden refers to when he says the Arab kings and rulers are hopelessly corrupt?

Though in the Emirates things are looking good. The desert is turning into an oasis with lots of multinationals setting up shop. Moreover, it is now those Emiraties that are saving the American economy, with the money that Americans are throwing at them.

Maybe there is an Allah that created his peoples right above massive seas of free cash.

Bin Laden didn't have any problems with the Arab Kings and in fact offered to defend them against Iraq. Bin Laden started to dislike the Kings/royal family when they turned down his offer of defense and instead turned to the west for defense.

First of all, you people miss the point. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Iraqi army was dust in 72 hours. And while there are still civil conflicts in Iraq, there is also an operating government in place. Saddam and his army were finished in a very short period of time. The war is over. We have invaded Iraq, occupied it, and installed a new government in almost no time at all. What is left is the stabilization of Iraq, and, of course, the terror networks that fled in during the invasion. But they by no means are the Iraqi army.

However, a big part of the reason we're still over there is because weapons dealers make a ton of money during a war. And because they buy the President, the President does their bidding.

But don't get it twisted. Iraq was toppled in about a week.

And while there are still civil conflicts in Iraq, there is also an operating government in place. Saddam and his army were finished in a very short period of time. The war is over. We have invaded Iraq, occupied it, and installed a new government in almost no time at all. It actually took about twelve years, if you count the years of siege - which you should, as they crippled Iraq's military considerably.

Iran's military is in much better shape, is better commanded, and has several advantages of terrain, intelligence, etc. Actual invasion would be considerably more painful than the Iraqi experience. The US will almost certainly restrict its efforts to airstrikes.

Meanwhile, the idea that there is an operating government in Iraq is a bit loopy. The US has indeed installed a client in Baghdad, but it isn't running anything on its own - last I head even its operating funds were sitting in a bank in New York, and large areas of its supposed governance had organized their own armies, were flying their own flags, etc.

So who fights against American terrorist activities in teh world?

So who fights against American terrorist activities in teh world?
All 41,003 of your posts.

Sorry, not warship, I kept getting google hits on warships, but I meant oil tanker.


SAM check the size of the straights, and the water depth, it would take a lot of Tankers to block those straights.

Now, for another point Iran does not have the navel strength to do much more than harass shipping in the gulf, and if they do so they will not only have the U.S. making gun runs on them but most of Europe.

Iran thinks that they have a Military, but their capability is third rate, and last century.

They have no capability to project any real power beyond their own borders.

So who fights against American terrorist activities in teh world? No one, in essence. Not even in the Cold War years. The US military and economic dominance in the years after WWII was unprecedented in the history of the planet.

Which points to some kind self-limitation or restraint, by the US.
They have no capability to project any real power beyond their own borders. So they aren't much of a threat to anyone?

No one, in essence. Not even in the Cold War years. The US military and economic dominance in the years after WWII was unprecedented in the history of the planet.

Which points to some kind self-limitation or restraint, by the US.


Ah, so they are not complete psychopaths, then? :rolleyes:

Ah, so they are not complete psychopaths, then? No, they aren't. They aren't even Ottoman level slavetraders, despite their own history of slavery right up to WWII and racial pathology afterwards.

And the worst of "their" doings depended on lying to their own base of power, countrymen who would never have supported such behaviors carried out openly.

No, they aren't. They aren't even Ottoman level slavetraders, despite their own history of slavery right up to WWII and racial pathology afterwards.

And the worst of "their" doings depended on lying to their own base of power, countrymen who would never have supported such behaviors carried out openly.

I suggest you look up structural adjustment policy for the modern interpretation of slavery.

I suggest you look up structural adjustment policy for the modern interpretation of slavery. And I suggest you make your points in such a way that you are accountable for them, as one who claims to be arguing in good faith would naturally do.

What are you hinting at, and why ?

So who fights against American terrorist activities in teh world?

You are welcome to try. I dare ya. What country are you from, again? Is it one with oil? If so, you might see us knocking on your door pretty soon.

And I suggest you make your points in such a way that you are accountable for them, as one who claims to be arguing in good faith would naturally do.

What are you hinting at, and why ?

Maintaining people in a state of poverty or pushing them into it, to feed off the results.

Surely, you're not unaware of the policies implemented by the modern nations with the free press?

The free press:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_adjustment

The enslaved idiots:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/SAP.asp


You are welcome to try. I dare ya. What country are you from, again? Is it one with oil? If so, you might see us knocking on your door pretty soon.

Like the Iranians, we've seen plenty of your kind come and go. They all think they will last forever. And are indispensable. lol.

I would bet s.P.a.m is not one of these women.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/oct/18/news.iran

Now that i think about it why hasnt any Iranians responded to this thread?

Maintaining people in a state of poverty or pushing them into it, to feed off the results. And the comparison with the Ottoman level of slave trading is left up to your reader, or what ?

Surely, you're not unaware of the policies implemented by the modern nations with the free press? Not at all. If you recall, I have compared the consequences of British colonialism and IMF/World Bank influences in India with the effects of Maoist economic "reform" in China, a comparison that is hardly complimentary to anyone involved.

But this, I think, matters: And the worst of "their" doings depended on lying to their own base of power, In your attempts to argue from atrocity at the large scale to character flaw at the personal level, and occasionally vice versa, you overlook a few matters - it's maybe the flip side of overlooking the role of the Imams and jihadist propagandists in amplifying the "impact" of Danish newspaper cartoons on Nigerian and Pakistani muslims.

Ban all cartoons.:bugeye:

And the comparison with the Ottoman level of slave trading is left up to your reader, or what ?

Not at all. If you recall, I have compared the consequences of British colonialism and IMF/World Bank influences in India with the effects of Maoist economic "reform" in China, a comparison that is hardly complimentary to anyone involved.

But this, I think, matters: In your attempts to argue from atrocity at the large scale to character flaw at the personal level, and occasionally vice versa, you overlook a few matters - it's maybe the flip side of overlooking the role of the Imams and jihadist propagandists in amplifying the "impact" of Danish newspaper cartoons on Nigerian and Pakistani muslims.


You mean the idea was to keep it secret from them? More free press??? :rolleyes:

The Ottoman multiculturalism is reflected in the society after 800 years of Ottoman rule. Show me an equivalent society anywhere the West has intruded, where identity was not damaged by oppression.

The Ottoman multiculturalism is reflected in the society after 800 years of Ottoman rule LIkewise its legacy of intellectual stagnation, oppression of women, slavery, and theocratic governance.


You mean the idea was to keep it secret from them? More free press??? There was no idea.

But you know that. More bad faith.

LIkewise its legacy of intellectual stagnation, oppression of women, slavery, and theocratic governance.

There was no idea.

But you know that. More bad faith.

You can claim that for the first round, not the second.

One of the effects of Bush policies has been to reorganize American priorities in both the short and long terms. Health care reform, for instance, seems a distant concern compared to spiraling energy costs and the battered economy. The Bush White House has stolen Democratic thunder in this aspect; if the country cannot afford, and has not the space to maneuver through, a complete restructuring of its health-care structure, the Democrats cannot pull off this feat which conservatives fear.

Just as a "for instance".

Michael T. Clare writes, for The Star:

... the Bush administration's greatest contribution to rising oil prices is its steady stream of threats to attack Iran, if it does not back down on the nuclear issue. The Iranians have made it plain that they would retaliate by attempting to block the flow of Gulf oil and otherwise cause turmoil in the energy market. Most analysts assume, therefore, that an encounter will produce a global oil shortage and prices well over $200 per barrel. It is not surprising, then, that every threat by Bush/Cheney (or their counterparts in Israel) has triggered a sharp rise in prices. This is where speculators enter the picture. Believing that a U.S.-Iranian clash is at least 50 per cent likely, some investors are buying futures in oil at $140, $150 or more per barrel, thinking they'll make a killing if there's an attack and prices zoom past $200.

It follows, then, that while the hike in prices is due largely to ever-increasing demand chasing insufficiently expanding supply, the Bush administration's energy policies have greatly intensified the problem. By seeking to preserve an oil-based energy system at any cost, and by adding to the "fear factor" in international speculation through its bungled invasion of Iraq and bellicose statements on Iran, it has made a bad problem much worse ....

.... And if this administration truly wanted to spare Americans further pain at the pump, there is one thing it could do that would have an immediate effect: declare that military force is not an acceptable option in the struggle with Iran. Such a declaration would take the wind out of the sails of speculators and set the course for a drop in prices.

(Klare (http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/450919))

We must, at some point, consider whether or not the administration's war policies are not simply an atrocious sleight of hand, a misdirection to keep our eyes away from the true prize: the consolidation of American wealth and the further erosion of such notions as democracy and justice, which only hamper the efforts of the obscenely rich to increase their wealth and influence.

Sure, it sounds crazy, but so does the whole national security argument when actually compared to Bush's policies.
_____________________

Notes:

Klare, Michael T. "The oil price villain? Bush". The Star. June 29, 2008. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/450919

No one, in essence. Not even in the Cold War years. The US military and economic dominance in the years after WWII was unprecedented in the history of the planet.

Which points to some kind self-limitation or restraint, by the US.
So they aren't much of a threat to anyone?


No, that is what you fail to realize, they are capable of sending missiles to Israel and Europe, and in doing so create death and destruction, but as far as sustained force projection, they do not have the infrastructure to move the supplies or the troops necessary to sustain any long term offensive action.

That is not their goal, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants chaos, so the Hidden Imam, can return and bring about the World Islamic Caliphate.

The Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.

Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader - Telegraph
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr ... Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus. ...
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml

The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

No, that is what you fail to realize, they are capable of sending missiles to Israel and Europe, and in doing so create death and destruction, but as far as sustained force projection, they do not have the infrastructure to move the supplies or the troops necessary to sustain any long term offensive action.

That is not their goal, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants chaos, so the Hidden Imam, can return and bring about the World Islamic Caliphate.

The Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.

Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader - Telegraph
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr ... Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus. ...
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml

thats funny you don't seem to mind bush trying hasten the rapture.

That is not their goal, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants chaos, so the Hidden Imam, can return and bring about the World Islamic Caliphate. Or so he says when campaigning and so forth - kind of the Republican Family Values President, bringing honor and morals to the Iranian Presidency.

It's possible that AJ, unlike any other repeatedly elected and veteran governing head of state, is willing to sacrifice power and money in hand for such beliefs of the future.

But the idea of prophesied national suicide, even if held by AJ for real, is unlikely to be shared by his theocratic bosses and the semi-independent heads of his military. Unlike the US President, AJ requires assent and cooperation from others before launching war.

Destabilization may be risky. I am against the Iranian government but there is really little anyone can do about it. Personally, I feel that there should be some form of a Middle Eastern Senate, in order to more smoothly take care of issues without getting wars involved.

America could annihilate Iran's defense capability in a New York minute, even without nukes. The problem is they'd have to shoot everything that moves, all the civvies hiding guns under their pants and grocers hiding bombs in their delivery trucks. America's enemies have learned how to use human shields very wisely, and this is the ONLY reason the jihad continues.

That having been said, very few Americans would dare commit genocide on the muslims, because they'd have no friends in the aftermath, and they're not savage monsters anyhow. That's why they shouldn't start wars with other countries unless they know with 99% certainty that their own survival is at stake. Don't fight unless you're willing to utterly annihilate your opponent to the last man. Computer graphics of mobile bioweapons labs don't come anywhere close.

I think America's best tactic would be to focus on missile defences and even space-based weapons if necessary. The Russians and Chinese are fearful of America's progress in this area and have virtually no chance of matching America's capabilities. The Russians and Chinese are also the enablers of Ahmadinejad and his cadre of homophobic holocaust deniers. Makes a great bargaining chip, doesn't it? Russia, China and the US together own the world, and they could cut off the global jihad as easily as decapitating a rat if they combined forces instead of maneuvering against each other and feeding each others' military opponents.

