Posted on 10/31/2004 12:30:56 PM PST by james beam
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran's nuclear activities. Shouts of "Death to America!" rang out in the conservative-dominated parliament after lawmakers voted to advance the nation's nuclear program, an issue of national pride that provides a rare point of agreement between conservatives and reformers
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I- America is stuck in Iraq and it has to win, because if it fails there, you would find terror movements sprouting all over the Islamic world. America cannot afford to lose in Iraq.
II- Furthermore the Iraqis have to realize that America will change Iraq either through it's military or through poverty. If America fails in Iraq, it would break it up into small little pieces and let poverty and hardships rob it of it's terror potential and change it, just like like Vietnam, somalia, and Libya were robbed of their trouble making potential and changed through poverty and Isolation.
III- Eventhough America has to win and Prevail in Iraq, because it would ignite Islamic terror movements all over,if it fails; I don't believe it was the wisest choice to begin with for many reasons. I think Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia should have been the priority of the War on Terror, instead of Iraq for the following reasons.
IV_ 911 made the following things very clear.
1- It made it very clear that Pakistan and Afghanistan were the major sanctuary for Terror. They were not only home to Al-qaeda but thousands of other groups active in Chechenya, Bosnia, Phillipines,Israel and India etc.
Pakistan was also home to the largest Islamic stockpile of WMDs.
Pakistan's WMD program and strong ties to terror, should have pushed Iraq to the fringes and made Pakistan alongwith Afghanistan the No 1 priority for the war on terror.
Pakistan should have been taken out with Afghanistan, as a part of the package to wipe out Alqaeda. It should have been followed with Iran.
2- Iran, because of it's WMD potential and ties to terror groups such as Al-qaeda, Hamas and Hizbollah should have be the second priority. It is quite likely that the Iranians have penetrated countries such as Cuba and Colombia as well.
Iran had also made it's hostility towards the West very clear with slogans such as " Iran will trample America inscribed on it's missiles'
Iran again trivialized Iraq as a threat, because both the Iranian WMD program and its terror potential were intact, while Iraq's had been destroyed by war and the remainder was being taken apart by the inspectors.
Iran should have been the No 2 priority of the war on terror.
3- Saudi Arabia had put the largest oil wealth in the world at the disposal of Islamic terrorists and political movements that were wreaking havoc against the world. Saudi Arabia was as big a destabilizer as Iran and Pakistan, eventhough it had no WMD potential.
Saudi Businesses and Charities support most of Islamic Terror and Political Movements.
AS such Saudi Arabia should have been the No 3 priority for the war on terror, because it had the same potential for terror as Pakistan and Iran, but lacked the WMD might.
4- We had the option of either going for Islamic WMD states and Terror Sponsors like Iran and Pakistan, who were still very active and had their WMD and terror potential intact or we could bomb Iraqi rubble into finer rubble, eventhough most of it's WMD might had been destroyed by the First Gulf War and the remainder was being taken apart by the inspectors; while Pakistan and Iran and had no International Treaties or Inspectors to hold their WMD programs in check.
Now, Whereas Iraq had been robbed of the resources to sponsor terror because of the sanctions, the Saudis on the other hand had devoted a major part of their oil wealth to Islamic terror and political movements.
A- Now we had two options.
1- We could have gone into Iraq to suck the terrorists from Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while these countries nurtured them and had a continuous stream of terrorists flowing into Iraq, we slowly bled to death there.
or
2- We could have gone right into the terror sponsors of Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to have destroyed both the terrorists and the entities that sustained them. We wouldn't bleed to death here, because the infrastructure sustaining them, couldn't have enjoyed a safe heaven anymore. We wouldn't bleed to death here for several reasons.
i- Because we would destroy the very infrastructure that sustains terror worldwide and therefore would have robbed them of reinforcement and logistics.
ii- Had we taken Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan together, there wouldn't have been any neighboring states left to have supported the insurgency there. We would have had the following Non-Muslims and Liberal states on the borders.
a- Non Muslim India.
b- Liberal Russian Central Asia.
c- Liberal Turkey.
d- Feeble Iraq that could barely stay alive itself.
iii- We could have also had Russia and India pool into the effort, as these countries themselves have been ravaged by terror from the region and have long standing hostilities.
So here instead of having state sponsors of terror on the border, we would have had allies like India and Russia on them.
iv- Finally these Islamic countries aren't nations, but miniature empires consisting of many different nationalities with their own languages and cultures.
We could have broken them into small ethnic states and handed security over to these ethnicies.
We could have made these ethnicties responsible for policing, just like the kurds have been made responsible for security in kurd areas. Since they don't owe any loyalties to Islam, they remain effective.
I don't know much about Saudi Arabia, but i suppose since saud united warring tribes to form the country, the country could be broken up along the same lines as well.
Saudi Arabia might need a different set of measures, it is more complex, but as dangerous a threat.
B- I supported the War in Iraq, because i saw it as a staging ground for a war against Iran.
i- But Pakistan would have provided a better staging ground, because you would have taken out another terror sponsor in the process of securing that staging ground. Besided pakistan together with Iran and Afghanistan would have given you control over a contiguous region without any borders to terror sponsoring states.
a- With India, a non Islamic ally on one side,
b- Russian Central Asia on the other.
c- Turkey on another side
d- and a feeble Iraq on the other side.
This shows that outside powers wouldn't have been in a position to stir trouble or support insurgency within the region, because most of the bordering states are either non- Islamic or liberal Islamic.
C- It is always better to save both your military might and political will for the strongest opponent.
i- Iraq was feeble militarily and could have been taken out, even after the US military had been bruised in Iran and Pakistan.
ii- The US military might and political will needed to be saved for countries like Iran and Pakistan.
iii- Having taken Pakistan and Iran out, would have sent the right message to both the Saudis and Saddam, who might have been forced to give up without a fight.
iv- It would also have prevented other countries from stirring trouble in Iraq.
v- I don't believe in slowly bleeding to death in Iraq. A guerilla war is the US military's weakness and the terror forte, we should have instead taken out the these terror sponsors with our forte, our military might.
vi- This war would mean long years of chaos and strife in these countries, but it is one of the ways to stamp terror completely out, rather than to force it outlive the war on terror and resurface another day.
D- A more cost effective. but time consuming way would be to
i- Take their military and WMD might out.
Encourage regional countries like India, Russia and Israel to do so.
ii- To slap sanctions against them to hold them in poverty and force them to change like Libya and Syria were changed through the hardships.
iii- force these countries to outlaw Islamic parties, Schools and Businesses.
iv- Use US special forces to unleash cessionist movements to break these countries up along ethnic lines to replace their Islamic sentiment with over riding Islamic sentiment and to rob them of the resources, numbers and infrastructure to pursue terror or WMDs.
v- To push muslims completely out of translations, collation, analysis, agent running and policy roles in Western intelligence and have them replaced with westerners. To push Islamists out of even low level information gathering roles and the role of moles and have them replaced with secular cessionist like the kurds wanting to break away from these countries and having no loyalties to either these countries or any brand of Islam. To then manipulate the Islamic world with these cadres.
what a surprise, 2 days before an election where they know Kerry will allow them to continue and give them more fuel.
Nuke Iran and maybe the paki's will learn!
I had a discussion with a philosophy professor (PhD) at Notre Dame who went to Iran this spring for a conference on 25 years of the theocratic regime.
He said that only one person he met in the entire country during his weeklong stay would speak openly of politics.
The bellboy at his hotel told him forcefully,
"Come November, you vote for Bush. Make sure he gets the job done."
The Iranian people don't like their system. They hate Al-Sadr because he gives Shi'ites a bad name.
And they want the values that our President espouses.
Addressing the WMD Threat from Iran and Pakistan.
I suggest, it be addressed in the following manner.
A- This operation should be carried out in great secrecy, so as to achieve surprise.
i- All allies and especially Islamic cadres in Western Intelligence should be kept completely out of it, till the very last minute.
ii- Training should again be carried outside the region in secure locations to avoid alerting Iran or Pakistan.
iii- Militaries should move into the region, just before the hostilities commence.
B- The US should use Israel to address the Iranian threat, while it uses India to address the Paki threat.
i- It is absolutely vital that the US use third countries to do this, so as to internationalize the issue or draw flak fromthe international community.
ii- The actual operations would be carried out with extensive help from US AWACS and stealth fighters.
iii- Eventually the US military would have to join the operation, citing attacks etc.
