Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US refuses to commit to avoid attacking Iran
Jerusalem Post ^ | 12/13/5 | JPOST.COM STAFF

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: flatblackglass; iran; irannukes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last
To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

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.


61 posted on 12/13/2005 8:14:02 AM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
The thing that bothered most religious clerics about the Shah was their loss of land and power, not to mention the corruption that was throughout his organization and of course the SAVAK.
62 posted on 12/13/2005 9:49:46 AM PST by NY Attitude (You are responsible for your safety until the arrival of Law Enforcement Officers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

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.


63 posted on 12/13/2005 10:01:13 AM PST by libertyman ("It's [the Constitution] just a g-ddamned piece of paper" --Presidebt Bush, Nov. '05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Milhous
Kennedy and Kerry, the two Commissars of the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts!
64 posted on 12/13/2005 10:05:55 AM PST by Redleg Duke (9/11 - "WE WILL NEVER FORGET!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: libertyman

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.


65 posted on 12/13/2005 10:15:37 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude

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.


66 posted on 12/13/2005 10:20:41 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I had the pleasure of being in Iran for 2 years as an American contractor. Some of the programs the Shah instituted were: roads, hospitals, freedom for women, banks movies and such. He upgraded his military to the point where it was a stabilizing force in the Middle East.
67 posted on 12/13/2005 10:23:41 AM PST by NY Attitude (You are responsible for your safety until the arrival of Law Enforcement Officers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888; tobyhill

" 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"?


68 posted on 12/13/2005 10:33:18 AM PST by babygene (Viable after 87 trimesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
"Babygene" said Israel can "field a 1,000,000 man Army". I don't think a lot of you are looking at the geography of the area. It is impossible for Israel to get into a land war with Iran. An air war will not work either; the range is too far.

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.

69 posted on 12/13/2005 10:36:21 AM PST by gura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: babygene
Tell me... Who was it that took out the reactor in Iran the last time, since Israel "has never attacked Iran"?

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.

70 posted on 12/13/2005 10:52:28 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: uptoolate

And the justification for killing 70 million would be what, exactly?


71 posted on 12/13/2005 10:56:49 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude

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.


72 posted on 12/13/2005 11:01:14 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: babygene
I don't have a problem with know it all "Don't Tread On Me" correcting me with regards to Israel's not having Air Craft Carriers but this POS went beyond just correcting the statement to accusing me of doing drugs or having mental problems and neither are true. The point of my statement was to merely make the case that Israel has a decent Navy and has the capacity to strike Iran from the south.
73 posted on 12/13/2005 11:09:19 AM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

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


74 posted on 12/13/2005 11:10:34 AM PST by NY Attitude (You are responsible for your safety until the arrival of Law Enforcement Officers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I hope Iran won't get too worried. Red Ramsey's nearby and will be happy to defend them....


75 posted on 12/13/2005 11:14:30 AM PST by demkicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

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.


76 posted on 12/13/2005 11:15:32 AM PST by alarm rider (Irritating leftists as often as is humanly possible....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dave Elias
Slightly disingenuos coming from the mouth of an American.

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.

77 posted on 12/13/2005 11:33:22 AM PST by Toadman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude

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.


78 posted on 12/13/2005 12:21:18 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard; babygene

She (?) told me "I come across like I know everything".

LOL

She does not even know what NATION was attacked by Israel!


79 posted on 12/13/2005 1:33:26 PM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Look, you are the one who thought Israel had aircraft carriers.

You also said they have a force of 15,000-20,000 men at sea ready to invade (like a Marine assault)

1] 20,000 men is a division strength unit. How many ships hold these men?

2] What class of ships?

3] Who built the ships?

4] How much armor is on the ships?

5] Munitions? Fuel?

6] How long are thee 20,000 men at sea? Is there a second set of 20,000 men ready to rotate when the tour is up?

7] You mentioned 1000 missiles on-board the ships. What kind of missiles? Who built them? Performance data please?

8] You mentioned "warships". What class? What armaments? Who built them?

9] What port do they debark from?

10] You mentioned artillery. What do they do--mount artillery on flattops them fire artillery into enemy territory?

11] How is this fleet protected. Without aircraft carriers, how is this large fleet protected? Do they have Aegis cruisers?

For somebody who claimed Israel has multiple aircraft carriers, I think you need to give source data to back up your Breaking News claims about Israel's military. My humble opinion is you don't know the SLIGHTEST what you are talking about--aircraft carriers is but one example.
80 posted on 12/13/2005 1:43:54 PM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson