IRAN

[rise_up]

At the moment the new hardline presidentof iran ,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,is defending is country's right have nuclear arms.surely this makes him a threat.If Mr bush is so worried about 'the war on terror' why is he not doing a single thing about this? I'm sorry but Iran is only a stone's throw from Iraq.Or is it that he isn't interested in 'the war on terror' it's really the oil in Iraq he's after.Yet again mr.bush you've managed to make the U.S.A look like a war mongering oil stealing capitalist hell hole. well done.

[maoist_revolution]

What a loser bush boy!

Sure you helping the africans will do alot what a fucking joke

[rise_up]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:16 AM
Sure you helping the africans will do alot what a fucking joke
WTF?

[maoist_revolution]

BUSH IS A JOKE THATS ALL MY COMRADE

[rise_up]

Sorry.didn't understand. It's fine now though.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:28 AM
BUSH IS A JOKE THATS ALL MY COMRADE
Well spotted. <_<

[maoist_revolution]

no problem good luck with helping our cause

[rise_up]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty Christ+Jun 27 2005, 09:35 AM--> (Sir Aunty Christ @ Jun 27 2005, 09:35 AM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 09:28 AM
BUSH IS A JOKE THATS ALL MY COMRADE
Well spotted. <_< [/b]
I think we need to turn on each other. It&#39;s bush and his is idiot white house/pentagon we need to get.

[Redcarpet]

The war against Iran has already begun. Mainly on the poart of Israel, especially through intimidation using spy plances.

[maoist_revolution]

Facist Sharon

[turkishXstyle]

war against iran = 3rd world war, i dont think that bush will risk this.

[Bolshevist]

I don&#39;t think Bush is able to see the consequences because of his obvious lack of intelligence, and the neo-cons surrounding Bush will think its only a good thing.

[praxis1966]

Not for nothing, but I heard like six months ago that there were unconfirmed reports of U&#036; special forces running black ops in western Iran. Besides, it would be pretty easy to run operations there being that Iran shares borders with both Afghanistan and Iraq. Large ones at that.

[Bolshevist]

Israel has also been stocking up on bombs that are intended on destroying bunkers so it seems as if something is going on, or something is being prepared.

[refuse_resist]

If they get invaded the Iranian people will put up a really good fight. Iran is not Iraq, and many of them are ready to fight until death if an imperialist nation tries to step foot into the country. It&#39;s terrain would be good conditions to fight a guerrilla war in, much like how Afghanistan is. You don&#39;t hear about it from much of the media, but there is still lots of fighting going on in Afghanistan. It&#39;s still a major hot spot right now just like Iraqi.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:10 AM
At the moment the new hardline presidentof iran ,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,is defending is country&#39;s right have nuclear arms.surely this makes him a threat.If Mr bush is so worried about &#39;the war on terror&#39; why is he not doing a single thing about this? I&#39;m sorry but Iran is only a stone&#39;s throw from Iraq.Or is it that he isn&#39;t interested in &#39;the war on terror&#39; it&#39;s really the oil in Iraq he&#39;s after.Yet again mr.bush you&#39;ve managed to make the U.S.A look like a war mongering oil stealing capitalist hell hole. well done.
So: you&#39;re criticizing Bush for not attacking Iran, which is supposedly a threat.

And he would be less of a hypocrite, apparently, if he did invade Iran.

Once again, a liberal manages to be a bigger warmonger than Bush.

[Matty_UK]

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s that hypocritical, Bush will try and remove the threat Iran poses to his plans, but if he did so it would be dangerous. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a strong military and unlike Iraq, the opposition to the government say that if America invaded they would fight the occupation as well-it&#39;s not all Iraqis who were opposed to America invading, even though many Sunnis were. Invading Iran now could mean defeat for the Americans; in the initial invasion Americans would find insurgents in Iraq co-ordinating with Iran to do some serious damage to the occupation in Iraq, American forces would be further spread thin, and even once they conquer Iran they will still have to deal with a much greater level of resistance than in Iraq; plus, the conflict will be of even greater importance and you could find Russia giving more advanced weapons to the insurgency. Russia is simply to be big to remain an ally of America, as in the middle east they both have interests and if America threatens Russian influence anymore they could find themselves in trouble. Plus, Syria will be certain that they&#39;re next, so will perhaps explicitly go to war-they have long range missiles sold to them from Russia, and again a stronger army than Iraq did. And of course more territory occupied means an even bigger border for foreign fighters to slip through easier, as security will be more thinly spread. And, most obvious, the effect of 3 arab countries being occupied by America at the same time, as well as the grand scale of war spread across Iran and Iraq, would mean many people across the middle east would be fired up to fight. Saudi Arabia would be in open civil war, and Afghanistan would probably be looking similar to Iraq today but probably a bit worse. A united front would form in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the surrounding countries, making the insurgency more formidable.

And those are reasons why not to invade Iran, but there are many more. It would be an insanely bad idea.

[rise_up]

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 28 2005, 01:27 AM--> (Severian @ Jun 28 2005, 01:27 AM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 03:10 AM
At the moment the new hardline presidentof iran ,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,is defending is country&#39;s right have nuclear arms.surely this makes him a threat.If Mr bush is so worried about &#39;the war on terror&#39; why is he not doing a single thing about this? I&#39;m sorry but Iran is only a stone&#39;s throw from Iraq.Or is it that he isn&#39;t interested in &#39;the war on terror&#39; it&#39;s really the oil in Iraq he&#39;s after.Yet again mr.bush you&#39;ve managed to make the U.S.A look like a war mongering oil stealing capitalist hell hole. well done.
So: you&#39;re criticizing Bush for not attacking Iran, which is supposedly a threat.

And he would be less of a hypocrite, apparently, if he did invade Iran.

Once again, a liberal manages to be a bigger warmonger than Bush. [/b]
no.im criticizing him for attacking a country that wasn&#39;t ACTUALLY posing a threat to the world

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:57 AM

no.im criticizing him for attacking a country that wasn&#39;t ACTUALLY posing a threat to the world
Instead of the country which, according to you, actually is.

Perhaps it might be interesting if you&#39;d explained why you think Iran is a "threat to the world." IMO Iran does have a right to develop nuclear weapons - and nuclear power, which is what Tehran claims to be doing. The new president&#39;s statements about the nuclear issue are that Iran should resume making nuclear power plant fuel.

[TheBarroomHero]

Hmmm, so you would rather have the u.s.a. invade a country with a real threat? So how about america invades korea, that is a better idea. All these will probablly happen, i quote patton oswalt the comedian "bush doesn&#39;t want to be president, he wants to be the last president".

[MeTaLhEaD]

FUCK B*SH

[Sir Aunty Christ]

And the award for political statement of the year goes to...

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by rise_up+Jun 28 2005, 04:57 PM--> (rise_up @ Jun 28 2005, 04:57 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:27 AM

[email protected] 27 2005, 03:10 AM
At the moment the new hardline presidentof iran ,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,is defending is country&#39;s right have nuclear arms.surely this makes him a threat.If Mr bush is so worried about &#39;the war on terror&#39; why is he not doing a single thing about this? I&#39;m sorry but Iran is only a stone&#39;s throw from Iraq.Or is it that he isn&#39;t interested in &#39;the war on terror&#39; it&#39;s really the oil in Iraq he&#39;s after.Yet again mr.bush you&#39;ve managed to make the U.S.A look like a war mongering oil stealing capitalist hell hole. well done.
So: you&#39;re criticizing Bush for not attacking Iran, which is supposedly a threat.

And he would be less of a hypocrite, apparently, if he did invade Iran.

Once again, a liberal manages to be a bigger warmonger than Bush.
no.im criticizing him for attacking a country that wasn&#39;t ACTUALLY posing a threat to the world [/b]
How exactly is Iran a threat to the world? Because they are supposedly working

on a nuclear weapons program? The only reason they would be developing

nukes, if they are in fact doing so, is to keep the US from invading their sovereign

state and installing a puppet regime. Also by stating that Iran is a much greater

threat, you are stating that Iraq was a threat to the world in the first place, which

Saddam clearly was not, even if he was a monster.