The other key is to focus on alternative energy supplies. This is the best possible way to battle the jihad, as oil pretty much makes up the whole lifeblood of the movement. I doubt Ahmadinejad could afford a missile program if the only thing he were exporting was carpets.

I get a very anti-Semitic vibe from you

I get a very anti-Semitic vibe from you

And what specific statement would make you think that?

And what specific statement would make you think that?

The entire thing. You're making Iranians to look like they are all terrorists, and speak of "bombing them" as if it's nothing, as if they're not people

Huh? I think you have it backwards, I'm saying that for America to win a war against Iran, it would have to kill an unacceptably huge number of innocent Iranian civilians. Same problem in Iraq, the Americans can't just go levelling entire towns every time a convoy gets attacked. At least Iraq is small enough that America can control it with a few hundred thousand troops, there's no way they could pull it off in Iran without conscription. The US has too much cannon fodder standing around in the streets of Baghdad waiting for someone to snipe them, it's a stupid situation to get involved in.

Huh? I think you have it backwards, I'm saying that for America to win a war against Iran, it would have to kill an unacceptably huge number of innocent Iranian civilians. Same problem in Iraq, the Americans can't just go levelling entire towns every time a convoy gets attacked. At least Iraq is small enough that America can control it with a few hundred thousand troops, there's no way they could pull it off in Iran without conscription. The US has too much cannon fodder standing around in the streets of Baghdad waiting for someone to snipe them, it's a stupid situation to get involved in.

But you wouldn't mind if they DID go around leveling towns, would you?

By that logic, the terrorists should go ahead and level the US.

But you wouldn't mind if they DID go around leveling towns, would you?

By that logic, the terrorists should go ahead and level the US.

No, actually I would mind very much if the US did go around levelling towns. I'm saying that's what it takes to win wars, and that's why the US should never have got itself involved in Iraq. If it was a life or death situation and it was either Iraq and Iran get annihilated or else the US gets destroyed, obviously the US would wipe its opponents out, and they'd have no difficulty doing so.

As for terrorists levelling the US- they can't. They don't have the means to do this, and even if they did manage to get their hands on a few 1940's style atom bombs, America would double in size after it annexes the lands of whoever launches such an attack.

No, actually I would mind very much if the US did go around levelling towns. I'm saying that's what it takes to win wars, and that's why the US should never have got itself involved in Iraq. If it was a life or death situation and it was either Iraq and Iran get annihilated or else the US gets destroyed, obviously the US would wipe its opponents out, and they'd have no difficulty doing so.

As for terrorists levelling the US- they can't. They don't have the means to do this, and even if they did manage to get their hands on a few 1940's style atom bombs, America would double in size after it annexes the lands of whoever launches such an attack.

I see you have a lot of faith in the US armed forces capability. Perhaps it is misplaced?

oh K, come on guys. norsefire is a good boy and so is bork.

As are you, of course. I am merely saying that his faith in the US armed forces might be misplaced. They are certainly not immortal or invincible.

I see you have a lot of faith in the US armed forces capability. Perhaps it is misplaced?

I have tons of faith in the US armed forces as well as the rest of the western militaries, Russia and China. In terms of training, equipment and industrial power, they have an overwhelming edge. It's simple scientific logic. Look at the situation in Iraq- the Americans patrol their streets, totally vulnerable to attack from just about anywhere at any time from anyone with a weapon, yet America still takes a tiny fraction of the casualties that both the insurgents and the Iraqi population are taking. I'd like to see how well the Iranian army would do, marching along the streets of New York with all the skyscrapers still left standing and all the civilians still moving around the city at will. They wouldn't last 10 minutes.

