Sabre rattling at Iran [Merged]

Hobbes

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-063005usiran_lat,0,2127396.story?coll=la-home-headlines

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration today demanded that the Iranian government clarify the role of President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the prolonged hostage crisis that followed.

I have to ask though.. why the heck didn't they know this already? Why is it coming to light only now? Also I saw a british report on it and Bush was swift to CHA on it claiming they are only allegations and not facts as of yet.

toiletduck

how exactly is this "sabre rattling at Iran?" Several of the hostages say it was him and the U.S. government, quite rightly, want to find out the truth if the allegations.

jman0

It doesn't matter if he was or wasn't involved in the hostage crisis.
The Iranians have the right to elect anyone they want.
They also have the right to prosecute or not prosecute anyone they want.
It's tough **** for the yanks, maybe they shouldn't have shot down that Iraninan Airbus and killed all those civilians years ago.

sovtek

toiletduck wrote:

how exactly is this "sabre rattling at Iran?" Several of the hostages say it was him and the U.S. government, quite rightly, want to find out the truth if the allegations.

Because it's being used as part of a propoganda stunt to whip up (American) public sentiment against Iran in what looks to be like a planned attack on Iran in the not too distant future.
Something that will bring the US military, and the US, to it's knees.
Adversly Iran could demand to know the role of Rumsfeld in aiding Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran...and a host of other **** that the US government has perpetrated against Iran without provocation.

toiletduck

jman0 wrote:

The Iranians have the right to elect anyone they want.
They also have the right to prosecute or not prosecute anyone they want.

indeed they do but if true that he was one of the hostage takers (still a very sore spot in American memories) then it will play right into the hands of those who label Iran as a "terrorist state" of "state sponspor of terrorism." And it will also strain relations between the two countries even further.

toiletduck

sovtek wrote:

Because it's being used as part of a propoganda stunt to whip up (American) public sentiment against Iran in what looks to be like a planned attack on Iran in the not too distant future.
Something that will bring the US military, and the US, to it's knees.

first of all, i dont think it's a "propaganda stunt" They just want to know the truth. There will be no invasion of Iran seeing as how the U.S. military is severly stretched.

sovtek

toiletduck wrote:

first of all, i dont think it's a "propaganda stunt" They just want to know the truth. There will be no invasion of Iran seeing as how the U.S. military is severly stretched.

They want to know the "truth"...how many years later?
I guess that's why they are making basically the same accusations against Iran that they were about Iraq.
Of course Bush and Rumsfeld would never do anything to overstretch the military...now would they?

Frank Grimes

Hobbes wrote:

I have to ask though.. why the heck didn't they know this already? Why is it coming to light only now?

I was just reading this on the BBC site.
Apparently most of the hostages say it was him (although it would be interesting to know why none of them or the CIA etc. had seen or heard of him beforehand - it's not like he was keeping a low profile for the last 25 years).
The group that actually took the hostages are saying he wasn't there. Those people are now part of the reformist groups in opposition to him in Iran, so I'd imagine if there was any political gain to be had by them from it they'd take it.
Link and another one.

jman0

toiletduck wrote:

indeed they do but if true that he was one of the hostage takers (still a very sore spot in American memories) then it will play right into the hands of those who label Iran as a "terrorist state" of "state sponspor of terrorism." And it will also strain relations between the two countries even further.

So what?
Are you suggesting Iranians should consider what USA thinks of them when they go to the polls?
It's absurd. C'mon now.
Did you consider it might be the other way around?
That the USA's posturing and labeling Iran a "terrorist state" puts ideological hardliners in Iran in the ascendency?

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

They want to know the "truth"...how many years later?

I do take your point and It's possible that you are right with respect to the motives in the case of Bush but as regards looking for the truth 30 or 40 years after an event, theres plenty of precedent for wanting to do that without wanting to stirr up "anti" sentiment of one sort or another.
Examples close to home for instance include:
The Dublin and Monagan bombings of 1974 where our Taoiseach in the last week only has indicated that he may have to sue the British government to open their files on the matter.
Theres also the Bloody sunday inquiry too.

toiletduck

jman0 wrote:

So what?
Are you suggesting Iranians should consider what USA thinks of them when they go to the polls?
It's absurd. C'mon now.

im not suggesting anything of the sort, merely pointing out what will happen imo.

sovtek wrote:

They want to know the "truth"...how many years later?

ill point ya to Eathmans response for that one.

sovtek wrote:

Of course Bush and Rumsfeld would never do anything to overstretch the military...now would they?

*sigh* they're not going to invade any time soon, the only feasible option at the moment would be air strikes but that isn't going to happen. If Iran is getting too close to the bomb (in the eyes of Israel and America), i wouldn't be surprised at an Israeli air strike on the nuclear facilities though.

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

Examples close to home for instance include:
The Dublin and Monagan bombings of 1974 where our Taoiseach in the last week only has indicated that he may have to sue the British government to open their files on the matter.
Theres also the Bloody sunday inquiry too.

I don't think Bertie has a history of propoganda folllowed by invasion of a sovereign nation though.
I don't see how the example is relevant.

sovtek

toiletduck wrote:

im not suggesting anything of the sort, merely pointing out what will happen imo.

ill point ya to Eathmans response for that one.

And I'll ask you as I have Earth, how that example is relevant.

*sigh* they're not going to invade any time soon, the only feasible option at the moment would be air strikes but that isn't going to happen. If Iran is getting too close to the bomb (in the eyes of Israel and America), i wouldn't be surprised at an Israeli air strike on the nuclear facilities though.

There was a rumour about attacking Iraq right after 9/11 as well.

toiletduck

i suppose since they were both terrorist actions, with no-one held accountable for the events and the victims/relatives of the victims, lokking for the truth years on.


i found this interesting
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4626081.stm

Interesting to note that the opposition leaders in Iran say it wasn't him


And anyone who thinks theres going to be an invasion of Iran in the near future has been listening to too much anti-war propaganda imo.

Hobbes

toiletduck wrote:

first of all, i dont think it's a "propaganda stunt" They just want to know the truth. There will be no invasion of Iran seeing as how the U.S. military is severly stretched.

US seems to have the habit of trial by media or giving up baseless accusations, eg. WMD, Swift Boat, Galloway.

Normally it is not until they are faced with the actual questions they back down. In this case Bush has gone on record saying they don't have any evidence it is him.

Btw, US won't be going into Iran (or anywhere else) unless something horrible happens domestically. Iraq is already having a huge negative effect in the US, and even his recent speech to the country didn't go down well. It appears that the soliders wouldn't applaud during the speech (which is normal that they do) and at the end it was a whitehouse official that started the applause and on the TV you can only see the first few lines of soliders applauding him.

gandalf

The Americans are not preparing to attack Iran (they do not have the resources!) but what could be happening is a PR exercise to prepare the US electorate for an Isreali bombinhg run on the Iranian Nuclear facilities which is a far more likely scenario.

As to whether this guy was involved in the Embassy, it would appear he was not as others who were involved and are now political rivals are saying it wasn't him.

Nuttzz

Its not that they dont have the resources, To attack Iran now would leave South Korea open for an attack, the US dont have the resources to fight 3 wars.

i'd expect action against Kim before Iran tbh

Hobbes

Nuttzz wrote:

Its not that they dont have the resources, To attack Iran now would leave South Korea open for an attack, the US dont have the resources to fight 3 wars.

US is never going to go into NK unless NK openly attacks the US which is highly unlikely.

1. China has NK on a leash to some extent.
2. Japan is more likely to attack NK if they took SK.
3. SK+NK relations are not great but they are not at war stage.
4. SK/NK border has the most concentration of landmines in the world.
5. SK is capable of fighting back now, it wasn't years ago but NK would be in for a wakeup call if it did attack.

US does not have resources to attack any other country at the moment without starting a draft and that would be political suicide.

As I said nothing short of something horrific happening the US is going on as normal.

Gandalf is probably correct in his assumption but such an attack while might get bland results in the US would be condemmed world wide.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

I don't think Bertie has a history of propoganda folllowed by invasion of a sovereign nation though.
I don't see how the example is relevant.

It's relevant because you were making an issue of why there should be a fuss made of something after 30 years.
What either leader did or their predecessors did is irrelevant to that, the fact is that making a fuss over something 30 years later is common.

