Has anyone seen the interviews on CNN and others with the President of Iran? Personally he has always seemed like a brilliant but radical fundamentalist to me. However the way he has answered a lot of the questions leaves me with questions as to 1. How our media portrays some of what he says or has said in the past and/or 2. Is he really that smart and playing both side of the table?
I say this because I thought Bush's speech was arrogant and presumptave, probably doing little except to fuel further anti-American feelings around the world. I've gotten the exact oppsite feelings when watching and listening to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. He IS saying exactly the right things right now... he even made cordial statements about the Holocoust and explained why he said what he did last year and while many won't agree, he had a vald point. Are there other points, yea, but he definitely seems like someone we should be at the table with not just waving off.
In another briefing today he brought up the stuff about us supporting the Shah and all the killings during his reign etc... and us support Saddam against him, even though both of those were dictators and Iran is now a Republic...
Now I'm not saying he is being truthful in everything he is saying, I think that takes a little more research by different Nations, people etc... but sometimes we don't either... anyway, thinking outloud I guess. But he did come across as very truthful and accomidating in what I have seen, at least IMHO.
What do you guys think? Xyun, I would definitely be interested in your thoughts in regards to Iran (feel free to PM me or email me if you want). Im just curious.
I think most of you know my feelings in that we should have setup an Embassy with Iran and started working with them long ago, at the very least after 9/11 because I believe out of all the countries in the Middle East they truly have the best chance to be a democracy and could be a very strong ally but to get there we are going have to give a little ourselves... anway...
Marb
Anyone been watching the UN stuff...?
Remember that Ahmadinejad is a politician, and a charismatic one. He'll spin just like the best of the Dems and Republicans and the "acid test" is his ability to make himself sound reasonable.
I could be wrong, but at the time of the Iran-Iraq war, I thought the US had already tired of Saddam and he had turned to the Soviets (where he got a lot of his Warsaw Pact equip that was blown up in the Gulf War). My recollection (albeit fuzzy) is that most of the West/NATO countries just hoped the conflict would be confined to 2 regimes no one really liked.
As far as the Shah goes, there's no denying that he was the man the West supported, for better or for worse, but although Iran may claim to be a republic, its almost the same farce as Saddam's elections. The people elect a president/gov't who then answer to the council of imams who are the real rulers and decision makers.
In some respects I don't doubt he is genuine in wanting to ensure the prosperity and security of his country but with some of the rhetoric its hard to believe that he (or rather Iran) is the complete dove he has been trying to project in some of these speeches/interviews.
I could be wrong, but at the time of the Iran-Iraq war, I thought the US had already tired of Saddam and he had turned to the Soviets (where he got a lot of his Warsaw Pact equip that was blown up in the Gulf War). My recollection (albeit fuzzy) is that most of the West/NATO countries just hoped the conflict would be confined to 2 regimes no one really liked.
As far as the Shah goes, there's no denying that he was the man the West supported, for better or for worse, but although Iran may claim to be a republic, its almost the same farce as Saddam's elections. The people elect a president/gov't who then answer to the council of imams who are the real rulers and decision makers.
In some respects I don't doubt he is genuine in wanting to ensure the prosperity and security of his country but with some of the rhetoric its hard to believe that he (or rather Iran) is the complete dove he has been trying to project in some of these speeches/interviews.
Wulfran Moondancer
Stupid Sidekick of the Lambent Dorf
Petitioner to Club Bok Bok
Founding Member of the Barbarian Nation Movement
Stupid Sidekick of the Lambent Dorf
Petitioner to Club Bok Bok
Founding Member of the Barbarian Nation Movement
-
*~*stragi*~*
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 3876
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: kimj0ngil
- Location: Ahwatukee, Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Anyone been watching the UN stuff...?
I despise any regime that is led by radicals and fanatics. I think that Iran in the late 90s was becoming more and more progressive and beginning to very slowly accept a few western ideas. All that was flushed down the shitter in 2001.Marbus wrote:Has anyone seen the interviews on CNN and others with the President of Iran? Personally he has always seemed like a brilliant but radical fundamentalist to me. However the way he has answered a lot of the questions leaves me with questions as to 1. How our media portrays some of what he says or has said in the past and/or 2. Is he really that smart and playing both side of the table?
