Mr Majestyk
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Messages
- 77
Nucular Iran?
- Thread starter Mr Majestyk
- Start date
- Status
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
The situation has no easy answer; and the whole issue is somewhat convoluted.
Back when the nuclear club was rather small (US, USSR, Britian, France, China, and possibly Isreal (undeclared)) it was decided that the world would be a safer place if the spread of such technology was controlled - with a clear recognition that there were ligitimate peacefull uses of nuclear technology.
That was the formation of the "NonPoliferation Treaty (NPT)."
The concept was that by signing the treaty you would be granted access to the basic information on reactor design and various peacefull uses along with permission to purchase or develope the technology- and allowed to fully develope and persue such development and experiments as long as you told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and allowed them to audit your facilities and experiments - in exchange for giving up the right to develope, build, and maintain atomic weapons. Thus many nations got nuclear power, nuclear medicine, and various metalurgical and commercially important nuclear technologies in their countries - with lots of assistance from many countries in the world - just by giving up their claim on atomic weapons.
Iran signed that treaty.
It is very clear that Iran violated it years ago up to current times by conducting research without informing the international agency - and by hiding much of what was done (although certain things could not be hidden even from the limited inspections the UN group has achieved).
It is very clear that the purpose of the enrichment facility is for weapon development. The power plant fuel is a smoke screen. Ah yes, Iran has a nuclear power plant - and is planning to build another. And they need fuel. The problem is that an enrichment facility is exhorbanently expensive and it does not make any financial sense at all to build one with anything less than 20 - 30 nuclear power plants. France, England, Russian, and China will sell you enriched fuel for your reactor (and probably reprocess it for you as well).
I would like to point out that North Korea also signed the NPT as well - and then in 2003 announced it was withdrawing from it (the only nation to do so, and withdrew not in accordance with the treaty terms for withdrawal - and thus the North Korea withdrawl is not actually considered legal by international standards).
Alternatively. Isreal, India, and Pakastan did not sign that treaty. Thus they retained the international legal right to develope, build, and maintain nuclear weapons (and they did). Of course they did not get the open cooperation on nuclear technologies and materials that almost all the other nations of the world has access too.
India has recently made moves to bring its civilian nuclear program under IAEA jurisdiction. The NPT recognized existing nuclear weapon states, and traded civilian access for the promise of no development to the vast majority of the nations in the world who signed and ratified it. It does not have a mechanism for bringing in a country that did not sign and went on to develop weapons (or a country that legitimately withdrew in accordance with the withdrawel terms in the treaty and then developed weapons). The recently announced "treaty" between the US and India is a solid first step on how to bring in those other countries and is being supproted by all the major parties to the NPT as a good step. Of course, India has a long term stable government and has been a good partner to many countries in the world. The case for Pakastan is not as good - but perhaps not as bad as some would think, and North Korea there is not much trust at all. I personally think that Isreal could be treated like India and it''s civilian program brought under IAEA jurisdiction next (assuming the US Congress does not torpedeo the deal with India).
Note that the IAEA does not have jurisdiction over any of the "Nuclear Weapon States" weapon facilities, althoug truth be told - most of the countries involved have sharred basic , if not somewhat crude, information with each other on their weapons for the NEST teams that exist in the world (NEST Teams are those people who are trained to find and disable a "rouge" or stolen nuclear weapon).
There have been several other countries that did conduct "candelstine" nuclear research - but have since come clean with the IAEA (especially as you can actually conduct almost all of such research in the open under IAEA jurisdiction). At this point the IAEA has openely asked its memeber states to come clean and believes that almost all countries in the world have now done so (especially when they saw that there was no significant punishment for countries that came clean). Iran is one state that has clearly not come clean on its past , and current, programs.
In the end; Iran wants to claim the "benifits" of the NPT - the right to develop nuclear programs for peacefull means - But they clearly does not want the IAEA to know what it has done in the past or what it is planning for the future - which are key components of the NPT treaty. All indications of the type of research conducted (or at least what can be figured out) and the current enrichment plant only make sense for weapons. Note that this is not just the US saying this - this is almost all of the nations who have supplied inspectors to the IAEA regarding Iran.
If all they wanted was fuel - the Russian proposal was as good as it gets. Their scienties and engineers could work in a Russian enrichment plant helping to make their reactor fuel (I suspect that France would have offered the same deal - but the Russians have the advantage here as the power reactors were supplied by Russia). It sure makes a lot more financial sense (and we are not talking by just a bit - but by several orders of magnitude).
Basic atomic bomb design is not that hard. I am sure that about 100 countries in the world could build a 1950 - 1960 era weapon if they had the fissil material for the core of the bomb (including the mega-ton fusion bombs, fission bombs are in the Kilo-ton range). The more advanced designs (1970 - 1980) are probably beyond them unless they actually have a set of prints (very very highly unlikely); or conduct a long series of experimental detonations (which we would know about).
How this all gets sorted out - I''m not sure. Iran currently has a much larger and better trained military than Iraq ever did. It has also burried most of its facilities in mountains so it is not suseptable to bombing like what Isreal did to the Iraq reactor about 1980 (lesson learned).
President Regan had a great saying when dealing with disarmanent agreements with the USSR (which fall under another part of the NPT). Trust, but verify. Even the Russians have picked up the saying as the way it works (they had military representatives watching the distruction of our "retired" missle facilities, missils, and even basic warhead dissassembly (not the details - but got to see the warheads move into rooms and the parts come out). The US had military representatives doing the same in Russia.
What do you do when you do not trust; when there is not a good basis to trust?
As I stared out with. This is a messy situation - without an easy answer.
Perry
Back when the nuclear club was rather small (US, USSR, Britian, France, China, and possibly Isreal (undeclared)) it was decided that the world would be a safer place if the spread of such technology was controlled - with a clear recognition that there were ligitimate peacefull uses of nuclear technology.
That was the formation of the "NonPoliferation Treaty (NPT)."
The concept was that by signing the treaty you would be granted access to the basic information on reactor design and various peacefull uses along with permission to purchase or develope the technology- and allowed to fully develope and persue such development and experiments as long as you told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and allowed them to audit your facilities and experiments - in exchange for giving up the right to develope, build, and maintain atomic weapons. Thus many nations got nuclear power, nuclear medicine, and various metalurgical and commercially important nuclear technologies in their countries - with lots of assistance from many countries in the world - just by giving up their claim on atomic weapons.
Iran signed that treaty.
It is very clear that Iran violated it years ago up to current times by conducting research without informing the international agency - and by hiding much of what was done (although certain things could not be hidden even from the limited inspections the UN group has achieved).
It is very clear that the purpose of the enrichment facility is for weapon development. The power plant fuel is a smoke screen. Ah yes, Iran has a nuclear power plant - and is planning to build another. And they need fuel. The problem is that an enrichment facility is exhorbanently expensive and it does not make any financial sense at all to build one with anything less than 20 - 30 nuclear power plants. France, England, Russian, and China will sell you enriched fuel for your reactor (and probably reprocess it for you as well).
I would like to point out that North Korea also signed the NPT as well - and then in 2003 announced it was withdrawing from it (the only nation to do so, and withdrew not in accordance with the treaty terms for withdrawal - and thus the North Korea withdrawl is not actually considered legal by international standards).
Alternatively. Isreal, India, and Pakastan did not sign that treaty. Thus they retained the international legal right to develope, build, and maintain nuclear weapons (and they did). Of course they did not get the open cooperation on nuclear technologies and materials that almost all the other nations of the world has access too.
India has recently made moves to bring its civilian nuclear program under IAEA jurisdiction. The NPT recognized existing nuclear weapon states, and traded civilian access for the promise of no development to the vast majority of the nations in the world who signed and ratified it. It does not have a mechanism for bringing in a country that did not sign and went on to develop weapons (or a country that legitimately withdrew in accordance with the withdrawel terms in the treaty and then developed weapons). The recently announced "treaty" between the US and India is a solid first step on how to bring in those other countries and is being supproted by all the major parties to the NPT as a good step. Of course, India has a long term stable government and has been a good partner to many countries in the world. The case for Pakastan is not as good - but perhaps not as bad as some would think, and North Korea there is not much trust at all. I personally think that Isreal could be treated like India and it''s civilian program brought under IAEA jurisdiction next (assuming the US Congress does not torpedeo the deal with India).
Note that the IAEA does not have jurisdiction over any of the "Nuclear Weapon States" weapon facilities, althoug truth be told - most of the countries involved have sharred basic , if not somewhat crude, information with each other on their weapons for the NEST teams that exist in the world (NEST Teams are those people who are trained to find and disable a "rouge" or stolen nuclear weapon).
There have been several other countries that did conduct "candelstine" nuclear research - but have since come clean with the IAEA (especially as you can actually conduct almost all of such research in the open under IAEA jurisdiction). At this point the IAEA has openely asked its memeber states to come clean and believes that almost all countries in the world have now done so (especially when they saw that there was no significant punishment for countries that came clean). Iran is one state that has clearly not come clean on its past , and current, programs.
In the end; Iran wants to claim the "benifits" of the NPT - the right to develop nuclear programs for peacefull means - But they clearly does not want the IAEA to know what it has done in the past or what it is planning for the future - which are key components of the NPT treaty. All indications of the type of research conducted (or at least what can be figured out) and the current enrichment plant only make sense for weapons. Note that this is not just the US saying this - this is almost all of the nations who have supplied inspectors to the IAEA regarding Iran.
If all they wanted was fuel - the Russian proposal was as good as it gets. Their scienties and engineers could work in a Russian enrichment plant helping to make their reactor fuel (I suspect that France would have offered the same deal - but the Russians have the advantage here as the power reactors were supplied by Russia). It sure makes a lot more financial sense (and we are not talking by just a bit - but by several orders of magnitude).
Basic atomic bomb design is not that hard. I am sure that about 100 countries in the world could build a 1950 - 1960 era weapon if they had the fissil material for the core of the bomb (including the mega-ton fusion bombs, fission bombs are in the Kilo-ton range). The more advanced designs (1970 - 1980) are probably beyond them unless they actually have a set of prints (very very highly unlikely); or conduct a long series of experimental detonations (which we would know about).
How this all gets sorted out - I''m not sure. Iran currently has a much larger and better trained military than Iraq ever did. It has also burried most of its facilities in mountains so it is not suseptable to bombing like what Isreal did to the Iraq reactor about 1980 (lesson learned).
President Regan had a great saying when dealing with disarmanent agreements with the USSR (which fall under another part of the NPT). Trust, but verify. Even the Russians have picked up the saying as the way it works (they had military representatives watching the distruction of our "retired" missle facilities, missils, and even basic warhead dissassembly (not the details - but got to see the warheads move into rooms and the parts come out). The US had military representatives doing the same in Russia.
What do you do when you do not trust; when there is not a good basis to trust?
As I stared out with. This is a messy situation - without an easy answer.
Perry
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
Movei Zombie:
The Shaw of Iran is not that relevant to the current situation. England, France, Spain, and Russia "installed" far more "colonial" goverments in countries all over the world than the US ever did - and the vast majority of those countries are not "mad" at them. There are other cases where the US "installed" governments and the people today are not "mad" at us. Dispite what the "current" "popular" historians state - the Shaw of Iran was well accepted by most of the Iranians in his early years (the US did not import a stranger - the Shaw already existed and had a political base). He probably hung on longer than was wise (by about 5 to 10 years) - but that is not a unique situation in the world where dictators rule countries.
If you look at Iran under the Shaw you will find that the country prospered and was relatively peacefull. You do not find a lot of death squad activity and various forms of long term prison for substaintial numbers of the population who opposed him (not like you saw in many other countries under dictators).
What I believe is more relevant is the fact that often in order to hold power over people - "leaders" (and I shudder to call them that) have to find something - or someone else to blame for their "Problems". In Iran, Several generations of so called "Leaders" have chosen to blame the US for their problems when it can be demonstrated that US had little if anything to do with the overwhelming vast majority of those problems.
That is not a case of "never forgiving"... It''s a case of intentionaly chosing who to blame and intentionaly building a "hate" culture in order to not have to deal with "messy" problems and also provides a way to focus and rally the population.
The same phenomina can be seen in many other parts of the world - and even within the US.
The tactic does not lead to solving any real problems over the long term - and is well known for creating more problems in the future (and more violent resolutions of those problems).
Another part of the "no easy answer" problem.
Perry
The Shaw of Iran is not that relevant to the current situation. England, France, Spain, and Russia "installed" far more "colonial" goverments in countries all over the world than the US ever did - and the vast majority of those countries are not "mad" at them. There are other cases where the US "installed" governments and the people today are not "mad" at us. Dispite what the "current" "popular" historians state - the Shaw of Iran was well accepted by most of the Iranians in his early years (the US did not import a stranger - the Shaw already existed and had a political base). He probably hung on longer than was wise (by about 5 to 10 years) - but that is not a unique situation in the world where dictators rule countries.
If you look at Iran under the Shaw you will find that the country prospered and was relatively peacefull. You do not find a lot of death squad activity and various forms of long term prison for substaintial numbers of the population who opposed him (not like you saw in many other countries under dictators).
What I believe is more relevant is the fact that often in order to hold power over people - "leaders" (and I shudder to call them that) have to find something - or someone else to blame for their "Problems". In Iran, Several generations of so called "Leaders" have chosen to blame the US for their problems when it can be demonstrated that US had little if anything to do with the overwhelming vast majority of those problems.
That is not a case of "never forgiving"... It''s a case of intentionaly chosing who to blame and intentionaly building a "hate" culture in order to not have to deal with "messy" problems and also provides a way to focus and rally the population.
The same phenomina can be seen in many other parts of the world - and even within the US.
The tactic does not lead to solving any real problems over the long term - and is well known for creating more problems in the future (and more violent resolutions of those problems).
Another part of the "no easy answer" problem.
Perry
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
One significant item I left out of my discussion of the NPT and nuclear weapons.
Actually, the NPT does have a clause for nations with or developing nuclear weapons who were not signatories to join: Give up those weapons and the weapons programs and disclose everything.
South Africa is the only country to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and provide a full accounting to the IEAE, and then sign the NPT. If my memory is correct they had in the range of 10 - 15 warheads assembled and materials for about the same number. The material has been mixed down and used for reactor fuel. The production labs and key production equipment was destroyed (and the blueprints were also destroyed).
Several other countries had active weapons programs, but folded them with disclosure and signed the NPT. Again I don''t remember the details but I would look at either Brazil or Argentina (or both) as examples of this.
Perry
Actually, the NPT does have a clause for nations with or developing nuclear weapons who were not signatories to join: Give up those weapons and the weapons programs and disclose everything.
South Africa is the only country to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and provide a full accounting to the IEAE, and then sign the NPT. If my memory is correct they had in the range of 10 - 15 warheads assembled and materials for about the same number. The material has been mixed down and used for reactor fuel. The production labs and key production equipment was destroyed (and the blueprints were also destroyed).
Several other countries had active weapons programs, but folded them with disclosure and signed the NPT. Again I don''t remember the details but I would look at either Brazil or Argentina (or both) as examples of this.
Perry
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Angela1977
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
- Messages
- 224
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
Angela1977
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
- Messages
- 224
Angela1977
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
- Messages
- 224
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
Perry, had the US not interfered in Iran and installed the Shah, we could have had 50+ years of democratic stablity within Iran and that certainly does have relevance to the current situation. can you imagine a stable democratic nation in the middle east would be of benefit right now as regards iraq?! more importantly, our relationship with a democratic Iran could have seen us approving their development of such weaponry as we have done with India.
movie zombie
movie zombie
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
"Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh (Persian: محمد مصدق) (May 19, 1882 - March 5, 1967) was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. Mossadegh''s name is sometimes spelled Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq (note the doubled "d"), the latter of which better reflects the original Persian pronunciation (mosæd''deq) and orthography. He was removed from power by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and pro-monarchy forces in a complex coup led by British and US intelligence agencies."
"When the Iranian revolution occurred in 1979, the overthrow of Mossadegh was used as a rallying point in anti-US protests. To this day, Mossadegh''s image in Iran is mixed. His secularism and western manners have made official government praise mild at best in the now fundamentalist theocratic state. Yet many others still view him as a victim of US aggression."
"In March 2000, then secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran''s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on CIA documents. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mossadegh
democracy was young but in place at the the time of CIA intervention.
movie zombie
"When the Iranian revolution occurred in 1979, the overthrow of Mossadegh was used as a rallying point in anti-US protests. To this day, Mossadegh''s image in Iran is mixed. His secularism and western manners have made official government praise mild at best in the now fundamentalist theocratic state. Yet many others still view him as a victim of US aggression."
