Posted on 12/12/2005 8:17:54 PM PST by SmithL
The United States on Tuesday International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei's call to state explicitly that it has no plans to launch a military strike against Iran.
The spokesman for the State Department in Washington asserted that at this point the burden of proof lies with the Iranians, and they must follow through with their commitments to the international community.
ElBaradei claimed that an announcement in which the US insists it would not attack, might encourage Iran to cease its nuclear development plans, according to Israel Radio.
Robert Joseph, the US Secretary of State's aide said last week that he believed Iran would not back down from its nuclear ambitions and would even risk UN sanctions.
I will correct myself from my last post you POS, the Israeli Warships are not in the Arabian Sea at this time but are on rotational deployment in the North Indian Ocean in case Israel is provoked.
Thanx for the info....I thought (???) the Shah was a brutal didctator, or so I've been told. I was in high school @ the time he was in power & didn't care too much for politics back then.
I'm not trying to make excuses for Jimmy Carter, who IMO is a despicable creature....a week-kneed socialist, he is also a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations.
No, my impression of the Shah is that he was a typical aristocrat, more along the lines of Prince Rainier of Monaco than a tyrant. He was full of himself, but had some right to be.
He was trying to modernize Iraq, educate people, get them into western clothes, get the burkhas off the women, bring them into the twentieth century, and so forth. One of the criticisms at the time is that he was trying to Americanize the people too fast, and they weren't ready for it yet.
The Iranians are Persians, not Arabs, and he wanted them to remember that, too.
Naturally all that modernizing, the clothes and movies and music, scandalized the Mullahs, and they used charges of westernizing corruption against him. But I think he would have survived the troubles if Carter hadn't pulled the rug out from under him.
Corruption, spending, big parties, glittering jewels, sure. But as you suggest, they resented him because they thought, correctly, that he was trying to deprive them of their religious power. In hindsight, that wasn't such a bad thing.
If he had been just a little smarter and less fond of display and conspicuous consumption, it would have been better for him and the country. But I wish we had tried to educate him instead of deposing him.
" The 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 Middle East Wars were fought on Israel's borders. Israel has never attacked Iran."
You seem to like to come across (in an abusive way) as knowing more about everything than anyone else. It seems that nobody but you is entitled to an opinion!
Tell me... Who was it that took out the reactor in Iran the last time, since Israel "has never attacked Iran"?
Step #1, Israel invades Syria....
The Syrians cried uncle and prepared to evacuate Damascus in 1967 at the threat of three battalions of Israelis with a few upgraded Shermans plus air support.
Uhhh ... why don't you tell us who took out a reactor in Iran, where that reactor was located (name of nearest city will do), and when this "take-out" occurred?
Thanks in advance.
And the justification for killing 70 million would be what, exactly?
Exactly. He needed a little PR advice, and he was surrounded with the usual leaches who are attracted to money and power, but he was genuinely dedicated to modernizing Iraq and bringing it into the 20th century civilized world.
Nothing could have angered the ayatollahs and the mullahs more. And unfortunately nothing could have been less appealing to Jimmy Carter, who preferred Communist dictators.
Another comparison you could make is to the King of Spain, who did a lot to stabilize the country after the death of Franco. But Juan Carlos had the advantage of knowing he had to behave like a constitutional monarch after Spain's earlier history or Spain would throw off the monarchy again. Somebody should have taught a little modesty of deportment to Palehvi.
One would think that Jimmy Carter would have treated the Shah better since the Shah provided oil to the US during the Arab oil embargo.
The Shah's son Reza is very polished and liked by the Iranians.
Most of the current day trouble in the ME began with the overthrow of the Shah
I hear you. Sometimes I think this must be like living in 1934-35. Fear, appeasment, appeasment, fear. Europe is scared of the Muzzies, and the UN is a toothless corrupt organization.
First off. What difference does it make who's mouth it comes from?
I'm not an expert but have the impression that Chamberlain sincerely believed that his appeasement of Hilter would prevent war. I don't think that he had a far seeing vision of lobbying America to come to the aid of GB in the event of war with Germany... because he thought Hitler would invade Poland regardless.
Disingenuous: Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who … exemplified … the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine). 2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf. 3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive. Bartley
Hitler was disingenous.
If the Mullahs are overthrown, Iranians will have to choose their own form of government. But it would be great if they could agree on a constitutional or limited monarchy under the Shah's son, with a parliament to broaden representation. I'm sure Reza has learned a few lessons from what happened to his father.
She (?) told me "I come across like I know everything".
LOL
She does not even know what NATION was attacked by Israel!
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.