Iran stirs the pot
 

So the president of Iran is in the news making comments about 9/11 being manufactured by the US to justify it's invasion of other countries. I'll post a link to the story below. Such a comment from Iran is not that surprising. What is shocking is to see the comments that follow the article. Some real haters and space cadets out there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/...pphu-container

Regards,

D-ray

I read about the but-wipe on Yahoo tonight. What I wanna hear .. is Obama's reply to it. Would he side with him? Or would he set him strait? Thats what I'd like to know.

I don't think he would dignify the comments with a senior level response. Some spokesman will characterize it as poppycock, and the President will let the sanctions speak to the U.S position on Iran's conduct.

Regards,

D-Ray

Some comments aren't worthy of a reply. I believe this is one of them.

John

Iran has been playing with fire for years.

It's not surprising at all considering what we did after 911.

I think what he means is that he is wondering if Obie will say that it is understandable that some would think this after what we did or if Obie will respond as Cheney would have Bush respond.

A valid question, IMHO.

The same nut jobs posting on Yahoo, probably think the Holocaust never happened either.

Despots need to rally their country against a common enemy in order to stay in power. Accordingly, our actions against this jerk-off need to be designed to weaken his power and not strengthen it. As tough as it is, we should refrain from saber-rattling or, God forbid, an attack on his nuclear facilities. That would only consolidate his power. We need to stealthily help Iran's internal resistance undermine him from within.

As for his comments about 9/11 being manufactured by the US to justify its invasion of other countries, he is only half wrong. We didn't manufacture 9/11, but we did use it as pretext for the invasion of Iraq. That's why lies like this have traction in the Arab world (and maybe here, for that matter).

Yep. One of these days, Imadinnerjacket is gonna smirk & grin one step too far, & get an education in why it ain't a smart thing to poke at the lion w/a stick..

Ignore the little fart, he is not worth a response.

Problem for them is that lion is Israel.

That would follow since Ahmadinejad insists it never happened. As to the comments, most I read were hate-filled but they shook out on both sides of the issue. We all have our haters. Seen some here on PC.

John

Well, we all oughta KNOW that the Holocaust was a myth, the Gummint is holding the bodies of the aliens who crashed at Roswell in an oversized meat locker in Dayton at Wright-Pat, & forced the ones who weren't killed to develop EVERYTHING from color TV to microwaves, JFK was shot by the CIA w/help from Santo Junior & the Cuban mob, LBJ got a cut offa every dollar made by the defense industry in Vietnam, Nixon was brought down 'cause he was ready to spill the beans on all this, they never landed on the Moon, it was all filmed in a warehouse in Van Nuys-I can SHOW you where it was done-Communism fell 'cause the Russians got tired of paying their share to the Trilateralists, who also got p*ssed at Bush 43 & brought down the WTC, but they forced him & Karl Rove to PERSONALLY load the dy-no-mite. Anything else you need splained to you, Loosy ? Why do y'all think I have so many of them there now old boatanchor Radios, & what do you think I hear on 'em, after all ?

Just lemme know if they got any plans for Kansas, OK.

Regards,

D-Ray

Any fenced-in public tennis courts yet?

Pete

Big fenced-in compounds w/rows 'n' rows of "Modular housing" ?!?

Makes sense to me.

Chas

That's quite an impressive list of conspiracy theories you got there, Sandy.
(KooKoo---KooKoo----):D

Oh and; You forgot the secret missle base Johnson and Nixon built on the dark side of the moon.

Dave

Well, boys, ya gotta KNOW all dese tings when you're a KOOK-Keeper Of Odd Knowlege- you know... An' Dave...Shhhhhh...We were just gettin' to THAT....

Yeah, but look at the great album it inspired.

Regards,

D-Ray

Lets not forget that he is the democratically elected president of Iran. He was very popularly elected because of his apparent incorruptibility. As mayor, his home was open to anyone who needed his help. Imagine showing up at your local mayors house looking for a hand. He also did not pad his own pockets when in government, thus he is widely viewed as a rare "honest" politician.

His comments are not too surprising, considering I saw a poll conducted in the US a few years back showing the 36% of Americans believed their own government was involved in 9/11.

Iran is a country that has been attacked and invaded, what 5 times in the past century? Most every time the US or Britain has been either directly or indirectly involved in it. The Iraqi people are more than a little fearful of the western world. He just plays to the sentiments of the masses, his electorate. And there is nothing he likes more than poking at the hornets nest.

Well, twice. The Brits and the Soviets invaded during WWII and Iraq invaded in 1980. That being said, it's fair to say that the West has been able to interfere with Iraq without actually invading it. Take, for example, Kermit Roosevelt's little caper in the '50s and our ginning up of a low level insurgency there right now.

John

And we wonder why they're pissed?

That's like long-term picking on the poor kid down the street, whose neighbor (9/11) actually swings on you because you're being an ass, then using that as pretext to go ahead and take the first kid's toys: in everyone's "best interest." (Which, of course, it hasn't turned out to be.)

Some, might believe that we just wanted the toys...

Ah yes, those poor downtrodden Iranians, such civilized noble folk, why they even decided that they would refrain (for the moment) from stoning that woman to death because (they say) she made out with someone. Oddly enough the someone is not on the stoning list. Bombing them into the stone age would actually be bringing them forward.:rolleyes:

Sorry. Meant to say last TWO centuries.
Iran lost territory with the Treaty of Turkmenchay, the Treaty of Gulistan to Russia, and the Treaty of Paris to Great Britain (all early to mid 1800's). Then the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 divided Iran into three zones of influence (Russian in the North, a"buffer" zone in the middle, and British control in the South. Of course, the Iranian people were not consulted in this.

During WW1, Iran was occupied by Russian and British troops.Reza Shah took over in the mid 20's and ran it until 1941, when Iran was occupied jointly by the Brits and the Soviets, and he was forced to abdicate. Although the treaty of Tehran guaranteed Iranian sovereignty after the war, the Soviets chose not to leave, and tried to set up two independent republics in the north. These ended up not working, and the territory reverted eventually to Iran.
Of course, then comes the overthrrow of the democratically elected government of Iran by Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA, as you alluded to. The Shah then ran the government with very open US support until the overthrow of his government in 1979. This US supported regime was not a popular one internally, with the SAVAK secret police having a reputation for incredible brutality. What is often forgotten is that the move to an Islamic Republic was agreed to overwhelmingly by the Iranian people in a referendum held at the time.
Then we have the small invasion of Iran by US troops in operation Eagle Claw, if I remember correctly, to free the US hostages being held in the embassy in Tehran.
This was followed by the Iran/Iraq war which decimated a whole generation of Iranian youth, and was very actively supported by the US. The US eventually intervened militarily in the war, on the side of Iraq. Lets not forget that Iraq was using gas on Iranian troops, and the international community did nothing to stop them.
The USS Vincennes then shot down the Iranian Airlines passenger plane. While likely an accident, it is easy to see how it could be viewed as a deliberate act by the Iranian people, especially as the US government never did apologize for it.
Then there was constant saber rattling and threats of invasion from about 2005 onward by the Bush government, especially around their nuclear weapons program, which basically doesn't exist.

To say the least, I am certainly no fan of the Iranian government, and would not be unhappy in the least to see it replaced by a real, full democracy, not the current mess of a part democracy/part theocracy. However, they certainly do have reason to dislike us and mistrust us.

Here's an interesting book review in which the author asserts the idea that we should focus our diplomatic efforts at establishing stronger ties to Iran and Turkey at the expense of Israel and Saudi Arabia. FWIW, Iran has a democratic legacy that far exceeds our current Muslim BFF in the Mideast, Saudi Arabia.

Also FWIW, the Saudis also routinely stone people to death, not to mention chopping off hands, etc. Where's our outrage when this occurs? I find the outrage regarding the stoning of the adultress in Iran a bit selective. Granted, it's barbaric. But it also happens in Pakistan, Saudi and Somalia without us splattering it all over the newspapers and TV news. Just sayin'.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing Iran as a total victim. There is little doubt in my mind that they have a hand in promoting anti-Western terrorism. Very little.

I think the whole mess started 1,300 years ago when the Muslims threw the Jews out of Israel. That, and the fact that people just can't seem to leave their religious beliefs out of government are why we're still fighting each other today.

If people would learn to,
A) Let go of the past and move on.
And,
B) Keep their religious beliefs inside the church/temple/mosque and NOT insist that governments enforce religious dogmas..............

Can you imagine?

Dave

No.:( I think religion is largely used by the political class as a rallying tool. Why would they ditch a tool that has been so effective over the years?

Could you actually imagine the GOP severing ties completely with the Religious Right? Hell, it's their base for God's sake (pun intended).

I know. That's my whole point, Finn.

Dave

Religion is often used as a cover for simple power struggles.

Pete

All excellent points.
But we have this bad habit of turning away when our allies are involved. And lets be honest, we keep the worst bastards in that part of the world in power to make sure that oil stays cheap.

Total victim? Of course not. The leadership of Iran are a bunch of bastards and need to be overthrown. This time it needs to be by the people without help from the outside.
Then again, after the crap they have been through, is it surprising that they fight back however they can?

That part of the world looks on history as being something current and relevant. It is very much a western view to only look forward and try to forget about the past.

I knew that. I was emphasizing the point for those that are nuance-challenged.;)

As it is here. Nothing more than a political tool. Works pretty good, too.

Dave

Is that French?

I hate French.

John

Freedom fries for John!

:D

Pete