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

It's relevant because you were making an issue of why there should be a fuss made of something after 30 years.
What either leader did or their predecessors did is irrelevant to that, the fact is that making a fuss over something 30 years later is common.

But in the context as war propoganda it isn't IMHO. That's what I was refering to.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

As I said nothing short of something horrific happening the US is going on as normal.

Gandalf is probably correct in his assumption but such an attack while might get bland results in the US would be condemmed world wide.

I'm not so sure. I thought this a few months back but the recent spate of Iran bashing makes me nervous. It must be all that anti-war propoganda!!!! :rolleyes:
Like gandalf I agree it could be a limited strike of some sort...or you could be entirely right and they do nothing.
But with this regime nothing would surprise me.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

But in the context as war propoganda it isn't IMHO. That's what I was refering to.

I understand the probability that it could be war propaganda and had taken your point at the start on that.But theres still nothing unusual in raising a concern today about events decades ago.

In fact it happens regularally on this forum where posters are quick to point out that Rummy et al were involved in selling weapons to Sadam.
Thats a very similar tactic to Bush pointing to the Iranian pres.elect's past involvement in hostage taking.
Both events were decades ago and both events are used to justify present dislikes or agenda's.

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

But theres still nothing unusual in raising a concern today about events decades ago.

On it's own...I agree.

In fact it happens regularally on this forum where posters are quick to point out that Rummy et al were involved in selling weapons to Sadam.
Thats a very similar tactic to Bush pointing to the Iranian pres.elect's past involvement in hostage taking.
Both events were decades ago and both events are used to justify present dislikes or agenda's.

No that was used to refute tenious excuses to invade a country and kill loads of people in the present.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

No that was used to refute tenious excuses to invade a country and kill loads of people in the present.

I'm talking about the tactic not the merit of the use of the tactic in the particular instance or the relative importance of the agenda behind the tactic in either instance.
Both are using the same tactic and it's a common occurance.

gandalf

Another thought is this is an effort to deflect away from the news of the deaths of 19 US service men by focusing the US publics minds on the "bad men" out there in the middle east as well.

If there is a strike the US will not take part directly but will allow the Israeli's to overfly Iraq on their bombing runs.

The Israeli's may do this to deflect from the eviction of squatters in the Gaza strip. (hmm maybe I should take off my tinfoil hat )

mike65

from Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Friday it has unearthed no evidence so far that Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was involved in the 1979 siege of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

Several Americans who were held have said they recognised the ultraconservative Ahmadinejad as a ringleader. But two Iranians who were leading figures in the storming of the embassy said he did not take part.

"We continue to look into it to establish the facts," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Asked if the United States was aware of the allegations before the hostages went public, McClellan noted that President George W. Bush had said on Thursday "that he didn't have any information."

No big deal methinks (unless you have antipithy towards Dubya).

Some more intrigue here

and esp for Hobbes - Pravda speaks


Mike.

Sand

Apparently most of the hostages say it was him (although it would be interesting to know why none of them or the CIA etc. had seen or heard of him beforehand - it's not like he was keeping a low profile for the last 25 years).

Whilst he was Mayor of Tehran, he came out of nowhere to win the elections for President. He is certainly far, far more high profile after his victory. The Mayor of Tehran being involved in the hostage taking - which would practically be mandatory for a political career in the Iranian establishment anyway - is hardly as interesting to the world, as the President of Iran, a country that is very likely developing nuclear weapons, being confirmed as a terrorist.

If nothing else it will make it more difficult for the Europeans to try and negotiate with Iran - which is doomed to failure anyway, Iran is quite clear that its not going to stop its development program. Its only engaging in the negotiations to play for time.

So what?
Are you suggesting Iranians should consider what USA thinks of them when they go to the polls?
It's absurd. C'mon now.

Agreed, I did find it laughable that people in the US were asked to vote for a President on the basis of what Europeans would think about them. The idiocy culminated in that disastrous project by the Guardian ( I think?) where they encouraged people to write letters to Americans in a particular swing state asking them to vote for Gore, because they didnt like Bush.

The Bush team were delighted.

The Americans are not preparing to attack Iran (they do not have the resources!) but what could be happening is a PR exercise to prepare the US electorate for an Isreali bombinhg run on the Iranian Nuclear facilities which is a far more likely scenario.