[Organic Revolution]

so copy cat rise up do you want bush to start wars

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:49 AM
The war against Iran has already begun. Mainly on the poart of Israel, especially through intimidation using spy plances.
Last time I checked, it was US planes flying over Iran, not Israeli. I could be wrong though.

[dso79]

If Mr bush is so worried about &#39;the war on terror&#39; why is he not doing a single thing about this?

So far the US have been unable to subdue the Iraqi (Sunni) insurgency, and invading Iran would probably lead to even more problems, since many of Iraq’s Shi’ites, including the new US-backed government, support Iran. I don’t think the US want to invade Iran until they are in complete control of Iraq.


Last time I checked, it was US planes flying over Iran, not Israeli.

I&#39;d be very surprised if there weren&#39;t any Israeli spy planes flying over Iran.

[resisting arrest with violence]

The war against Iran has already begun

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm

[Paradox]

From the link provided by RAWV:


The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation&#39;s airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein&#39;s dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA&#39;s Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man&#39;s freedom fighter is another man&#39;s terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

Any links about this MEK group? And any links to Iranian news sites in English talking about the bombings performed by this group? CIA backed terrorist group doing amerika&#39;s dirty work in Iran as we speak? Yeah, I wouldn&#39;t doubt it.

And the u&#036; is supplying Israel with those bunker buster bombs, right? Yup.

[Paradox]

More from the link:


But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

:huh: Anymore links or information about this planned base?

[Led Zeppelin]

The US and its imperialist allies will not, better yet, cannot invade Iran.

Their military is overstretched, they only aquire economic disadvantage from invading Iran, not economic advantage, which is the driving force of imperialism.

[Colombia]

How can they possibly hope for a major military presence when they have soldiers busy in Afghanistan,Iraq, and S. Korea. This will be a major disaster for the US if they do it.

[Guerrilla22]

The US should invade the US and install a democratic government.

[Phalanx]

I believe that they have WMDs. Also, i think the tyrant that&#39;s running the circus over there has committed human rights abuses. They are a threat worldwide&#33;

[Guerrilla22]

So what if they have nukes? They only have them as a deterent to US aggression.

[Phalanx]

This is exactly why the tyrant hates Iran. He wants the ability to turn the entire world into glass, but when someone has one, two, even three weapons, and he doesn&#39;t like their attitude towards him, they&#39;re terrorists. Hmm, those Palestinians must be terrorists, because they go against his agenda. And those "terrorists" in Colombia and Nepal? A few civilian casualties caused by extremists within those movements can be blown up by the media. That bus bombing in Nepal was certainly ripped apart by the filthy media whores of the western world.

[Led Zeppelin]

The US should invade the US and install a democratic government.

The Iranian political system is more democratic than the US political system.

There were at least 7 candidates allowed to run in the Iranian presidential elections, each with the same percentage of chance of being elected.

In the US only 2 candidates run in the elections who have the same percentage of chance of being elected.

[rise_up]

What a great idea. that system is a lot fairer than a two party system.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 12:01 PM

Any links about this MEK group? And any links to Iranian news sites in English talking about the bombings performed by this group?
Bombs kill 8, wound 75 in Iran before election (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=842342)
It&#39;s not entirely clear who carried out these bombings. Responsibility was claimed by little-known groups based among Iran&#39;s Arab minority.

UPI report claiming the U.S. was sponsoring MEKinfiltration (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050126-045615-4690r) Suggestive but not conclusive. The air recon mentioned here definitely happened though.

The U.S. is definitely protecting the MEK and at the least, keeping them in reserve while their use is disputed in Washington. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A17287-2003Nov8&notFound=true) The MEK has a number of supporters in Congress and, reportedly, in the Pentagon.

Article with background on this cultlike group (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF08Ak02.html) For a number of years, they were a tool of the Baghdad regime against Iran.

Human Rights Watch report on MEK abuses against dissident members (http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0505/1.htm#_Toc103593125)

[Kitbag]

Ack. Bush has done so much to our beautiful planet already, I&#39;m not sure how much it can take. Y&#39;know, there is going to be World War Three in our generation (I realise I&#39;m only 15, though), and it&#39;s going to start from (directly or in-directly) George W Bush, or one of his Admin team that stays in Government and rises well enough through the system. I&#39;m pretty sure I&#39;m not going to die in my sleep at an old age...

Oh, aren&#39;t I nice?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 30 2005, 11:10 AM

The US should invade the US and install a democratic government.

The Iranian political system is more democratic than the US political system.

There were at least 7 candidates allowed to run in the Iranian presidential elections, each with the same percentage of chance of being elected.

In the US only 2 candidates run in the elections who have the same percentage of chance of being elected.
Exactly. I can&#39;t say as I like the whole injection of religion into a political system part, but the Iranian government most definitely is more democratic than the US government.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Jun 30 2005, 03:25 PM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Jun 30 2005, 03:25 PM)
Marxism&#045;[email protected] 30 2005, 11:10 AM

The US should invade the US and install a democratic government.

The Iranian political system is more democratic than the US political system.

There were at least 7 candidates allowed to run in the Iranian presidential elections, each with the same percentage of chance of being elected.

In the US only 2 candidates run in the elections who have the same percentage of chance of being elected.
Exactly. I can&#39;t say as I like the whole injection of religion into a political system part, but the Iranian government most definitely is more democratic than the US government. [/b]
More democratic for who? should always be the question. We should seek to expand the democratic rights and political space for our class to organize, discuss, and gain class consciousness.

In every Iranian election, a whole number of candidates are disqualified by the "Council of Guardians" - unelected mullahs. On political grounds.

Certainly no socialist or communist candidate is allowed to run. Socialist or communist parties and newspapers are not even legal in Iran. Even a fair number of liberal papers have been shut down lately.

So even aside from the numerous allegations of voter intimidation by rightist gangs of thugs supporting Ahmadinejad....the fact is the election was very limited even before the campaign started.

It should also be kept in mind the presidency and parliament have very limited power in Iran, the real power belongs to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini, and the Council of Guardians. All of whom are chosen theocratically, not democratically.

Now the amount of democracy, and the amount of political space for working people, in Iran are greater than in a number of Middle Eastern countries, or than there was under the shah. For example, there are contested elections, Marxist books are published and circulate freely for the most part.

But the level of democratic rights is certainly not greater than in the United States.

[Andy Bowden]

Has the war on Iraq actually benefited Iran? :o

I have heard this claim from some rigt-wing critics of the war, on the basis that now Iran is the largest and most powerful arab country - and that they could extend influence into Iraq with sympathetic Shia parties.

I have also heard allegations that many of Washington&#39;s "intelligence sources" were Iranian agents who fed the US false info to encourage invasion.
I don&#39;t believe this claim however, as former counterterrorism director Richard Clarke made it clear that Bush wanted to bomb Iraq immediately after 9/11.


My personal view is that Iran is going to use the circumstances the US is currently swamped in to it&#39;s advantage, although I am unconvinced by the Shia fifth column argument, that all the Shia love Iran more than Iraq. I think the Iran-Iraq war proved that the Shia&#39;s ultimate allegiance was to their country, not their religion.

The US can&#39;t currently invade Iran while they are still in Iraq. It would not just be militarily extremely difficult to contain both countries, but it would be politically very, very difficult to justify [i] another[i/] war after invading Iraq, and inflaming world opinion.

If the US "succeeds" in Iraq, then Iran could be next however.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 1 2005, 12:33 PM
Has the war on Iraq actually benefited Iran? :o

I have heard this claim from some rigt-wing critics of the war, on the basis that now Iran is the largest and most powerful arab country - and that they could extend influence into Iraq with sympathetic Shia parties.
For starters, Iran&#39;s not an Arab country. Though it does have an Arab minority.

There&#39;s some grain of truth that Iran has gained some influence in the Baghdad government, but that influence shouldn&#39;t be overstated, and I don&#39;t see how it&#39;s in Iran&#39;s interest to have large numbers of U.S. soldiers on two of its borders.

[Led Zeppelin]

More democratic for who? should always be the question. We should seek to expand the democratic rights and political space for our class to organize, discuss, and gain class consciousness.

I never stated otherwise.


In every Iranian election, a whole number of candidates are disqualified by the "Council of Guardians" - unelected mullahs. On political grounds.


The media and big business do this in the US. I never heard about tycoons getting elected to their position.


Certainly no socialist or communist candidate is allowed to run. Socialist or communist parties and newspapers are not even legal in Iran. Even a fair number of liberal papers have been shut down lately.

So even aside from the numerous allegations of voter intimidation by rightist gangs of thugs supporting Ahmadinejad....the fact is the election was very limited even before the campaign started.


Socialist and Communist candidates are allowed to run in the US election, but who cares?

They will lose the elections by default.


It should also be kept in mind the presidency and parliament have very limited power in Iran, the real power belongs to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini, and the Council of Guardians. All of whom are chosen theocratically, not democratically.


The US president and senate also have very limited power, the real power belongs to the tycoons who gave the presidential candidacy millions of dollars to become elected.

The Bush administration could not have invaded Iraq if Lockheed Martin opposed it.


But the level of democratic rights is certainly not greater than in the United States.

The above proves otherwise.

[themanwhodoesnotexist]

PEACE
Irans a nuclear threat????? WHo dropped Atom Bombs so far...lets list em.....USA....ummmmmmm......who else.....
looks like the USA is the biggest nuclear threat&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Kitbag]

Alright, calm down.

[resisting arrest with violence]

The U.S. does not have to invade Iran it can just launch airstrikes against it. And we all know that is what kills many of the "collateral damage."

[Jersey Devil]

Iran is not "more democratic" than the U.S. As for only "two canidates" being allowed to run, that is ridiculous. Anyone can compete in the primaries for the party nomination. Meanwhile the Iranian Guardian Council, half of which I believe believe are appointed by the Supreme Leader and the other half are appointed by another group of individuals who were appointed by the Supreme Leader, chooses who can run. In the last Iranian parlimentary elections over 2,000 reformists were not allowed to run for seats in parliment.

The following is part of another thread that I posted on another board:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was interested to learn of the new found relationship between an Iranian dissident group known as the Mujahideen al-Khalq Organization (MKO) and the United States after the fall of Saddam in Iraq.

The MKO were involved in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, they helped mobilize students and workers to overthrow the Shah. In the 1970&#39;s the MKO was involved in attacks that killed American military and civilians that were working on defense projects in Tehran.

However, the Iranian Islamists that took power opposed the MKO because of their secular views. So as a result many were expelled from Iran, they set up their base in Paris, France. When Iraq and Iran went to war, the MKO saw their opportunity to take action against the Iranian theocratic state, they fought with the secular Ba&#39;athists with the support of Hussein. Siding with the Iraqis resulted in the general Iranian populace disapproving of the group.

In 1991 the MKO backed Hussein and aided in the violent suppression of the Kurdish and Shiite Muslim uprisings in Iraq.

The group has since 1997 been considered a terrorist organization by the United States and subsequently in 2002 by the European Union.

During the war the U.S cracked down on the military wing of the group by bombing their bases, however since then they have developed a favorable relationship with the West. Though it is still designated a terrorist organization officially by our government, in 2003 over a hundred members of the U.S Congress signed a letter that called for a reversal of this designation. In July 2004 the U.S gave the MKO "protected persons" status under the Geneva Convention. This would prevent MKO members from being extradited to Iran for prosecution. It was thought before that the Iranians would trade captured Al-Queda operatives for MKO members which they and many Iranians regard as terrorists. From a policy point of view it would seem that the U.S will use the MKO operating from Iraq to influence policy in Iran.