C- The operation could take place in the following sequence
i- With the help of Stealth fighters and anti radiation missiles (ARM and HARM), the Air forces of these countries should be completely grounded to prevent the nukes from being taken to the air.
ii- This could be followed by the taking out of their missile sites.
iii- This could be followed by the by securing their nuclear facilities.
a- The Israeli air force could take out the security of these facilities.
b- This could be followed by US Special Forces securing these facilities.
c- Israeli Air force should then prevent Iranian reinforcement from reaching the facilities by holding them at bay.
iv- This could be followed by the taking out of their military depots.
v- This could be followed out by taking out their road arteries etc.
vi- The final stage would be an all out assault to destroy their militaries in the First Gulf War style.
D- Indian, Russian and American forces could then swoop in from the borders in an all out assault.
E- These forces could then withdraw back to the borders to avoid costly policing operations.
F- Meanwhile Secessionist forces like the Sindhis, Balochis, Azeris etc should be mobilized, while the US, Russian and Indian forces support them from the air.
G- These Governments should not be overthrown but instead utilized to the maximum in holding these countries together, at the same time weakened considerably with the secessionist forces and used to further encourage these secessionist forces.
H- These Government should be punitively punished with military strikes and a further tightening of sanctions for any terror attacks from their side.
I- Indian, Russian, and US forces should stand ready to deploy back into the region for limited operations as and when the needs arise.
J- When the secessionist movements are fairly well organized, these regimes should be broken up into small states carved along linguistic lines to replace their Islamic sentiment with an over riding ethnic sentiment. and to rob them of the might to pursue terror or WMDs.
K- However order should take priority over chaos and these Governments shouldn’t be weakened to the extent of collapse until the secessionist forces are fairly well organized to take over.
L- Meanwhile security measures need to be put in place all over the world to ward off any terror attacks.
i- These countries should be completely isolated and sealed to prevent the movement of terrorists into and out of the region.
ii- Islamic communities in the West should be made to see terrorists as their enemies by being made to realize that any terror attacks would mean hard time for them in terms of job losses, deportations and travel restrictions, so as to prevent them from aiding and abetting the terrorists.
iii- A re-organization of the Intelligence with the replacement of Muslims with Western linguists, analysts, collators, agent runners and policy makers should take place in the mean time. Only secular secessionist Muslims should be retained as informers and moles.
iv- Islamic Governments and cadres in Western Intelligence should be monitored with these Western linguists, who should then be used as the tools to crack down on terror.
v- Security should be tightened with the co-operation of the other countries in the World.
vi- Similar security measures need to be drafted to contain the situation in Lebanon.
vii- Homeland defense security measures could be improved and replicated around the world.
N- Saudi Arabia could be addressed with a set of similar measures, I suppose.
> Nov. 5th or thereabouts, Israel will take care of this problem.
Only if Kerry "wins" the election.
If Bush wins, the Iranians will be given a little more time.
How did you write all of that so fast!!!!????
This is a wild conspiracy theory, but nevertheless worth a read.
The two greatest players on the terror scene..
I have been following Events across the Islamic world for over 2 decades now, ever since I was a kid. I have observed individual pieces for years, but could never make sense out of them; finally 911 and the crisis in Iraq completed the puzzle for me, as I began tracing events back from it.
I would consider the Shiites and the Wahhabis to be the greatest players on the terror scene.
I would trace the roots of these two political and terror movements to Khomeini’s Revolution in Iran in 1979 and the Afghan war, which also began in 1979. But the movement had it’s roots in the Islamic revolution in Pakistan that began with Zia’s coup in 1977. Now elaborating the two.
i- Khomeini’s Revolution In Iran(1979).khomeini’s revolution was about Islamic Military and Political Power. It had an appeal broader than Shiite Islam, because sunni movements such as Hamas and IJ seem to derive their strength from Khomeini Revolution as well. While Parties like Jamiati Islami, who have a presence in both the camps, also admire it greatly.
Shiite minorities around the World provided Khomeini with a resource in almost every country in the world. Iran’s oil Wealth provided him with the tool to energize and catapult these communities to positions of Political power. Being an Islamic minority, Shiites were also heavily recruited by Western Intelligence Agencies. During the 90’s Iran also gained considerable influence with the Russian and Chinese Governments. They also managed to leverage Shiites into key positions within the Indian society to exert a considerable influence on Indian policy making through Shiite and other Indian Muslims.. These Shiite minorities also form the ranks of the ADL in significant numbers.
The efficiency and influence of Khomeini’s Intelligence operatives and their penetration of Western societies can be judged from the Assassinations and kidnappings they have carried out in the past. They have liquidated the publishers of Satanic verses in places as far away as Japan. They have kidnapped Israeli soldiers both from Israel itself and as far away places as Switzerland; while they have ambushed Israeli commando parties with impunity. None of this could have been possible without inside information, because of their presence in Western Intelligence communities and within the ADL.
It is rumored that they even assassinated the commander of the US warship that downed the Iranian Air liner.
This camp, it seems, was run by the Iranian Intelligence Service which operated terror groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas, IJ and is suspected of having strong ties with Al-qaeda. It contains the core element of the hardliners, who formulate all policy and the extended element of the reformists, who buy it International legitimacy, and cover up for the work of the hardliners by creating a charade.
The nerve center of this camp was made up of Iran and Lebanon, with the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, ,Iraq and Israel serving as its support camps.
This movement seems to have had three main objectives; WMD pursuits, Terror and penetration of Western and Islamic societies.
ii- The War in Afghanistan through the late 70’s and early 80’s: The War in Afghanistan, created an Islamic Network even wider than Khomeini’s, by bringing Muslims from all across the world into the effort. This effort brought Muslims from as far away places as the Philippines, Indonesia, Sudan, Somalia, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Bosnia together into one place, trained them, funded them and finally established Islamic businesses to turn them into self sustaining terror entities.
It also put Islamic minorities from these countries within the West and across the world under the wings of the political and terror movements originating from this camp.
Since this was an effort directed by Islamic cadres from within Western Intelligence, most Islamic cadres recruited from the region during the 80’s and 90’s shared their Pan Islamic thought as these terrorists. Since these Muslims were also minorities within the West, they were also closely integrated with the ADL.
This camp seems to have been operated by the Pakistani intelligence service which ran the Afghan war and it has parties like the various Jamait Islamis at the grass roots level and more moderate elements like Muslim league to provide it with popular support. It is also suspected of having strong ties to the Saudi Government. It runs various terror movements such as Al-qaeda, the Chechens, Filipinos, Indian and Algerian groups etc.
It’s efficiency and penetration again can be seen from the Swagger with which Al-qaeda has operated in the West, against Russia, India, against Israel and virtually the world over. The recent OBL video, showed just how comfortable he seemed. This shows the influence of this group around the world.
I would say this group is the most influential in the terror world, because it has a foot in both the Shiite and Wahhabi camps.
The nerve center of this camp was the Afghanistan- Pakistan- Saudi- Middle East region, with tentacles extending into Iran and Israel.
This movement like the Iranian before it, consisted of three prongs, WMD pursuit, Terror, and infiltration of Western and Islamic Intelligence and societies.
iii- During the 90’s, at the time of the First Gulf War in Iraq, the Fusion of the Shiite and Wahhabi camps seems to have taken place..This merger seems to have taken place at the grass roots level in parties like the Jamiati Islami, within the Cadres of Western Intelligence and at the Governmental Level between the Governments of Iran and Pakistan.
This was a nightmare for the West, because with the two camps united, their penetration of the Islamic cadres within Western Intelligence was almost complete.
As a result of this penetration of Western Intelligence, we have seen these cadres lie about the Iraqi WMDs, cover up for the Iranian and Paki programs. We have also seen them have very inside information of the events in Iraq, where Wolfowitz and Police recruits couldn’t have been targeted, unless the groups had vital inside information.
Having influence within the terror world, amongst Islamic Governments, within Western Intelligence and the ADL, these terror camps could play gods. They could get a Christian branded as a terrorist and killed, while they could brand a Muslim as a Western patriot.
They could use their inside information of the rifts within and the fears and limitations of Western Governments to leverage terror groups to play on those fears and then draft policy to capitalize on terror attacks.
