On to Iran?

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
Post Reply
User avatar
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

On to Iran?

Post by lance » Jan 24th 2005, 6:27 pm

Don't know if you caught this article but it is definately thought provoking.

Is the next target for the Donald Rumsfeld juggernaut Iran? Seymour Hersh thinks so, see here:



User avatar
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Jan 25th 2005, 6:03 am

I think this is going to get interesting very soon. Obviously I disagree with the warhawks about how to deal with the Iran 'problem', but what I find most flabergasting is the Bush Adminstration's impression of their 'democratic mandate'. We all know politicians are not elected on a single issue, and yet the Bush Administration seem to think their election (by a sliver of a margin, I might add) gives them a white card to go ahead with whatever invasion/warmongering/destruction of the middle east they want. They hold this attitude even in the face of obvious discontent among many Americans, demonstrations, worldwide condemnation of the situation in Iraq etc.

I think much will depend on the upcoming Iraqi elections: if it all goes off smoothly (I don't think it will), or maybe even if it doesn't, the introduction of democracy into Iraq will be deemed to have been a 'success' by Bush, and they will be able to pull the troops out with more apparent legitimacy, ready to free them up to move on to Iran. Cleaning up the mess will be left to the Iraqis. Every day I wonder to myself what the Iraqi people must think of the western world: they asked for none of this, none of it is their fault: their families are dying, their society is unstable, and they are supposed to forget all this because they have the magic of 'democracy' even though actually all they have are people with bombs threatening them with death if they dare to vote.

In the UK there has been lots of news on this recently http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0, ... 42,00.html
Personally, I get the impression that any Blair-backing of an invasion into Iran would be political suicide. He will have to ensure that the warhawks are held off until after the general election (may) at the very least, and even if that happens, the criticism usually levelled will become far worse - ie that Blair is Bush's puppy dog. If he helps Bush pursue military action in Iran, yet fails to do anything sensible about Africa (the Sudan, Mugabe etc) I think his critics will be unanswerable.

A further invasion will deepen the instability in the middle east, cost US voters a huge amount of money, wreck the already fragile reputation of the US abroad (especially if Bush keeps shouting his democratic mandate from the rooftops) and create a huge rift between the US and Europe. Meanwhile the US economy worsens, people lose their jobs, and all so Bush can spend taxpayer money on more wars.

Iran has oil. Just like Iraq. I'm just saying.


User avatar
So-Called Addict
Posts: 989
Joined: Sep 24th 2002, 4:40 am

Post by SanDeE* » Jan 25th 2005, 2:39 pm

starbug wrote:... and they are supposed to forget all this because they have the magic of 'democracy' ...
Oh yeah, you mean, like we do here in the US, right?

Very well put starbug. I totally agree.
Um, in my room, one seam is a little off and I stare at it constantly. It's, like, destroying me.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests