Originally titled: Iran’s new President was 1979 US hostage-taker
Check out this snapshot:
iranfocus.com/modules/news/a … oryid=2677
[quote]Iran Focus
London, Jun. 29 - Iran Focus has learnt that the photograph of Iran
Ahmadinejad is the dude on the right with the dark turtle neck, not the guy in the red circle. He is in red circle in pic on right.
…
Iran’s new president declares worldwide ‘Islamic revolution’
The fun never stops.
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote]Iran Focus
London, Jun. 29 - Iran Focus has learnt that the photograph of Iran
Well, clearly the man was able to make a deal with Reagan,
so surely Bush can work with him too…
I mean, from one hostage taker to another, they’re on the same level.
(From their point of view, we’re holding hostages at Guantanamo, plain and simple)
How about this headline instead:
[color=darkred]US’s current President is 2002 Muslim hostage-taker[/color]
[quote=“Shenme Niao”]Well, clearly the man was able to make a deal with Reagan,
so surely Bush can work with him too…
I mean, from one hostage taker to another, they’re on the same level.
(From their point of view, we’re holding hostages at Guantanamo, plain and simple)
How about this headline instead:
[color=darkred]US’s current President is 2002 Muslim hostage-taker[/color][/quote]
Their POV may be lacking certain things though…logical emotional detachment for one.
But what do I, a non-moslem infidel, know?
Iran turned on their nuclear power plants now and …
EU wants to respond with the threat of a new UN resolution.
TAKE THAT you Iran cowards. You only have nuclear weapons (soon), but we have UN resolutions!
Guess you are scared now, Iranians.
Will be mean one, we will perfume the paper …
Well I hope all those who advocated more “dialogue” with Saddam Hussein in Britain, France and Germany can examine their views now that Iran has flouted their every effort to arrive at a solution. Guess what? There are no bargains to be made with any of these people. Let’s get behind Bush and attempt regime change in Syria and Iran. These problems are not going to go away and they are serious. These two nations have a very direct influence and impact on events in Iraq. Let’s get going and take them out now that “negotiations” or “consultations” or “liaising” or “discussing” or whatever they want to call it has failed failed failed. The whole thing has been an utter fiasco of announced breakthroughs, Iranian intransigence, announced collapse of talks, renewed dialogue and then starting the whole process over again. Talk about wasted newspaper ink. Let’s do what we have to do. For once, can Europe get behind the US and do something to help? After all, Iran with nuclear weapons and missiles puts Europe, not America, in range.
[quote=“Shenme Niao”]How about this headline instead:
[color=darkred]US’s current President is 2002 Muslim hostage-taker[/color][/quote]
Touch
Bob’s answer tupel (* is outdated)
(Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, NKorea) = (yes, NO*, yes, yes)
So of course I want Europe to back US, but …
this will require Angela Merkel to win the German election (at least).
No matter what trousers she wears (see Germany-election threat).
Otherwise Germany will condemn US for attacking Iran - which is threatening Germany 
[quote=“twocs”][quote=“Shenme Niao”]How about this headline instead:
[color=darkred]US’s current President is 2002 Muslim hostage-taker[/color][/quote]
Touch
Is that the sound of carpet bombing I hear in the distance?
BTW, just to mention, Iran investigated and determined that the current president-elect was NOT one of the hostage-takers, that in fact the man whom the hostages kept confusing with the current president was a militant who was later jailed and died in prison.
Take it for what it’s worth, but as soon as Iran announced that the whole issue disappeared. Iran jailed and killed a LOT of its starry-eyed believers in the early years – one mistake, or siding with the wrong faction, and they’d end up with a bullet in the back of the head.
Why? Iran is just doing the same thing that every other nation is allowed to do under the NPT. The U.S. is just screaming that Iran wants to make nuclear weapons – but there is no hard evidence of that.
Then, duplicitously, the Bush administration burbles that Iran has tons of oil, and so has no need for nuclear power – completely ignoring the simple fact that every barrel of oil that Iran doesn’t burn is a barrel they can sell to the U.S. at market rates. Not to mention that that oil will, some day, run out.
Anyway, I am of the firm belief that the Iranian people will rise up against the mullahs some time in the next couple of years and frag their asses. If you want to bomb someplace, how about dropping a few on my current residence, which is infested with spiders the size of a LBT?