"In March 2000, then secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran''s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on CIA documents. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mossadegh
democracy was young but in place at the the time of CIA intervention.
movie zombie
Interesting - but I''m not sold. Thing is from every personal account - it was the Brits that really wanted control of Iran - and more Brits than Americans were there. And, during this Mo. regime that the Jews left "Persia".
I''m talking out my butt from account of ex Persians (never called themselves Iranian, Afgani, etc.).
I just recall a mass exodus from any of those old Persian governments because of religious persecution. The fall of the Shaw being the case for Iran.
Anyway, I still think we have that tactical invasion of Canada still on the table.
I''m talking out my butt from account of ex Persians (never called themselves Iranian, Afgani, etc.).
I just recall a mass exodus from any of those old Persian governments because of religious persecution. The fall of the Shaw being the case for Iran.
Anyway, I still think we have that tactical invasion of Canada still on the table.
Mr Majestyk
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Messages
- 77
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
Movie Zombie: It was not quite that simple. Many people in america think of democracy in the form that the US has. What Iran had back then was different.
First you need to understand that the British spit up Persia in 1935 into Iraq, Iran and Kiuwait.
The form of government that formed in Iran was known as a Constitutional Monachy, with a democratic elected parliment. The Monach had the constitutional authority to remove certain elected officials if he felt that they were a threat to the country.
I am glad that you posted the Wikipeadea link. I had looked at that earlier and was going to post it as well. Reread again about how the plot stated and was executed.
What this article does not say was that the reason that the Britian was mad with Iran was the fact that the Iranian goverment had wanted to audit the books of the British oil company and verify that it was paying Iran its agreed upon "taxes" on the oil. The British company - with Britains backing - refused to let them audit the books. Thus, the Iranian Parlimant voted to nationalized the British Oil Company (and the previous prime minister had resigned in protest to this action and refused to carry it out).
Britain had stated to blocade Iran as well.
If you reread the article closely you will see it was the British who instigated the plot - and who mislead the US.
The "new" prime minister''s actions were not the best either. In the end - rightly or wrongly the Shaw exercised his constitutional powers and removed the Prime Minister from power and patched things up with Britain. If you were to look at the governemnt between 1935 and the early 1950''s you would find out that this was not the first time that a Prime Minister had been "asked/forced" to resign by the ruling monarch of Iran.
So I don''t see a huge differnce with what happened before; and the Shaw was the rightfull Monarch of Iran - and was not installed by the US.
Your previous statement that Iran could have had 50 years of stabile democracy is only speculation. Iran had not yet really developed a stable democracy (with Monarch oversight) - and had more often than not been ruled by the ruling Monarch between 1935 and the early 1950s. The CIA was amazed at how easy it was to create the conditions (mainly rumors) that forced the removal of the Prime Minister. Iran borders the USSR, and I suspect that if Iran would also have been an easy target when Russia moved to expand and stabilize the borders arround it shortly therafter.
Could solid democracy have happend: Perhaps. On the other hand I suspect their would have been growing pains even if Britian, the US, and potentially the USSR did not interfear. I think an instructive example is Turkey. In Turkey the Military is granted the power in the Constitution to dissolve the govenment and take power if they feel that the civilian government is not acting in the best interest of Turkey - or not capable of resolving a significant national issue. Their constitition also directs the millitary to work to stabilize the country and estabilsh new conditions for a civilian government and hold appropriate elections to get it started. In the 50''s, 60''s, 70''s, and even into the early 80''s Turkey''s civilian government would falter - the military would step in and run the country for a few years - establish a new civilian government structure, only to have to step in again and do it again. Finally they got it right - or at least right enough that they have not had to disolve the governement for 15 - 20 years now - and the Turkish "civilian" government is going strong. Most people would call Turkey a democratic state - even the people in Turkey. But there is that safety clause in the Constitution that lets the Military take control when necessary and establish a Military Dictatorship. I remember one of the last times when the Turkish Military dissolved the governemnt. The Turkish people were very happy about it. Today, the older people in Turkey will tell you that one of the great things about their Constitution was the Military Takeover clause and provisions - and how it saved the country from ruin time and time again. I also find it instructive how the Turkish military commanders have also honored their constitution and never sought permanent power. They have always worked to establish an "improved" form of civilian government and bow out.
