|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
From the article
| Quote: |
| The nuclear disarmament community needs to emphasize this demand and work to support leaders and policies focused on disarming Israel |
A state the size of Israel, surrounded by states which have sought to destroy it since its inception needs a nuclear deterrent. Iran is only being threatened precisely because it is persuing nuclear weapons and has a history of promoting terrorism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Israel would love to have good relations w/ Iran they did in fact when the Shah was in power.
It is funny that one war the "anti war" people support is any war against Israel.
Which means they are not really "anti war" at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some of the main points that I took out of the article were:
| Quote: |
| Many, although certainly not all, Iranians are pessimistic about Iran's political and economic opportunities. Others think that reform is possible but that it will be gradual. Regardless of how long it takes, democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. It must come from within, and be a form consistent with Islam. Very few people with whom we spoke don't want something more and better for their families and their country. They want economic progress and the liberalization of society. Most Iranians are living at or below poverty level, and many are underemployed. They seek peace, not war. |
This seems reasonable, the people of Iran, not its leadership are demographically young (from the intro of the article) and are much more progressive than its government. This should be the goal of US Foreign Policy, the activation of this type of liberal and progressive mentality, not an their present beligerence against all things Muslim. Forcing Democracy upon a population doesn't work, because no matter whether it is ostensibly good for them, no one, not anyone likes to be forcefed anything
| Quote: |
| Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the threats made by the US and Israel, and these concerns about future preemptive strikes by the US are founded in fact. The Bush administration has made it clear that it wants to pursue new nuclear weapons in the form of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) that could be used against a number of possible targets, including nuclear facilities in Iran. The hypocrisy of the Bush administration couldn't be more transparent. |
I do not see this as a problem, Israel persued Nuclear weapons at a time when the US didn't wish them to, and even stole plans and nuclear material from the US and other nations in order to produce nuclear weapons. They hid this from the United States and even built a false reactor to show a facade of legitimate use of nuclear energy, while all the time developing nuclear weapons. No nation other than the United States has used atomic weapons in war, and no other country would be fooish, in todays political climate to do so.
| Quote: |
| President Bush has said publicly that "all options are on the table" with respect to Iran. |
When faced with this kind of beligerence openly stated in an opposing nation's foreign policy, it is no wonder Iran wishes to attain the capabilities of nuclear deterence.
| Quote: |
| We need a foreign policy that is based on the complexities, rather than a caricature, of Iran. We must keep in sight perspectives and values other than our own, and press for a multifaceted understanding of Iran, not demonization. |
Excellent closing point - too long have both nations feared and despised one another, demonizing while never attempting to understand the reasons behind the hatred. People should do their thinking for themselves instead of letting their governments do it for them.
In the end, I don't think Iran having nuclear technology is the problem, but the mentality and foreign policy that exists today, that is based upon antiquated and archaic thinking. Iran isn't going to stop trying to gain the capabilities of Nuclear deterence, and if this old school thinking and policy making continues, then it may indeed be a danger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This should be the goal of US Foreign Policy, the activation of this type of liberal and progressive mentality |
In the long term yes. In the short term, a known sponsor of Islamic terrorism must be prevented from securing nuclear weapons.
| Quote: |
| Israel persued Nuclear weapons at a time when the US didn't wish them to |
Since its inception the Arab nations around Israel have sought to destroy it. Iran is still committed to this. Israel's wish to attain nuclear weapons is completely understandable.
| Quote: |
| When faced with this kind of beligerence openly stated in an opposing nation's foreign policy, it is no wonder Iran wishes to attain the capabilities of nuclear deterence. |
But you must ask yourself, why the belligerence? It is precisely because Iran is developing a nuclear capability that the USA has taken such a line.
| Quote: |
| too long have both nations feared and despised one another, demonizing while never attempting to understand the reasons behind the hatred. People should do their thinking for themselves instead of letting their governments do it for them. |
Interesting psychobabble, but it doesn't actually address the problem of how to stop Iran developing WMD. Meaningless platitudes are not needed in this situation.
