Bush wins...Iran toppled?

Hessian

Well-Known Member
"Senior American Official" in England believes that if Bush wins...our next target to destabilize is Iran, and Israel may take a very active role against them.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39512

I have long sensed that the younger Iranian population is fed up--should we help? what impact on...Oil? World relations? Travel?
Sounds like a return to the old 1970's "Chile policy."
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Building the Case against Iran...

From Today's Worldnet Daily

"Iran has been working day and night to stir up trouble throughout the Gulf region. Hezbollah factions have been infiltrated, and the seeds of a tremendous explosion on the world scene have been sown.

The world was shocked when Israel captured the Palestinian ship, the Katrine-A, in the Red Sea on Jan. 4, 2002. The ship was loaded with Katyusha rockets with a maximum range of 12 miles, assault rifles, anti-tank missiles, mines, ammunition and explosives. Most of the weapons were Iranian.

The truth is that Iran was flying up to three jumbo jets laden with military supplies to Syria each month. The majority of the supplies were being ferried directly to Hezbollah guerillas for the war against Israel. At the same time, the Clinton administration was socializing with Syrian president, Bashar Assad.

On Nov. 13, 1995, an Iranian-backed Islamic organization known as the Movement for Islamic Change claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Saudi National Guard at Riyadh, in which five American servicemen and two Indian workers were killed. This was the first of two promised attacks. On June 3, 1996, Iran vowed to resist the embargo imposed by the United States, and then on June 9, Iran's spiritual leader called for Iran's military to prepare for war."


Lets face it...when Russia began mobilization in August 1914...Germany immediately declared war...

Looks like Iran is asking for it.
 
Last edited:

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Echos of Japan 1941...

Further reading of the Worldnet Daily article reveals that sanctions have infuriated them...sounds like Japan's raging at the US when we slashed oil & steel sales in 1940....they felt obligated to strike first....hmmm.


"Ten days later, the U.S. House of Representatives cast a unanimous vote in favor of imposing tighter sanctions on Iran. The principle was added to pending legislation. The intent of the bill was to cripple Iran's and Libya's ability to continue their support of international terrorism. A week later, on June 20-23, Teheran hosted an international terrorism conference during which it was announced that attacks against U.S. interests would be stepped up in the coming months.

Two days later, on June 25, the truck bombing of the military housing camp in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, took place, claiming the lives of 19 U.S. airmen and wounding hundreds of others. The Islamic Movement for Change, which had already claimed credit for the Ridyadh bombing, took credit for this attack as well.

On July 16, the United States levied its version of sanctions against Iran and Libya. On the following day, July 17, the Movement for Islamic Change sent a chilling fax to the London-based Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat, warning:


The world will be astonished and amazed at the time and place chosen by the Mujahadin. The Mujahadin will deliver the harshest reply to the threats of the American president. Everyone will be surprised by the volume, choice of place, and timing of the answer. The invaders must be prepared to depart ... dead, for their time of mourning is near. "
 

rraley

New Member
I would fully support action against Iran, but sadly I believe that the Iraq war has spoiled all international goodwill and that it has diverted too many resources that are committed long-term for action in Iran to be sucessful.
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Rraley...what would it take to stir your fellow moderate Democrats to stand with you against Iran?

It seems that reports & investigations does not enflame public sentiment...are we doomed to feel the first strike before we unite and act?
Or will a reelected Bush present enough of a case to justify the second strike against the 2nd member of the Axis of Evil?

(I'm sorry...I don't see Kerry doing anything preemptively!)

**Thought...if moderate Dems, Repubs, and Conservatives were to get behind a strike....we could get it done.
 

rraley

New Member
Originally posted by Hessian
Rraley...what would it take to stir your fellow moderate Democrats to stand with you against Iran?

(I'm sorry...I don't see Kerry doing anything preemptively!)

Well, moderate Democrats supported the Iraqi invasion, which was the correct thing to do (Kerry did as well). I think the major reason that moderate Democrats supported that war was because of Hussein's inhumanity and his inability to allow freedom for his people. With Iran, the major issue would be the lack of democracy, oppression of women, and lack of human rights for dissidents, prisoners, etc. You see, moderate Democrats and neoconservatives hold old-style ideas of liberal interventionism for human rights and the promotion of democracy. A major reason that moderate Muslims hate us over in the Middle East is because we have historically backed brutal dictators, such as Hussein in the 80s, the Iranian shah, and the current regime of Egypt (can't think of his name right now). If we lead an international fight to promote human rights in these nations, and if these governments do not agree to increase them, then it should be imperative that we support regime change. We could then establish democracy and a system that is not condusive to terrorism. I don't necessarily see Kerry or Bush going into Iran unless they truly want to just leave Iraq in the cold. What I do believe, though, is that Kerry will get much tougher on the Saudis than the Bush Administration. I also hope that a Kerry/Edwards Administration will adpot Senator Edwards' proposal that foreign aid be tied to a nation's human rights record.
 
Top