I’m curious if anybody else here takes this Republican jihadist’s wetdream seriously.
Anyone?
“It’s a race against time because by the end of this coming summer we can no longer sustain the presence we have now,” said retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who visited Iraq most recently in June and briefed Cheney, Rice and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This thing, the wheels are coming off it.”
With the wheels about to come off the US military in Iraq, repeated calls to invade Syria and Iran now truly mystify me. No matter what angle I look at that “strategy” from it looks nutty and suicidal to me.
Maybe that’s what it’s meant to be – a final suicidal charge by a dying political movement that senses its time is passing and wants to make its final lunge, even if that means taking the rest of us down with it.
I don’t know. That’s the best I can make of it.
I’m curious if anybody else here takes this Republican jihadist’s wetdream seriously.
Anyone?[/quote]
Yep.
Tell me why this would be bad for the region or the world or history.
I’m curious if anybody else here takes this Republican jihadist’s wetdream seriously.
Anyone?[/quote]
Yep.
Tell me why this would be bad for the region or the world or history.[/quote]
Invading and occupying another country which hasn’t attacked you with a military already stretched to the breaking point is generally a bad idea. Invading two countries at the same time under the same conditions seems to be a doubly bad idea.
Add in the factor that you’re already verging on failure in a third country that you invaded earlier under the same circumstances and the whole idea seems to be fanatical lunacy.
I’m curious if anybody else here takes this Republican jihadist’s wetdream seriously.
Anyone?[/quote]
Yep.
Tell me why this would be bad for the region or the world or history.[/quote]
Invading and occupying another country which hasn’t attacked you with a military already stretched to the breaking point is generally a bad idea. Invading two countries at the same time under the same conditions seems to be a doubly bad idea.
Add in the factor that you’re already verging on failure in a third country that you invaded earlier under the same circumstances and the whole idea seems to be fanatical lunacy.[/quote]
Well, I for one do not believe that the Iraqi occupation is “verging on failure.”
I would go into Syria first, because a) it’s small and b) a whole lot of the insurgents and weapons are coming in from there…can you say iron fisted puppet regime ala Suharto?
One step at a time.
Jihadists and weapons are coming into Iraq from all over the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. If you invade and occupy Syria the U.S. would be fighting two insurgent wars simultaneously and most likely at a heightened level because Muslim moderates would tilt even more against the U.S. with two unprovoked occupations of Muslim countries.
That’s not even taking into account who would be doing the invading and occupying. I can’t even imagine where those boots would come from without a draft in the U.S. Would your plan be to shift troops from Iraq to invade and occupy Syria?
After you deposed the government of Syria, who would you install as a government? Is your theory that the people of Syria would install a pro-U.S. government if given the chance to vote?
I think there is no chance ever that the US will invade SA. Any other country is ups for grabs though, just not Mecca. Asfar as the fighting two wars simultaneously, a prolonged bombing campaign would be of good use there, saving US ground troop movements.
I think you overestimate the numbers that it actually takes these days to assume control of a country. Maybe the US wouldn’t be so nice about invading Syria.
Now I know you have a sense of humor spook. 
That was funny.
Answer, I don’t know honestly. I don’t work for the State department.
peace
This approach seems to be a willing repeat of all the fundamental mistakes made in Iraq as if they weren’t mistakes at all. Maybe that’s the concept. That would explain why President Bush awarded George Tenet and Paul Bremer Medals of Freedom and nobody “inside the tent” thought that was a little strange:
You’ve got your “invade first and ask questions later” approach.
Then there’s your “prolonged bombing campaign” followed, apparently, by a “mission accomplished” which somehow saves US ground troops from a prolonged guerilla war.
We even have the “I think you overestimate the numbers that it actually takes these days to assume control of a country.” No offense but that’s vintage Paul Wolfowitz telling us that the occupation of Iraq would pay for itself and require maybe 30,000 troops tops through the end of 2005.
You’ve even got your “Maybe the US wouldn’t be so nice about invading Syria.” I’m thinking Abu Ghraib with the gloves off and without the pretense of “rogue corporals” being responsible.
Have I missed anything besides the basic logic here?