I have tons of faith in the US armed forces as well as the rest of the western militaries, Russia and China. In terms of training, equipment and industrial power, they have an overwhelming edge. It's simple scientific logic. Look at the situation in Iraq- the Americans patrol their streets, totally vulnerable to attack from just about anywhere at any time from anyone with a weapon, yet America still takes a tiny fraction of the casualties that both the insurgents and the Iraqi population are taking. I'd like to see how well the Iranian army would do, marching along the streets of New York with all the skyscrapers still left standing and all the civilians still moving around the city at will. They wouldn't last 10 minutes.

Yes but those militaries are not all allies. And in a conventional warfare, not including nukes, Iran CAN most definitely defeat the United States.

Of course, this has happened throughout history. The British had much faith in the military, yet they lost to a men whose troops wore rags and beared rusted and dusty muskets- Washington.

The best weapons of the U.S military are the ones only a few people know about. The thing is they would be effective against asteroids and UFOs- i hope. Then you will be mighty happy they have them.

I don't quite think you understand the true power of the Iranians. They most definitely have a formidable force.


On Iranian soil, the US wouldn't last five days. Likewise on American soil, Iran would not last very long.

No one is going to attack Iran.

My point is the US troubles in Iraq have nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of American strength. If anything, being able to subdue a people without killing them off or stuffing them in concentration camps is an incredible achievement from a military standpoint. The terrorists and their sympathizers are very cocky about their limited successes, but they shouldn't get deluded into thinking they can win in a stand up battle to the death. They'll get smashed to pieces. That having been said, the US was very foolish to enter Iraq, as there was no justification for it. Now the US is stuck trying to police a foreign country and prevent them from massacring their own population. If Iraq had posed a genuine threat to international security and America's survivability, the US would have acted the same way it did against Japan- scorched earth until the enemy is on the brink of total starvation and simply has no resources left with which to fight.

My point is the US troubles in Iraq have nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of American strength. If anything, being able to subdue a people without killing them off or stuffing them in concentration camps is an incredible achievement from a military standpoint. The terrorists and their sympathizers are very cocky about their limited successes, but they shouldn't get deluded into thinking they can win in a stand up battle to the death. They'll get smashed to pieces. That having been said, the US was very foolish to enter Iraq, as there was no justification for it. Now the US is stuck trying to police a foreign country and prevent them from massacring their own population. If Iraq had posed a genuine threat to international security and America's survivability, the US would have acted the same way it did against Japan- scorched earth until the enemy is on the brink of total starvation and simply has no resources left with which to fight.

I agree that mere terrorists would do very little against the bulk of the US Armed Forces.

But Iran is different: it's an organized military.

Sorry, but no serious military analyst gives any credibility to the Iranian armed forces. Any trouble the US would experience in a war with Iran is expected to be the same kind of trouble the US is experiencing in Iraq- they'll be drawn into civilian neighbourhoods as policemen, and gunned down when they have their backs turned. The conventional Iranian army is a rusting pile of scrap, loaded with Russian hand-me-downs. None of their weaponry would even be in range to target the US before the Americans took care of it. But this is all hypothetical, because the US will never enter a total war with Iran unless Iran launches a nuke.

Or let's put it another way: Iran would need nothing short of divine intervention if they wanted to win in a straight up conventional war. Ahmadinejad had best be sure he actually talks to Allah and not just some crazy voice in his head before he launches such a war.

Anyhow I don't see how any of this makes me anti-semitic. I never said Iran can't develop into an American-style superpower, it just won't happen while they continue to repress the intellectual freedom of their people, as with all the dictatorial regimes in the region. Plus Iran is much, much smaller than America. Heck, the whole middle east hardly even matches Canada's GDP, which is 10% of America's.

I disagree. Iranian military equipment is, at best, ok, I agree. But equipment doesn't ensure victory.


With this being said, i do think Iran can beat most Western militaries. Probably not the US


But the US's only strength is in their air force. Sure, the US can beat Iran if it blows everything up without every engaging them.

I disagree. Iranian military equipment is, at best, ok, I agree. But equipment doesn't ensure victory.


With this being said, i do think Iran can beat most Western militaries. Probably not the US


But the US's only strength is in their air force. Sure, the US can beat Iran if it blows everything up without every engaging them.