In the end the US has appologized for its part in the affair. The Shaw was disposed comming up on 30 years ago. Most nations in the world find a way to resolve differences within a decade or so. Look at the US relationship with Viet Nam and Cambodia. Perhaps not the most shining of relationships - but there is general peace. Look at the relationship of Isreal and Egypt. That is the pattern between most of the European "colonial" powers and their "subject" states as well. It is only in a few rare cases that the kind of bitterness and anger exist after that amount of time - and that is because it has been intentionally maintained by the governements in question as a deliberate tool.
Perry
First you need to understand that the British spit up Persia in 1935 into Iraq, Iran and Kiuwait.
The form of government that formed in Iran was known as a Constitutional Monachy, with a democratic elected parliment. The Monach had the constitutional authority to remove certain elected officials if he felt that they were a threat to the country.
I am glad that you posted the Wikipeadea link. I had looked at that earlier and was going to post it as well. Reread again about how the plot stated and was executed.
What this article does not say was that the reason that the Britian was mad with Iran was the fact that the Iranian goverment had wanted to audit the books of the British oil company and verify that it was paying Iran its agreed upon "taxes" on the oil. The British company - with Britains backing - refused to let them audit the books. Thus, the Iranian Parlimant voted to nationalized the British Oil Company (and the previous prime minister had resigned in protest to this action and refused to carry it out).
Britain had stated to blocade Iran as well.
If you reread the article closely you will see it was the British who instigated the plot - and who mislead the US.
The "new" prime minister''s actions were not the best either. In the end - rightly or wrongly the Shaw exercised his constitutional powers and removed the Prime Minister from power and patched things up with Britain. If you were to look at the governemnt between 1935 and the early 1950''s you would find out that this was not the first time that a Prime Minister had been "asked/forced" to resign by the ruling monarch of Iran.
So I don''t see a huge differnce with what happened before; and the Shaw was the rightfull Monarch of Iran - and was not installed by the US.
Your previous statement that Iran could have had 50 years of stabile democracy is only speculation. Iran had not yet really developed a stable democracy (with Monarch oversight) - and had more often than not been ruled by the ruling Monarch between 1935 and the early 1950s. The CIA was amazed at how easy it was to create the conditions (mainly rumors) that forced the removal of the Prime Minister. Iran borders the USSR, and I suspect that if Iran would also have been an easy target when Russia moved to expand and stabilize the borders arround it shortly therafter.
Could solid democracy have happend: Perhaps. On the other hand I suspect their would have been growing pains even if Britian, the US, and potentially the USSR did not interfear. I think an instructive example is Turkey. In Turkey the Military is granted the power in the Constitution to dissolve the govenment and take power if they feel that the civilian government is not acting in the best interest of Turkey - or not capable of resolving a significant national issue. Their constitition also directs the millitary to work to stabilize the country and estabilsh new conditions for a civilian government and hold appropriate elections to get it started. In the 50''s, 60''s, 70''s, and even into the early 80''s Turkey''s civilian government would falter - the military would step in and run the country for a few years - establish a new civilian government structure, only to have to step in again and do it again. Finally they got it right - or at least right enough that they have not had to disolve the governement for 15 - 20 years now - and the Turkish "civilian" government is going strong. Most people would call Turkey a democratic state - even the people in Turkey. But there is that safety clause in the Constitution that lets the Military take control when necessary and establish a Military Dictatorship. I remember one of the last times when the Turkish Military dissolved the governemnt. The Turkish people were very happy about it. Today, the older people in Turkey will tell you that one of the great things about their Constitution was the Military Takeover clause and provisions - and how it saved the country from ruin time and time again. I also find it instructive how the Turkish military commanders have also honored their constitution and never sought permanent power. They have always worked to establish an "improved" form of civilian government and bow out.
In the end the US has appologized for its part in the affair. The Shaw was disposed comming up on 30 years ago. Most nations in the world find a way to resolve differences within a decade or so. Look at the US relationship with Viet Nam and Cambodia. Perhaps not the most shining of relationships - but there is general peace. Look at the relationship of Isreal and Egypt. That is the pattern between most of the European "colonial" powers and their "subject" states as well. It is only in a few rare cases that the kind of bitterness and anger exist after that amount of time - and that is because it has been intentionally maintained by the governements in question as a deliberate tool.