I say this because I thought Bush's speech was arrogant and presumptave, probably doing little except to fuel further anti-American feelings around the world. I've gotten the exact oppsite feelings when watching and listening to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. He IS saying exactly the right things right now... he even made cordial statements about the Holocoust and explained why he said what he did last year and while many won't agree, he had a vald point. Are there other points, yea, but he definitely seems like someone we should be at the table with not just waving off.
In another briefing today he brought up the stuff about us supporting the Shah and all the killings during his reign etc... and us support Saddam against him, even though both of those were dictators and Iran is now a Republic...
Now I'm not saying he is being truthful in everything he is saying, I think that takes a little more research by different Nations, people etc... but sometimes we don't either... anyway, thinking outloud I guess. But he did come across as very truthful and accomidating in what I have seen, at least IMHO.
What do you guys think? Xyun, I would definitely be interested in your thoughts in regards to Iran (feel free to PM me or email me if you want). Im just curious.
I think most of you know my feelings in that we should have setup an Embassy with Iran and started working with them long ago, at the very least after 9/11 because I believe out of all the countries in the Middle East they truly have the best chance to be a democracy and could be a very strong ally but to get there we are going have to give a little ourselves... anway...
Marb
You hear Bush yapping about emboldening the enemy and it's ironic. The Iraq war and this most recent crisis in Lebanon have done more to embolden the Iranian regime than any fucking New York Times article. In fact, Iran is sitting prettier now than it has in 5 decades.
Consider the following:
Iran is sitting on one of the world's richest oil reserves and learning how to use this fact politically and strategically. There's no doubt that demand in oil is skyrocketing. Large developing industrial nations like Russia and China need that oil and will not be willing to endanger their own supply of oil with trade sanctions.
Iran has control over the strait of Hormuz. 40% of the world's oil is exported through this narrow waterway. Can you imagine what would happen to the price of oil if this were shut down? Technically they can't shut it down, but they do have a stout navy and it wouldn't be too hard to litter the passage with mines and explosives.
Iran has loyalist spread throughout "hot zones" in the mid-east. There are the shiites in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in palestine. In addition, while the leaders of other muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia have somewhat distanced themselves from Iran, the populations of those countries fully support Iran and its regime.
Iran is developing nuclear power which entails nuclear weapons. While this process may be slowed down, it is inevitable that they will attain nukes. Once they have, they become a much larger and more powerful player in the world stage.
They also know that the US cannot afford to attack them, much less invade them. An attack on Iran means the price of oil will immediately skyrocket, I would think doubling within a matter of days. In addition, they would shut down the strait of hormuz, rally muslims in places where US and Israeli troops are vulnerable such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Lebanon, and maybe even activate sleeper cells of terrorists within western countries. They will also recruit a few allies that will help them, economically or militarily. Iran also has not had to endure 10 years of sanctions and embargos and no fly zones and such. Their military is active and fresh, their citizenry is stubborn and proud.
That is the reality of the situation and even this administration realizes that Iran is a much bigger and more powerful spectre than Iraq could ever be. Considering all this, people need to take Iran's leader much more seriously than they currently do, no matter how fucking crazy the guy may be.
As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't much care for religion driven governments. But if you were to ask me who is a more reasonable and intelligent man, Bush or Ahmedinejad, I'd choose the latter.
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
Xyun,
Most people that have even a little knowledge of the Middle East understand that Iran is a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was.
All that you laid out in your post is true although I can't really compare Bush to Ahmedinejad as Bush is just a figurehead and I would guess that Ahmedinejad holds more actual power.
You're also correct in that the U.S. economy can't handle a doubling in the price of oil but also, if backed into a corner (meaning our posh way of life is at stake), will use tactical nukes if needed to cripple Iran. I'm sure some people laugh, but the U.S. will get it's oil one way or another and if it doesn't, the rest of the world, in an economic sense, is going down with them. The world can hate the United States but we're still the main driving force that makes the world economy go...it's not China yet.
The Iranian military currently is much more powerful than Iraq's at it's prime but a continuous 24/7 air pounding with todays intelligence and high tech weaponry would devistate Iran...communications, whatever navy and aircraft Iran has, which is sizable, would be taken out relatively quickly and it'd be a matter of Iran's ground troops vs Tomahawks, the latest pilotless U.S. drones, and most likely tactical nukes. The U.S. can't occupy Iran without massive losses in life. In the case of Iran, I don't think ground troops would go into the country but that doesn't mean the full force of the United State's high tech weaponry, adding tactical nukes, can't make Iran a living hell to be in. Iran may have a sizable army but they don't stand a chance in controlling the skies and can't defend against bunker busters, smart bombs, Tomahawks, stealth strikes continuously pounding them from a U.S. controlled Iranian skies and rotating offshore carrier groups. Americans don't rely on Iranian oil now so don't need to pussyfoot around taking out their oil fields even if Russia and China get upset...if it comes to the point where the U.S. must take on Iran, then it already means the United State's economy is in serious jeopardy so bringing in the rest of the world into the conflict isn't going to matter. China, Russia and whoever else gets oil from Iran is still going to need oil after all is said and done. The U.S. also probably wouldn't be too concerned with civilian casualties if it came to war with Iran. World opinion? Fuck world opinion at this point if it comes to it. The UN can send us a strongly worded letter.
The U.S. wouldn't lose but WWIII would be on it's way even if not as massive as WWII was all at once, it would be global and spread out over a decade. Everyone would lose. Iran would be completely destroyed in the sense of infrastructure...power plants, dams, whatever...and the U.S.'s economy would take a huge hit leaving Americans with one TV per household instead of three or four. (kidding, we'd be screwed much worse than that and so would most of the rest of the West)
Iran does have loyalists in other countries but the latest Israeli beat down given to the Hezbollah in lebanon demonstrates that they aren't that much of a threat in a real war. Israel alone can mop them up.
The main point out of all of this is that Iran does have the power to spark WWIII and if anyone needs to be wise, it's Ahmedinejad as he can start it but Iran will end up in catastrophic shape while the rest of the world suffers economically. The wise thing to do is give the U.S. their oil without hassle and use the money made off the oil wisely to strengthen Iran economically in areas other than oil.
Take Iran seriously? Hell yes. It's not a matter of winning, it's a matter of how bad a hit the U.S. would take by not taking them out compared to the economic hit for skyrocketing oil prices which would screw the U.S... Granted, oil prices would skyrocket anyway if WWIII kicks off but what does the U.S. have to lose? You've got a fanatical religious country that wants to spread their ideals to the rest of the world cockblocking our oil. It's not going to get any better if the U.S. lets Iran dictate policy in the Middle East and the flow of oil is a must for the U.S. economy for the next 20-30 years minimum.
I'm not defending the U.S. in this. The rest of the oil guzzling Western world gets off free while the U.S. takes the publicity hit as usual. It's a matter of fact and too late to change how the world's oil based economy is setup. Hate Bush all you want, but put a democrat in office and see what happens if Iran starts screwing around in the Middle East....same scenario as above. All we can do now it take baby steps toward shifting the real problem, decision makers with their wealth tied up in oil related companies, and figure out a way for them to make money and retain power in an alternative fuel run world. Republican, Democrat...doesn't matter until the real problem is acknowledged and even then it will take the rest of our lifetimes to fix.
Peace out.
Most people that have even a little knowledge of the Middle East understand that Iran is a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was.
All that you laid out in your post is true although I can't really compare Bush to Ahmedinejad as Bush is just a figurehead and I would guess that Ahmedinejad holds more actual power.
You're also correct in that the U.S. economy can't handle a doubling in the price of oil but also, if backed into a corner (meaning our posh way of life is at stake), will use tactical nukes if needed to cripple Iran. I'm sure some people laugh, but the U.S. will get it's oil one way or another and if it doesn't, the rest of the world, in an economic sense, is going down with them. The world can hate the United States but we're still the main driving force that makes the world economy go...it's not China yet.
The Iranian military currently is much more powerful than Iraq's at it's prime but a continuous 24/7 air pounding with todays intelligence and high tech weaponry would devistate Iran...communications, whatever navy and aircraft Iran has, which is sizable, would be taken out relatively quickly and it'd be a matter of Iran's ground troops vs Tomahawks, the latest pilotless U.S. drones, and most likely tactical nukes. The U.S. can't occupy Iran without massive losses in life. In the case of Iran, I don't think ground troops would go into the country but that doesn't mean the full force of the United State's high tech weaponry, adding tactical nukes, can't make Iran a living hell to be in. Iran may have a sizable army but they don't stand a chance in controlling the skies and can't defend against bunker busters, smart bombs, Tomahawks, stealth strikes continuously pounding them from a U.S. controlled Iranian skies and rotating offshore carrier groups. Americans don't rely on Iranian oil now so don't need to pussyfoot around taking out their oil fields even if Russia and China get upset...if it comes to the point where the U.S. must take on Iran, then it already means the United State's economy is in serious jeopardy so bringing in the rest of the world into the conflict isn't going to matter. China, Russia and whoever else gets oil from Iran is still going to need oil after all is said and done. The U.S. also probably wouldn't be too concerned with civilian casualties if it came to war with Iran. World opinion? Fuck world opinion at this point if it comes to it. The UN can send us a strongly worded letter.
The U.S. wouldn't lose but WWIII would be on it's way even if not as massive as WWII was all at once, it would be global and spread out over a decade. Everyone would lose. Iran would be completely destroyed in the sense of infrastructure...power plants, dams, whatever...and the U.S.'s economy would take a huge hit leaving Americans with one TV per household instead of three or four. (kidding, we'd be screwed much worse than that and so would most of the rest of the West)
Iran does have loyalists in other countries but the latest Israeli beat down given to the Hezbollah in lebanon demonstrates that they aren't that much of a threat in a real war. Israel alone can mop them up.
The main point out of all of this is that Iran does have the power to spark WWIII and if anyone needs to be wise, it's Ahmedinejad as he can start it but Iran will end up in catastrophic shape while the rest of the world suffers economically. The wise thing to do is give the U.S. their oil without hassle and use the money made off the oil wisely to strengthen Iran economically in areas other than oil.
Take Iran seriously? Hell yes. It's not a matter of winning, it's a matter of how bad a hit the U.S. would take by not taking them out compared to the economic hit for skyrocketing oil prices which would screw the U.S... Granted, oil prices would skyrocket anyway if WWIII kicks off but what does the U.S. have to lose? You've got a fanatical religious country that wants to spread their ideals to the rest of the world cockblocking our oil. It's not going to get any better if the U.S. lets Iran dictate policy in the Middle East and the flow of oil is a must for the U.S. economy for the next 20-30 years minimum.
I'm not defending the U.S. in this. The rest of the oil guzzling Western world gets off free while the U.S. takes the publicity hit as usual. It's a matter of fact and too late to change how the world's oil based economy is setup. Hate Bush all you want, but put a democrat in office and see what happens if Iran starts screwing around in the Middle East....same scenario as above. All we can do now it take baby steps toward shifting the real problem, decision makers with their wealth tied up in oil related companies, and figure out a way for them to make money and retain power in an alternative fuel run world. Republican, Democrat...doesn't matter until the real problem is acknowledged and even then it will take the rest of our lifetimes to fix.
Peace out.
yah thanks for that. I never implied that Iran would have a chance in hell. My main point was that it would trigger a worldwide economic disaster and therefore should be taken more seriously, especially by these moronic war mongering right wing bloggers.
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
Thanks guys! I'm glad to see that other people understand the situation because often I doubt our Governemnt does... at least not the current administartion or they would have acted differently after 9/11. You are correct Xyun, the Axis of Evil speech and stuff after 9/11 did nothing but imbolden Iran. Lets not forget that Persia at one time ruled the middle east and many modern ideas in regards to governemnt came from that empire. Obviously the Bush administration learned nothing from the history of the Treaty of Versi. You don't take a proud and noble people, shun them and treat them like second class people without consequences... especially not when they were moving in the "right" direction...