However, one truly has to question whether this is just. Our government fought this war on several points, one of which included humanitarian intervention for the human rights abuses committed by Hussein&#39;s Ba&#39;athist regime. Yet at the same time we seem to be working with an organization who participated in these very crimes to advance U.S goals. Also, we are giving up the opportunity of having captured Al-Queda operatives in order to have influence in Iran, one has to question that move as well.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

Sources

Christian Science Monitor: Why the US granted &#39;protected&#39; status to Iranian terrorists By Scott Peterson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0729/p07s01-wome.html

Terrorism: Questions and Answers: Mujahedeen-e-Khalq Iranian rebels
http://www.terrorismanswers.org/groups/mujahedeen.html

BBC News: US agrees truce with Iran rebels by Pam O&#39;Toole BBC regional analyst
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2980279.stm

[Kitbag]

Meanwhile the Iranian Guardian Council, half of which I believe believe are appointed by the Supreme Leader and the other half are appointed by another group of individuals who were appointed by the Supreme Leader, chooses who can run.

Seems fair...

[Vallegrande]

Our government fought this war on several points, one of which included humanitarian intervention for the human rights abuses committed by Hussein&#39;s Ba&#39;athist regime. Yet at the same time we seem to be working with an organization who participated in these very crimes to advance U.S goals.
Is that the new leader of Iraq you&#39;re talking about? I heard he showed himself on t.v. executing several people suspected of terrorism, in order to strike fear. It is the same as before.

Besides the fact that the our administration does its best to stamp out terrorism in Iraq, it forgets the terrorism in Africa that is much worse than what Saddam did, yet we hear nothing of it. This war... will it actually destroy a word that is as ancient as the Greek civilization?

[themanwhodoesnotexist]

PEACE
Iran has been the good guy in the middle east for a long time....those who know know this.......Iraq had the CIA puppet Saddam.......you noticing a pattern here????
9/11 attacks(masterminded by Bush and the white Jews) happen...they say we gotta invide Afganistan to get Osama(who is innocent).....so they invade......then for some strange reason soon they are talking about Saddam alot of Osama none.......now its all about Osama&#39;s mortal enemy Saddam Hussien....yeah.....we gotta get Osama&#39;s enemy Saddam cuz of 9/11 .......huh???????? According to you devils Osama did 9/11.....why are you trying to get Osama&#39;s enemy.....Saddam Hussien......
So you got your Iraq war......now your shifting your focus to Iran.....allready you devils are talking about the Iran problem.........nothing but white imperialism...........

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:10 AM
At the moment the new hardline presidentof iran ,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,is defending is country&#39;s right have nuclear arms.surely this makes him a threat.If Mr bush is so worried about &#39;the war on terror&#39; why is he not doing a single thing about this? I&#39;m sorry but Iran is only a stone&#39;s throw from Iraq.Or is it that he isn&#39;t interested in &#39;the war on terror&#39; it&#39;s really the oil in Iraq he&#39;s after.Yet again mr.bush you&#39;ve managed to make the U.S.A look like a war mongering oil stealing capitalist hell hole. well done.
Are you honestly saying that if he did do this you woulden&#39;t critisize every little thing that would go wrong during the campaign?

Stupid people are the reason for leftists bad rep. Stupid people that protest one war yet would gladly support a worse one.

Attacking Iran would be costly for the US army. Casualties would be much higher than Iraq as it has a standing army and its populace is just as fanatical. America would win eventually though.

[Led Zeppelin]

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

If that was directed at me:

The MKO is of no importance whatsoever. The party is a cult, a sect which needs to be destroyed. The two leaders of the party (husband and wife) should be executed as soon as possible&#33;

Here is why:

The MKO is a neo-fascist military organization, they want to "fool" the people into accepting a fascist dictatorship. The female members of the party wear a red headscarf, kind of like "socialist muslims", hmmm that rings a bell doesn&#39;t it? National-Socialism, German workers party. Fascism is an ideology whose aim is to fool the workers, to make them think that it is socialism. I saw a documentary about the MKO once, they showed party meetings, there were huge portraits of Masud and his wife (the leaders of the party) everywhere.