Hmm, seems to me we are much better positioned to address Iran than three years ago. We are to the left and right of Iran because of Iraq and Afganistan which also gives us air bases adn staging area we did not have before. Unless you planned on invading Iran (which would have made invading Iraq look like a walk i the park) we are much better off to address Iran than before we invaded Iraq.
Pakistan is NOT a threat.
Anyone who says that, just wants to drive a wedge between us and Pakistan, to thwart our War on Terror.
Pakistan has been playing a major role in helping us get rid of the terrorists and rolling up the nuclear black market originating from there.
Well now, Iran is pretty well surrounded by US Forces because Iraq was a strategic target. Strategic in keeping terrorists out of the US and strategic in giving the US a massive presence in the region.
The US is not bogged down in Iraq. With the proper planning we can strike neighboring countries without warning. When and if we make a diplomatic presentations to Iran and Pakistan, be assured, our presence in Iraq will give those presentations enormous weight.
Sorry but we aren't Rome or Nazi Germany. About half of what your saying here nuts.
He probably studies under Mia T.
I failed to mention Afghanistan by name, and our presence there, when saying we had Iran surrounded. Not to mention our naval presence just off Iran's coast in the Gulf.
2. Talking about whether this or that nation is a "greater threat" than that or this nation leads to gibberish. Surely, China and Russia with their nuclear arsenals are "greater threats" than all these we are talking about, if one insists on measuring nations by some Level-of-Threat statistic. But any such statistic would be beside the point. The idea that we need to worry about Iran, and about Pakistan, is true enough. It doesn't lead to any meaningful conclusions about *what* should be done about them however. Nor does it lead to the notion that it wasn't the wisest choice to 'begin with' as you attempt to argue.
Picking which nation one should 'begin with' is not so simple as just calculating their Threatness and whichever one comes in first, that's where you begin. That would be stupid. First, that leads to the logic that you should attack your strongest enemy first, your weakest last. That is a recipe for disaster. In its most extreme application we would not be able to do anything without invading China first. Second, there are logistical, political, and strategic considerations, not just "threat" calculations. You think Iran is the "bigger threat"? Fine, but invading Iran without invading Iraq first is a difficult thing to even envision; the best (only) practical route to Iran is through Iraq first. You say Pakistan's the bigger threat? Invading Pakistan would have been far more politically risky and tenuous than invading Iraq, since we didn't have the UN resolutions nor the war/ceasefire situation. And what would we be invading to accomplish? Install Musharaff? He's already there. Invading Saudi Arabia? Um, you wanna be in charge of Mecca? Really?
Sorry but people who use "bigger threat was X therefore we should have done X first" logic just haven't thought it through.
ZOT!
Dispassionate observers, atleast all the ones I know, concede that Bush knew what he was doing when he ordered the removal of Saddam.
Now, with a second term, free elections in Iraq and marginalization of terrorists in Iraq, we will have a significant military presence in Iraq, both in terms of manpower and other assets, freed up to look at Iran. And what about the other side of Iran? We have that covered too with bases in Pakistan, thanks to the carefully nurtured alliance with Musharraf.
Once Bush is elected, we'll be exactly where we wanted to be in the Middle East and in the war on terror. That is why Osammy, North Korea and Iran are all rattling the saber now. They all know their game will be up should Bush win on Tuesday.
"Dispassionate observers, atleast all the ones I know, concede that Bush knew what he was doing when he ordered the removal of Saddam."
I agree. Iraq was the best beachhead in the Mid-east after we took care of business directly in Afghanistan. Taking action against Iran and /or Pakistan without Iraq would have been a psychotic idea.
As it is now, the ayatollahs are toast, as are the Syrian ba'athists, and the Pali terrorists they support.
Pakistan is making peace with India, a historic move unheralded here in the West, but clearly related to our streategic objectives in the region. We recall that India and Pak were at nuclear toe-to-toe until a couple visits by Rumsfeld and Powell--not secret but not spotlighted--except that the adversaries stood down and have been acting very sober ever since.
No, the greatest threat is not Iran or Pakistan, but John Kerry, who doesn't get it and would not be smart enough to follow through on the grand strategy Bush has initiated.
A President Kerry would immediately step in it bigtime, create untold havoc, and of course blame it all on Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.