The Americans are not preparing to attack Iran (they do not have the resources!) but what could be happening is a PR exercise to prepare the US electorate for an Isreali bombinhg run on the Iranian Nuclear facilities which is a far more likely scenario.

Yeah, I think Israel will level any Iranian development facility pre-emptively, which its hard to blame them for. Most of the surrounding nations are happy to fund the Palestinian terrorism so its not beyond the boundaries of reason that the real hardcore in Iran might provide them with the nuclear option to deal Israel a fatal blow.

I think the US wouldnt be entirely in favour of it though - such a strike can only inflame the region and make Iraq even more difficult for them to operate in.

Hobbes

mike65 wrote:

and esp for Hobbes - Pravda speaks

Oh please, I'd have more respect for you if you quoted Fox News.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/27/fox_news_peddles_military_action_against_iran.php
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/04/20/not_ready_to_attack_iran_watch_fox_you_will_be.php

User45701

Read there that the New iranian presdiant took hostages back in 1979 they held hostages at the us embasy for 444 days aprarently he was one of the 3 main guys.

Is this "Just cause" i dont see the US going for iran over it because they dont have the man power or any backing or support from ne1 would create so much treouble but if they waanted to go for iran would this be a good enough excuse?

Source for news : International Herald Tribune

axtradub12

Looks like North Korea will sound out G.W. I wonder how Mr Bush feels about this

frootfancy

Another potential push-over Middle Eastern nation to have a pop at? You can bet on it. You gotta use up all your weapons so you can pay your bestest buddies to build more.

I believe a peaceful solution to North Korea, ahem.

county

peaceful,saddam was so peaceful,give him a noble peace prize and give one to bin ladan as well,if bush an blair dont stand up to these bastards who will

frootfancy

I'd respect that viewpoint if we were taking out Mugabe, Kim Jong II, Castro et al. However the west isn't doing anything to help the people of Zimbabwe, North Korea or Cuba.

Saddam for the main was harmless compared with what is happening in North Korea. On a wave of terror threats and WMDs we swept in. When nothing was found it was because it was the right thing to do. Funny how sincere people can be when there's no other excuse.

As for Bin Laden it sums it up when Bush admits he neither knows or cares where he is. The only reason Iraq was invaded was Bush's need for oil and his continued resistance to stop using it. Possibly the reason why Venezuala is sweating because from some whispers i've heard they're next on the 'terror' list. And just happen to be one of the largest oil producing nations on Earth.

In an ideal world Saddam would have been removed for his attrocities. In reality we may as well have given him the Nobel peace prize. If there wasn't a desert full of black gold under him he'd still be in power.

Tar.Aldarion

county wrote:

if bush an blair dont stand up to these bastards who will

shocking...just shocking.i just find the way thousands of innocents die in their method a little bad no?

it was for black gold and nothing more...best friends with the saudis and look at their country...

county

its war people die!

Tar.Aldarion

what a valid war *pictures the dozens of times bush lied on tv saying there are definitely wmds in iraq and also that pic of bush senior shaking hands with bush*
if this was such a heroic war why does he not go for saudi arabia...what if 19 iranians had been in a plane that hit the two towers instead of saudis im sure he would be nice to iran then and invite their leaders over for some tea....

getting rid of saddam is obviously right but ends do not justify means,bush had no right....oils well that ends well eh?

AmenToThat

It wont be an issue as I dont think the American people would buy into an attack on Iran. Bush got away with murder (literally) by using 9/11 as an excuse in Iraq but times have changed since then and the American people are starting to finally come out of their time of mourning and so there will be no attack on Iran.
They are having a hard enough time against 5million Sunni's back by some foreign fighters I dont think to many Americans would be willing to take on 60million Persians which would only drag the Shia south of Iraq into play and thus stop whatever chance there is (slim to none) of a resolution in Iraq.

Hobbes

county wrote:

its war people die!

So you going to sign up and help them? Remember a place in the army guarantees citizenship. Would you like know more?

athena 2000

User45701 wrote:

Read there that the New iranian presdiant took hostages back in 1979 they held hostages at the us embasy for 444 days aprarently he was one of the 3 main guys. <snip>
Source for news : International Herald Tribune

Iran's new president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not involved in the hostage taking though he was a member of the hard-line Islamic student group that took over the U.S. Embassy in 1979. He opposed the takeover according to other members of the group and wanted to focus efforts in another direction.

I think it's interesting to note that the Iranians that were part of the hostage takeover in '79 were proud of what they did and are still proud of it. Their names have been no secret in Iran for over 25 years.

I'm curious to see how this story will develop in the next week or so.

news link source

frootfancy

"if this was such a heroic war why does he not go for saudi arabia"

This always amused me about the 'War on Terrot ' TM. They rocked up in the Middle East. posted troops in the country that funded 9/11 then shelled the crap out its nextdoor neighbour. :eek:

frootfancy

"Read there that the New iranian presdiant took hostages back in 1979 they held hostages at the us embasy for 444 days aprarently he was one of the 3 main guys. <snip>"

Hang on, this guy was a terrorist a few years back? Sound like any former South African presidents we know? Still i don't suppose its as bad when Special AKA release a song calling for you to be set free.

Lemming

The US is not going to start getting jiggy with Iran for a couple of reasons:

1. The US miliatary is already stretched to breaking point with N.Korea, Afghanistan & Iraq (which is sucking more and more man power and funds into it - just like Vietnam did under Johnson's administration in 1965 and again in 1968)

2. Funding is already running up a massive deficit for Iraq

3. Iran is significantly geographically larger than Iraq

4. The Iranians have an army that hasn't been crippled by roughly ten years of sanctions.

5. They will, as pointed out, not only be dealing with the Iranians, but the Shia population within Iraq.

Hobbes

Looks like someone thinks they will hit them before Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4635187.stm

county

Hobbes wrote:

So you going to sign up and help them? Remember a place in the army guarantees citizenship. Would you like know more?

i dont get you?

frootfancy

Spooky that, to think i only mentioned it the other day...

Sleipnir

Hobbes wrote:

Looks like someone thinks they will hit them before Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4635187.stm

There's a hell of a lot of oil there.
Not so much in Zimbabwe, Congo, Burma, Chechnya...........

Kare Bear

Is this "Just cause" i dont see the US going for iran over it because they dont have the man power or any backing or support from ne1 would create so much treouble but if they waanted to go for iran would this be a good enough excuse?

If they really wanted too they could raise a lot more.

county

The US won't invade Iran for a number of reasons.

But mostly it comes down to money. Iran has deals with both China & N.Korea for the sale of Oil. Do you really think China will allow their Oil supply to be stopped by US imperialism? Hardly, especially now that they're focused so much on the modernisation of their Industry. They need that Oil more than ever.

The other aspect is that Iran has a modern military thats well equipped and well trained. There would be no way that a US invasion force could take the country without massive casualties. Which few Americans will support.

nop. No invasion. But, I wouldn't be suprised to see research centres being attacked by Israeli Bombers, or US backed "terrorists".

county wrote:

i dont get you?

Watch Starship Troopers. You'll understand what he meant then.

gandalf

Dammit I thought this thread covered this already. Do you people even check the other topics before posting.

Now should I bother to merge these threads !!!

Nuttzz

Deleted User wrote:

The other aspect is that Iran has a modern military thats well equipped and well trained. There would be no way that a US invasion force could take the country without massive casualties. Which few Americans will support.

People said the same thing about Saddams Army back in 1990, 250k body bags were flown out, emergency provisions for mass desert graves etc.

If they US were to attack Iran (which it wont) it would take the format of Iraq, Kosovo etc with massive air attacks and using "stand off" systems such as cruise missiles etc. the troops would go in after. The US operated aircraft carriers off their coast for years in the late 80's early 90's, their navy isnt up to much neither is their air force.

However for reasons stated here and in the other thread, it is unlikely the Iran would be attacked while Iraq is in the state its in.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

Watch Starship Troopers. You'll understand what he meant then.

While it seemed to go over the heads of a lot of the people who originally saw it, Paul Verhoeven actually meant this movie to be largely a satire of American patriotic media and how it is used to manipulate the masses. Given it came out in 1997, I the newscast following the attack on Buenos Aries in the movie, was disturbingly prophetic.