| Quote: |
| but the mentality and foreign policy that exists today, that is based upon antiquated and archaic thinking. |
Please elaborate on this 'archaic thinking' you speak of.
| Quote: |
| I don't think Iran having nuclear technology is the problem |
An Islamic theocracy which has funded terrorist networks for a few decades is no threat to world peace or the long term security of the West. Good call. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
But you must ask yourself, why the belligerence? It is precisely because Iran is developing a nuclear capability that the USA has taken such a line.
|
Do you feel that beligerence is warranted or useful in dealing with such a tennuous situation, it sure has worked with North Korea I see, threats and the like sure made KJI halt his nuclear armament process. Sorry the irony of the situation just brought out the sarcasm, I usually stay away from it.
So is the beligerence strictly due to Iran pursuing Nuclear arms, or is it something a little more deep and basically more complex?
| Iwrote wrote: |
| too long have both nations feared and despised one another, demonizing while never attempting to understand the reasons behind the hatred. People should do their thinking for themselves instead of letting their governments do it for them. |
| Quote: |
| Interesting psychobabble, but it doesn't actually address the problem of how to stop Iran developing WMD. Meaningless platitudes are not needed in this situation. |
Call my opinions what you want, its easy to dismiss another's opinions and I really don't care, but I think the thread's (or at least the article quoted) was about the differing opinions about US Foreign policy within Iran, from which there was extrapolated one divergent conversation about Nuclear Arms.
Your position is that the main problem with Iran is that they wish to secure Nuclear weapons, mine is that the hostile and combative relations between two governments based upon an "old school" Cold War mentality (both antiquated and archaic) has resulted in neither party really understanding each other.
The broader issue must be addressed as well as the immediate situation of nuclear armamament, does it not? Just because our views are divergent, does not in fact make mine ultimately meaningless: to say so does not help the debate and seems flippant and somewhat ignorant IMHO, but meh.
| Quote: |
| An Islamic theocracy which has funded terrorist networks for a few decades is no threat to world peace or the long term security of the West. Good call. |
I thought you had read the article, my mistake...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deconstructor
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If Iran develops nuclear weapons, we are sure to see a nuclear war in our lifetime. Israel cannot sit back and must attack because the very raison d'etre of Iran is the destruction of Israel. The problem for the latter is that it cannot know exactly where these nukes are located, so it must attack at multiple sites before they�re developed, or it must nuke Iran, annihilate it absolutely.
Any other decision would mean the destruction of Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deconstructor wrote: |
If Iran develops nuclear weapons, we are sure to see a nuclear war in our lifetime. Israel cannot sit back and must attack because the very raison d'etre of Iran is the destruction of Israel. The problem for the latter is that it cannot know exactly where these nukes are located, so it must attack at multiple sites before they뭨e developed, or it must nuke Iran, annihilate it absolutely.
Any other decision would mean the destruction of Israel. |
Though this, in a limited sense may seem true, and even moderate Iranian politicians see Israel as occupiers of Islamic peoples, this may not in fact be a given. The official Iranian stance upon the whole issue is one that revokes violence in the form of terrorism (though there are still radicals who support terrorist agencies) and that there would be recognition of Israel in an official manner, if the end of the Arab Israeli dispute resulted in a settlement that was agreeable to Palestinian interests.
The youthfulness of the Iranian people, who feel imprisoned by the theocratic conservatives, can cause regime change from within, without outside forced change, that ultimately will cause reversion back to feelings of hostility.
I don't see Nuclear War as a forgone conclusion, since it isn't in the interest of Iran or Israel. It would develop a relationship of mutual reservation until a regime change within Iran could be secured - through it natural order. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| They hid this from the United States and even built a false reactor to show a facade of legitimate use of nuclear energy, while all the time developing nuclear weapons. No nation other than the United States has used atomic weapons in war, and no other country would be fooish, in todays political climate to do so. |
who knows what followers of Khomeni would do. They attack even attacked a jewish community center overseas. So they are capable of doing something wild.
They are not the only ones in that region either Saddam intended to "ride out a nuclear exchange w/ Isreal". (put the phrase into a search engine)
Iran at this time opposes any compromise on mideast peace. That a problem. They have also said that even if the Palestinians reach a settlement they will not give up their war with Israel.
Here is an article that makes essentially the same points as the article with out the white wash.
| Quote: |
May 19, 2004
The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof
There is one force that could rescue Iran's hard-line ayatollahs from the dustbin of history: us.
For all its denials, Iran seems to be pushing for nuclear warheads and for missiles to carry them. It could make its first weapon in two years, and it could eventually produce enough enriched uranium at Natanz for 25 weapons a year.
Iran's leaders have regularly gotten away with murder. They apparently helped bomb U.S. marines in Lebanon in 1983, a Jewish center in Argentina in 1994 and U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996. So it's easy to understand why President Bush declared recently that it's "intolerable" for Iran to be on the road toward nuclear weapons, adding, "Otherwise they will be dealt with, starting through the United Nations."
To Mr. Bush, not unreasonably, Iran conjures up a frightening combination: nuts with nukes. The push for a tougher approach toward Iran isn't partisan, and a President Kerry might also pursue a more confrontational, albeit more multilateral, approach to Iran.
But that would be a mistake.
First, it won't work. If we haul Iran before the Security Council, it will restart its programs (it has suspended at least some) and kick out inspectors. Iran will respond to more pressure not by dropping its nuclear program, but by accelerating it.
Second, we'll create a nationalistic backlash in Iran that will keep hard-liners in power indefinitely. Our sanctions and isolation have kept dinosaurs in power in Cuba, North Korea and Burma, and my fear is that we'll do the same in Iran.
What I fear is this: Over the next year or two, the West will press Iran harder, Iran will halt its nuclear cooperation and evict inspectors, Israel will bomb a couple of Iran's nuclear sites (a possibility widely discussed in security circles, although it would slow Iran's nuclear progress without ending it), and Iran's ayatollahs will benefit from a nationalistic surge to stay in power and rule more rabidly than ever.
"We love America," began Mansour Jahanbakhsa, a businessman, in a typical comment, but he added that Iran should develop nuclear weapons. "Iranians would become angry at meddling by America," he said, and his demeanor changed. "We are an old country with an ancient civilization, and we are proud of it. How come Israel can have them and we can't? It makes me angry."
A young woman, Maryan Nazeri, complained about the regime but said she would support it in a confrontation over nuclear weapons. "We're going to have them," she said. "Maybe we do already. It's our right. We're Iranians, so what do you expect? Just as you want America to be strong, we want Iran to be strong."
Then Massoud Taheri scolded: "Your president calling us a rogue nation and disrespecting our 5,000 years of civilization is offensive. How many years of civilization do you have?"
Our goal should be regime change in Tehran. But if Mr. Bush (or Mr. Kerry) pushes Tehran too hard over nukes, we'll fail to get rid of either the nuclear program or this regime.
The only alternative is engagement — the precise opposite of the sanctions and isolation that have been U.S. policy under both Presidents Clinton and Bush. Sanctions are even less effective against Iran than against, say, North Korea, because Iran oozes petroleum and is independently wealthy. Isolation by the U.S. has accomplished even less in Iran than it has in Cuba.
So we should vigorously pursue a "grand bargain" in which, among other elements, Iran maintains its freeze on uranium enrichment and we establish diplomatic relations and encourage business investment, tourism and education exchanges.
"What would destroy the conservatives [in Iran] would be a money flood" of American investment, says Hooshang Amirahmadi, the president of the American Iranian Council. "In just a few years, the conservatives would be finished."
The bottom line is that we could soon have a pro-American Islamic democracy as a beacon for hope in the Middle East — in Tehran, not Baghdad. The risk is that we'll blow it. |
http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=05&d=19&a=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bignate wrote: |
bigverne wrote:
But you must ask yourself, why the belligerence? It is precisely because Iran is developing a nuclear capability that the USA has taken such a line.
Do you feel that beligerence is warranted or useful in dealing with such a tennuous situation, it sure has worked with North Korea I see, threats and the like sure made KJI halt his nuclear armament process. Sorry the irony of the situation just brought out the sarcasm, I usually stay away from it.
So is the beligerence strictly due to Iran pursuing Nuclear arms, or is it something a little more deep and basically more complex? |
That could also be an argument against going ahead with a deal with Iran. After all, a deal was made with KJI after Kim Dae-Jung haraunged at Clinton on the phone, and look how the results have panned out.
Not that I feel the North Korean situation is 100% analogous. I think the Iranians could be held accountable by a truly honest IAEA, and American threats. I agree wholeheartedly with the Kristof article Joo posted below, plus I would like to present some other problems with invading Iran not yet considered.
Firstly, it would sabotage Operation Iraqi Freedom as it is still most vulnerable. America's most powerful ally in the region, Ayatollah Sistani, has spoken out against a possible invasion of Iran. We would lose the Shi'a in Iraq.
Secondly, it would send relations between the United States on one hand and Russia and China together on the other into the toilet. Both are backing Iran in this fight, asserting its rights to develop nuclear weapons (Iran in return backs China's claim for Taiwan, and ironically even supports Russia against the Chechens). This would hurt the US diplomatically with all of Asia, including Europe, which would find it hard to back the US against the competition in the light of an invasion, and with India, who right now is enjoying good relations with both the US and China.
All in all, it looks like Iran has won. What the US needs to do is promise a security guarentee with Iran in exchange for a guarentee that Iran not develop nuclear weapons. Right now, it's rumoured that the neo-con administration is crossing its fingers for revolutionary forces to topple the Iranian government, but that seems very unlikely to happen. In fact, I would call wishing upon this star to be irresponsible when the alternative is a diplomatic engagement with Iran that might still convince them that they do not need nuclear weapons to retain their sovereignty.
I disagree with some posters in this thread that a nuclear Iran would not be such a bad thing. It would be a nightmare. It would forestall any possible gradual evolution for Iran to become more democratic by strengthening the hard-liner regime. It would also give a nation with real terrorist connections a nuclear foothold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Joo and Kuros for the replies, I understand both of your concerns with a nuclear Iran, and though, I have my own reservations - I think that regardless, Iran will, if they have not already become nuclear.
Joo,
| Joo wrote: |
| Iran at this time opposes any compromise on mideast peace. That a problem. They have also said that even if the Palestinians reach a settlement they will not give up their war with Israel. |
Though, they may oppose, the idea of Israel, and has a seemingly eternally divided political duplicity, as I stated before Khatami's influence upon the general opinion of Iranian people has brought about change when considering the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Though there still remains the stumbling block of the ultimate clerical leader vs a more reform minded political interest, we will see in the forthcoming elections if there is a chance for further democratic reform...
| Quote: |
Khatami��s determination to change Iran��s image became clear in January 1998, early in his first term, when he used the occasion of a CNN interview with correspondent Christiane Amanpour to deliver a message to the people of the United States. In carefully prepared remarks, he addressed all the outstanding issues between the United States and Iran, including terrorism:
We believe in the holy Quran that says: slaying of one innocent person is
tantamount to the slaying of all humanity. How could such a religion, and
those who claim to be its followers, get involved in the assassination of innocent individuals and the slaughter of innocent human beings? We categorically reject all these allegations. �� Terrorism should be condemned in all its forms and manifestations; assassins must be condemned. Terrorism is useless anyway and we condemn it categorically. �� At the same time, supporting peoples who fight for the liberation of their land is not, in my opinion, supporting terrorism. It is, in fact, supporting those who are engaged in combating state terrorism.
When further asked, ��Regardless of the motive, do you believe that killing innocent women and children is terrorism, as for instance what happens on the streets of Israel?�� Khatami replied, ��It is definitely so. Any form of killing of innocent men and women who are not involved in confrontations is terrorism; it must be condemned, and we, in our term, condemn every form of it in the world.�� |
http://www.twq.com/03autumn/docs/03autumn_sick.pdf
| Nicholas D. Kristof wrote: |
So we should vigorously pursue a "grand bargain" in which, among other elements, Iran maintains its freeze on uranium enrichment and we establish diplomatic relations and encourage business investment, tourism and education exchanges.
"What would destroy the conservatives [in Iran] would be a money flood" of American investment, says Hooshang Amirahmadi, the president of the American Iranian Council. "In just a few years, the conservatives would be finished." |
I think this is essentially what has been missing in much of the Middle East diplomacy - it should be the goal of Nations to share democracy, rather than force it upon - let democracy change and suit the particular society - in its own due course.
| Quote: |
That could also be an argument against going ahead with a deal with Iran. After all, a deal was made with KJI after Kim Dae-Jung harangued at Clinton on the phone, and look how the results have panned out.
Not that I feel the North Korean situation is 100% analogous. |
Though I suppose this could be considered true, one must also realize the timing of North Korea's turn from Nuclear concession to Nuclear possession came precisely at the time when Bush after taking over at the White House, declared that the United States would no longer deal diplomatically with the likes of North Korea and would consider them forthwith, a part of the "Axis of Evil" - after all Kuros, it was only after this sort of belligerence and showmanship, that KJI expelled the weapons inspectors and secured the fuel rods for reprocessing and production of Nuclear weapons - perhaps they had been working on the technology (which Clinton had kept a diplomatic and military leash on), but the belligerence was the essential catalyst of the production end. Not only belligerence, but an ignorance that humiliated both KJI and KDJ and in the end was the main reason why KJI broke away from the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and showed how Bush preferred it to be that way - because it instilled a deep fear in all of America and much of the world.
| Kuros wrote: |
Firstly, it would sabotage Operation Iraqi Freedom as it is still most vulnerable. America's most powerful ally in the region, Ayatollah Sistani, has spoken out against a possible invasion of Iran. We would lose the Shi'a in Iraq.
Secondly, it would send relations between the United States on one hand and Russia and China together on the other into the toilet. Both are backing Iran in this fight, asserting its rights to develop nuclear weapons (Iran in return backs China's claim for Taiwan, and ironically even supports Russia against the Chechens). This would hurt the US diplomatically with all of Asia, including Europe, which would find it hard to back the US against the competition in the light of an invasion, and with India, who right now is enjoying good relations with both the US and China.
All in all, it looks like Iran has won. What the US needs to do is promise a security guarentee with Iran in exchange for a guarentee that Iran not develop nuclear weapons. Right now, it's rumoured that the neo-con administration is crossing its fingers for revolutionary forces to topple the Iranian government, but that seems very unlikely to happen. In fact, I would call wishing upon this star to be irresponsible when the alternative is a diplomatic engagement with Iran that might still convince them that they do not need nuclear weapons to retain their sovereignty. |
Excellent and probably a safer analysis, from a Western standpoint, of the situation than I had initially supposed - though I feel that it is almost inescapable that a nation such as Iran - in the situation it is in and from the belligerence which it faces - can remain nuclear free at this time - it would definitely be for the best if it did. I just don't feel that it has been given much choice in the matter. It should be able to defend itself against a belligerent nation that wishes to attack it, and from what we have seen - when a weak nation is attacked by a strong and highly technological nation - conventionally it has no chance of survival - the precedent has already been set...
| Kuros wrote: |
| I disagree with some posters in this thread that a nuclear Iran would not be such a bad thing. It would be a nightmare. It would forestall any possible gradual evolution for Iran to become more democratic by strengthening the hard-liner regime. It would also give a nation with real terrorist connections a nuclear foothold. |
It could also be the deterrence needed to maintain a sovereign nation from an attack from a belligerent nation as well.
From the previously quoted article (emphasis mine):
| Quote: |
Iran has clearly changed its policies substantially over time. The hostagetaking and regional destabilization campaigns of the early days of the Iranian revolution that were so immensely costly to Iran��s image and that continue to plague its international relations have vanished. As Khatami delicately put it in his CNN interview, there is no longer any need for such ��unconventional methods.�� Assassinating enemies of the Islamic Republic in Europe ended in 1994. Later killings outside Europe focused primarily on members of the Mujahideen-e Khalq, but those have also largely ceased in recent years and may have been rendered pointless by U.S. occupation of Mujahideen-e Khalq camps in Iraq and severe crackdowns on the organization in France and elsewhere.