Don't forget snipers, long range artillery and high-tech assault vehicles. Not to mention all the brutal stuff the US could whip out like microwave beams for controlling the civilian populace by essentially cooking them. The US also has the most elite special forces for close combat too, and lots of 'em. The US has much more than just an air force up its sleeve.

Iran's best assets are its trade ties with Russia and China, and the western world's respect for human rights (i.e. imagine the furor in the west if America launched a pre-emptive strike). They also have an advantage in that they're willing to sacrifice just about their entire country to defend themselves, whereas Americans are very reluctant to have the blood of their countrymen shed.

Don't forget snipers, long range artillery and high-tech assault vehicles. Not to mention all the brutal stuff the US could whip out like microwave beams for controlling the civilian populace by essentially cooking them. The US also has the most elite special forces for close combat too, and lots of 'em. The US has much more than just an air force up its sleeve.

Iran's best assets are its trade ties with Russia and China, and the western world's respect for human rights (i.e. imagine the furor in the west if America launched a pre-emptive strike). They also have an advantage in that they're willing to sacrifice just about their entire country to defend themselves, whereas Americans are very reluctant to have the blood of their countrymen shed.

That equipment only goes so far and it's not like it's going to be used all the time every time. Yes, they are strong, but anyone with a standard military can compete.


Honestly, you're seriously underestimating the Iranians capability. They also have snipers, artillery, armor, etc

It's not as good, true, but it's there and it can fight.

Well regardless, I don't want to see war in the region. I'd rather every possible economic and diplomatic measure was taken to keep Ahmadinejad in check, and to hell with oil prices. There are plenty of options to make sure Iran doesn't start a WW3, and they had lots of options with Iraq too. I wish the US would start using them for a change.

"keep Ahmadinejad in check"

Ahmadinejad does not call the shots in Iran. Khamenei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei) does.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Schema_gvt_iran_en.png

I see you have a lot of faith in the US armed forces capability. Perhaps it is misplaced?

How is it misplaced? We'd wipe the floor with the Iranian military, just like we did with Iraq. The problem arises when the insurgents start hiding behind civilians.

There is no need to commit genocide on the Muslim population. The people we're dealing with don't represent the majority of Muslim people. They are simply the fundamentalists who take the bad stuff in the Koran very literally, and skip over all the "love your fellow man" stuff entirely. I do believe, however, that we should kill all of those types.

Bottom line here is that if there wasn't oil in the region, we wouldn't be there. But because there is, we are, and we should be. Because that is the holy land for all three Abrahamic religions, there's a natural instability, and thus there is a threat to the oil. We can't allow that.

and to hell with oil prices

To hell with you. I don't want to pay what I'm paying now for gas.

JDawg: "I don't want to pay what I'm paying now for gas."

You will next year.

JDawg: "I don't want to pay what I'm paying now for gas."

You will next year.

...?

To hell with you. I don't want to pay what I'm paying now for gas.

Then go find your own freakin' supply, or learn to walk.

Anyone seen the movie "Persepolis"? I would think there are many iranians that would be very happy with another revolution, of course such an event should be their own doing because I don't want the blame for the next asinine dictatorship they put in charge.

- - The problem arises when the insurgents start hiding behind civilians. You mean when the people who live somewhere start fighting back against an invading and occupying army ?

Bottom line here is that if there wasn't oil in the region, we wouldn't be there. But because there is, we are, and we should be. Because that is the holy land for all three Abrahamic religions, there's a natural instability, and thus there is a threat to the oil. We can't allow that. I see no threat to the oil - it's been there for a million years, it will still be there in a few decades.

What the hell is wrong with the US?:confused:

It has become overrun with Islamic propagandists. :rolleyes:

Stop whining about oil. Go walk.

Probably the right thread for this, if it doesn't get one of its own:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

L ate last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.
- - - - - -
The language was inserted into the Finding at the urging of the C.I.A., a former senior intelligence official said. The covert operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference. - -
- - - -
The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.

One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.

One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.

Bet we'll be hearing a lot from these guys in the future.