The MKO invaded Iran once from Iraq, i don&#39;t remember the exact year, their generals expected to capture Tehran within 1 week, instead their army was utterly destroyed within 1 day. :lol:

The MKO can be compared to Franco and his army, if a revolution happens, better yet when a revolution happens in Iran, we must fight them, they will probably ignite another civil war, they will be the mensheviks, get arms from the US and EU and try to "strange Communism in its cradle".


Iran is not "more democratic" than the U.S. As for only "two canidates" being allowed to run, that is ridiculous. Anyone can compete in the primaries for the party nomination.

As i said before, if you have no chance of getting elected who cares if you are allowed to run?

[Kitbag]

Hmmm.

[Jersey Devil]

Are there any non-12 year olds i.e., Severian, Urban Rubble, etc..., who would like to comment with regard to what I have posted.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 2 2005, 01:17 PM
However, one truly has to question whether this is just. Our government fought this war on several points, one of which included humanitarian intervention for the human rights abuses committed by Hussein&#39;s Ba&#39;athist regime. Yet at the same time we seem to be working with an organization who participated in these very crimes to advance U.S goals. Also, we are giving up the opportunity of having captured Al-Queda operatives in order to have influence in Iran, one has to question that move as well.
Basically I agree with you and think this is a good post. I&#39;m going to go into more detail on the points where I disagree, but I agree with most of it.

&#39;d go further than you do in the last paragraph: Washington claims to be fighting a global war against terrorism, but is harboring, and considering whether to sponsor, a terrorist group in Iraq. It&#39;s an act of hypocrisy similar to their refusal to extradite Juan Posadas Carriles and Orlando Bosch, Cuban exile terrorists, from the U.S., or their aid to the Colombian military which in turn aids the AUC death squads.

I think your history and description of the MKO/MEK (Mujahedeen-e-Khalq Organization) is accurate from everything I&#39;ve read, and a good summation of the main points. One thing:


However, the Iranian Islamists that took power opposed the MKO because of their secular views. So as a result many were expelled from Iran, they set up their base in Paris, France. When Iraq and Iran went to war, the MKO saw their opportunity to take action against the Iranian theocratic state, they fought with the secular Ba&#39;athists with the support of Hussein. Siding with the Iraqis resulted in the general Iranian populace disapproving of the group.

True as far as it goes, and I can see why you want to briefly summarize for the purpose at hand....I think the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (Organization) are an example of a leftist group becoming something very different, somewhat like the LaRouchites. How this evolution took place is an interesting question and a cautionary tale....

The MKO&#39;s bombing campaign wasn&#39;t allied with Hussein from the start. But it was unpopular from the beginning because they were carrying out an armed campaign against a government still, at that time, supported by most of the population. In that sense, the MKO was carrying out an armed campaign against the will of most Iranian workers. It had never placed its confidence in the mass action of working people, even against the shah - it was more of a self-contained armed group. Rather than seeking to win most Iranian working people to oppose the Khomeini government, they sought to bypass the masses and ended up opposing and opposed by most working people in Iraq, while allied with the enemies of the Revoution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Severian, are you Iranian? I would be good to know that there are Iranian comrades on the board.

[Ultra-Violence]

my thoughts are that if the U.S does attack iran and suppose that world war three does start im 16 in two years if the draft is reanstated by the goverment becasue boviluosly itll need mre soldiers how am i to avoid going towar?

srry i know its of subject but also some thing to think about&#33; :ph34r:

[Kitbag]

It&#39;s a good point. We wouldn&#39;t be able to avoid fighting for political reasons...maybe unless we had a communist government, but if we did then we&#39;d probably be fighting, for political reasons...Plead insanity? (Maybe for political reasons, haha)

[bolshevik butcher]

Iran is not the best country in thew rold, but it is partially dmeocratic,a nd in a much better state than it would be post a U&#036; invasion.

[Kitbag]

Yeah