The most substantial changes in Iran��s apparent policies and behavior have come with Khatami��s election. Although Khatami has been largely unsuccessful in his attempt to move the ruling clerical elite toward his vision of greater political liberty, civil society, and rule of law, he has changed the political discourse in Iran. His housecleaning of the Intelligence Ministry — one of the few genuine achievements to come out of his many confrontations with the conservative power structure—may have significantly curtailed Iran��s earlier tendency toward interventionism and feckless adventurism.
Throughout much of this history, there has been a gap between Iran��s declaratory policy and the actions of malevolent forces embedded in Iran��s security services. Khatami has been successful in weeding out some of these individuals, but the job is far from complete. The magnitude of the problem that remains may be reflected in alleged Iranian support for arms shipments to Palestine and providing refuge to Al Qaeda fugitives. Iran��s denial of involvement is insufficient. For the sake of its credibility, Iran must demonstrate a genuine determination to investigate such charges and to remedy any abuses. Its extradition of hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters was a step in the right direction, but Iran needs to clean its house of all known terrorists, including Lebanese and Palestinian figures with long histories of involvement in bombings and assassinations.
Confronting the hard-line elements that distort its foreign and domestic
policies goes far beyond allegations of international terrorism. That struggle lies at the heart of Iran��s political identity and will determine the course of its future. The United States and the international community can keep the spotlight on Iran��s abuses and press hard for change. If the pressure for change is applied fairly and if Washington acknowledges Iran��s accomplishments as well as its failures, the world will be assured of staunch allies within Iran. Change is a slow and often uncertain process, but it is something that can be done only by Iran itself. |
I think this is an essential realization - change is coming, though it is slow - in the end Iran can do it itself - if it is allowed the time to do so. And for it to be looked down upon by a nation that already has resigned it to villainous status - because of past crimes, while failing to acknowledge present advances and progress, leaves Iran, a relatively isolated nation, with one option - self preservation and defence of its own sovereignty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Though, they may oppose, the idea of Israel, and has a seemingly eternally divided political duplicity, as I stated before Khatami's influence upon the general opinion of Iranian people has brought about change when considering the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Though there still remains the stumbling block of the ultimate clerical leader vs a more reform minded political interest, we will see in the forthcoming elections if there is a chance for further democratic reform... |
Khatami is a reasonable guy, but he is not the one in charge in Iran. Ali Khamani is that is the real problem.
| Quote: |
| I think this is essentially what has been missing in much of the Middle East diplomacy - it should be the goal of Nations to share democracy, rather than force it upon - let democracy change and suit the particular society - in its own due course. |
I agree that is better when it is possible , but there was a difference between Iran where there is some debate in society, and Saddam's Iraq which was twisted and not reformable cause of Saddam's rule. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Iran indeed at present is the big winner for four reasons:
1. The extension of Iranian influence in neighouring Iraq at zero cost
2. The elimination of the hated Taliban in Afghanistan and extension of influence there in Herat and among the Hazara
3. The Iraq occupation and insurgency tying down belligerent American forces, allowing Iran time to develop nukes and build ties elsewhere
4. The rise in oil prices boosting state coffers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:49 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Israel would love to have good relations w/ Iran they did in fact when the Shah was in power. |
You mean the un-democratic puppet-dictator the US installed when it overthrew a DEMOCRATIC Iran in 1953?
And I KNOW you KNOW about all of this crapola, Joo.
Nothing objective here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:11 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Israel would love to have good relations w/ Iran they did in fact when the Shah was in power. |
You mean the un-democratic puppet-dictator the US installed when it overthrew a DEMOCRATIC Iran in 1953?
And I KNOW you KNOW about all of this crapola, Joo.
Nothing objective here. |
Do you have any evidence that Israel and Iran had any major problems before the Aytollah Khomeni came to power?
Isreal would like to have good relations w/ Iran the same way it gets along with Turkey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