What I saw this week was that Ahmedinejad is a brilliant politician and knows how to play the game. While our administration still can't figure out what needs to be done in the Middle East, he does, he does enough to position Iran as much more powerful than they have been in probably over 1000 years, not to meantion that it would be a powerful Shia rather than Sunni governemnt which along with Iraq, Kashmire, Indoneisa etc... could shift the balance of power in Islam as well... someday.
I personally gained a lot of respet for the guy, still don't agree with him on most things but he would be a worthy advisary I guess. Like you I don't buy into the extremist religious leaders ruling countries which is a big negative with Iran right now. But I also believe that the right person, with the right amount of balls could sit with Ahmedinejad and work out something that would be beneficial to both the US and Iran. In order to play the game though, we have to come to the table... and come to that table ready to play, and ready to face someone who is highly educated, a student of history, a die hard religious fighter and someone who is looking to win and make himself and his country more powerful... threatning them like we appreantly did Pakistan isn't going to work. I think he has enough zealot in him to say ..l.. because he knows everything you stated above...
One thing though for Win, many people, especially in the Middle East, are seeing the recent stuff with Israel the opposite of how you saw it. When the Israeli commander said they didn't expect their enemy to be as powerful or as prepared as they were, that made a big impression on a lot of people. Yes, the leader of Hezbolla sais he wouldn't have allow the kidnapping if he had known where it would lead but it's obvious that they were a lot more powerful that want Israel was prepared for initally as well. For the first time it seems that they underestimated their enemy, and to many that is a strong sign of a weaking Government. Don't get me wrong they still "won" I guess but...
Marb
What I saw this week was that Ahmedinejad is a brilliant politician and knows how to play the game. While our administration still can't figure out what needs to be done in the Middle East, he does, he does enough to position Iran as much more powerful than they have been in probably over 1000 years, not to meantion that it would be a powerful Shia rather than Sunni governemnt which along with Iraq, Kashmire, Indoneisa etc... could shift the balance of power in Islam as well... someday.
I personally gained a lot of respet for the guy, still don't agree with him on most things but he would be a worthy advisary I guess. Like you I don't buy into the extremist religious leaders ruling countries which is a big negative with Iran right now. But I also believe that the right person, with the right amount of balls could sit with Ahmedinejad and work out something that would be beneficial to both the US and Iran. In order to play the game though, we have to come to the table... and come to that table ready to play, and ready to face someone who is highly educated, a student of history, a die hard religious fighter and someone who is looking to win and make himself and his country more powerful... threatning them like we appreantly did Pakistan isn't going to work. I think he has enough zealot in him to say ..l.. because he knows everything you stated above...
One thing though for Win, many people, especially in the Middle East, are seeing the recent stuff with Israel the opposite of how you saw it. When the Israeli commander said they didn't expect their enemy to be as powerful or as prepared as they were, that made a big impression on a lot of people. Yes, the leader of Hezbolla sais he wouldn't have allow the kidnapping if he had known where it would lead but it's obvious that they were a lot more powerful that want Israel was prepared for initally as well. For the first time it seems that they underestimated their enemy, and to many that is a strong sign of a weaking Government. Don't get me wrong they still "won" I guess but...
Marb
-
Aabidano
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 4861
- Joined: July 19, 2002, 2:23 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Florida
If we'd go to the table and talk, I still think Iran has more chance of becoming "normal" than any other nation in the middle east in the next 10 years. The same people still live there after all, and another election will come along.I despise any regime that is led by radicals and fanatics. I think that Iran in the late 90s was becoming more and more progressive and beginning to very slowly accept a few western ideas. All that was flushed down the shitter in 2001.
The current administration really hosed up the situation, I think it's still repairable though.
Our govt gave the hard liners (some of) the ammunition that put them (back) in power.
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."