Perry
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
Concerning the invasion plans for Canada: Yes they exist. For Mexico also. In fact, the US has at one point in time developed invasion plans for almost all countries in the world, and routinely updates them. It''s called planning. One of the ways you learn to plan is to develop plans. To make matters even, Canada has had people plan to invade the US as well.
So the plans exist. Let us hope that conditions never exist that they are dusted off and used.
However, there is one great advantage to having such plans....
The 1991 invasion of Kuwait; and the US pulled a plan off of the shelf of "What if" we had to deploy a large force and defend a country in the Middle East. The military did not have to think of what was needed or the capabilities of the force. Swartzkoff took the briefing page and presented it to the President, and then to Saudia Arabia and a few other heads of state.
Once they said "yes" the military just executed the plan and moved a termendous amount of people and equipment in days to Sadia Arabia. It had been all planned out - down to the smallest details.
One of the great stories from this period. Normally getting permission to fly US military planes through most countries is a difficult and time consuming task. Diplomatic contacts - answering specific questions about weapons on board and other things. It can take days even in the best of times. So... Sadia Arabia had said "yes" and President Bush (Senior) had signed the executing order. Now the Secretary of State and Defense and other people were meeting to discuss who and how they were going to make all the diplomatic contacts to get permission to fly all of those planes to the Middle East (and repeat flights for the cargo planes). Meanwhile some Navy 3rd class Petty Officer opened their section of the plan. Read the list, and put together one long radio message with a request for a direct flight path, through 15 - 20 "sensitive" countries of 5-6000 total flights over 30 days (specifiying the time of each flight, the numbers and each type of aircraft in each flight, and that they would be carrying troops and armanents) - and just sent it out over the International Air Control net.... That is what thier job was - to request permission for military flights through foreign airspace; and the plan called for those flights.
So much for the meeting on how the State and Military departments were going to request permission from whom to fly the planes through (the meeting ended early when they found out about the radio message, and that countries were already saying "yes"). In one fell swoop everyone in the world knew the US deployment plan. Given the situation in the Middle east at the time - not a single nation even balked - and everyone understood immediately what was happening. The permissions came back from all countries in just a few hours - without a single condition on any flight - for the entier planned deployment.
Plans have their advantages. Keep on planning.
Perry
So the plans exist. Let us hope that conditions never exist that they are dusted off and used.
However, there is one great advantage to having such plans....
The 1991 invasion of Kuwait; and the US pulled a plan off of the shelf of "What if" we had to deploy a large force and defend a country in the Middle East. The military did not have to think of what was needed or the capabilities of the force. Swartzkoff took the briefing page and presented it to the President, and then to Saudia Arabia and a few other heads of state.
Once they said "yes" the military just executed the plan and moved a termendous amount of people and equipment in days to Sadia Arabia. It had been all planned out - down to the smallest details.
One of the great stories from this period. Normally getting permission to fly US military planes through most countries is a difficult and time consuming task. Diplomatic contacts - answering specific questions about weapons on board and other things. It can take days even in the best of times. So... Sadia Arabia had said "yes" and President Bush (Senior) had signed the executing order. Now the Secretary of State and Defense and other people were meeting to discuss who and how they were going to make all the diplomatic contacts to get permission to fly all of those planes to the Middle East (and repeat flights for the cargo planes). Meanwhile some Navy 3rd class Petty Officer opened their section of the plan. Read the list, and put together one long radio message with a request for a direct flight path, through 15 - 20 "sensitive" countries of 5-6000 total flights over 30 days (specifiying the time of each flight, the numbers and each type of aircraft in each flight, and that they would be carrying troops and armanents) - and just sent it out over the International Air Control net.... That is what thier job was - to request permission for military flights through foreign airspace; and the plan called for those flights.
So much for the meeting on how the State and Military departments were going to request permission from whom to fly the planes through (the meeting ended early when they found out about the radio message, and that countries were already saying "yes"). In one fell swoop everyone in the world knew the US deployment plan. Given the situation in the Middle east at the time - not a single nation even balked - and everyone understood immediately what was happening. The permissions came back from all countries in just a few hours - without a single condition on any flight - for the entier planned deployment.
Plans have their advantages. Keep on planning.
Perry
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
Movie Zombie:
I don''t assume that the Iran dabble into democracy would necessarily have survived the growing pains. The founders of the Turkish Constitution understood that while democracy was an "ideal" that it might be tough to get there - and specifically built into their Constitution a mechansim to recover and reset when things went badly due to those growing pains. To my knowledge it was a unique approach in the world - but it worked where many other countries faltered becasue they did not have a similar safty catch - not to mention a professional enough military that faithfully carried out their constitutional responsibilities and worked to restore power back to a civilian based government. The Iran Constitution did not have such a catch feature. Why would you expect it to have survived...
But, I have to admit that now you are asking a really good question: Why is the US (and others) so easily mislead?
That is the heart of the matter more often in the world. Many of the issues in the world are complex and based on a long term play on cultures and trading patterns - or colonialism in the world by Britian, France, Spain, Russia, China, Japan, etc.
Very rarely if you research an issue will you find that the US was the instigator into a situation - or the major player of how these issues developed. The US had a policy of non-interfearance with the world until about WW I. Note that WW I and WW II would have had completely different results if US ships and assetts had not been attacked and the US did not directly enter the war. However, the reason most of Europe is highlly democratic today is because the US was in a position to dictate terms at the end of those wars becasue of it''s participation and the fact that it was the reason that the war finished the way they did (look at the historical forms of government for the European Nations prior to those wars - and even the reason for warfare in general: Nations in general have wars to get something for nothing - to steal the resources of others; In a few cases the wars is about estabilshing a more secure defendable boundy to protect it from the steeling invasions. But in general in the history of the world - once a nation has enough power to invade and steal - it has almost always done so: and the US is an engima in world history that it has rarely done so - otherwise we would have conqured Canada, Mexico, and possibly the entier South American contenent).
What interest me is given the overall history of low US interfearance in the World, and how other nations sowed the seeds for most of the current political and culture disputes in the world - Is why it seems that so many people want to blame the US for so many things (yet the US is the destination of choice for people wishing to move to a place where they can have a better life). Much of this is also based on Misinformation (why does Iran blame the US so much - why have they not just moved on like most other countries have?)
Of course, in the last 50 years, the US has been a world dominating trading partner and market - but most often a a consumer of other nations goods which has provided a high level of prosperity for those other nations.
There has also been the effects of the "cold war" between the US and the USSR (and a few other nations who favored goverments that restricted the rights of the people) during this period (personnally, I suspect that the cold war would have nailed any Iranian democratic government in the 60''s had it survived its earlier growing pains).
Why are people mislead? In the end I see two major factors:
1) National / political / local group "leaders" mislead in order to gain or continue to control their power (or their organizations power).
2) People by and large are lazy and willing to buy into things that sound "good." Few people are willing to do even the research you did to find the Wikipeadea article. The just hear that the US destroyed the democracy of Iran - and want to believe it and believe that Iran had our kind of democracy and was stable (don''t ask me why). In my case I looked at about 2 dozen sources of information on the history of Iran in the period and looked for general agreement on what had happened. I also have a long built historical perspective based on years of researching issues that allows me to see things in a better contex of how the world works (age has that advantage if you are willing to research issues).
Pick the issue, and the level (work group, local, state, national, international) - the same patttern repeats far too often.
The two can cumulate into major national/international issues when they combine: Did the CIA mislead the President of the US by presenting totally false information - or did they just present the information that matched the direction of the US Presidents suspiciions, and not mention that their was other resonably credible information that suggested otherwise? I''ll wager on the later. You gain power and respect in too many circles by going along. Did the President and his advisors move in a way that temporarily made them more powerfull - and did they look hard for other evidence (what would have been the temporary benifit of looking for other informaion)?
What I have found on the issues that I take the time to research - is that usually the issue is complex with a mismashed background - and that there is no easy way to blame one group or one individual for it''s development (it usually takes multiple parties to create a real mess)- and there really is no easy fixes either. Rarely, are people or orgainzations really willing to sit down and openely discuss their faults and weakensses with another organization on an issue and try to resolve the biggest problems with that issue. This seems to be against human nature. Great things have happened the few times it has been done (both on a personal level - and a larger level).
Why are people so easily mislead? Great question.
I hope you start researching the history (and differences in history by different parties - which history or what part of it is correct?) in the future. Then you can also help straigten things out. As an example: I for one almost never believe an initial claim about why some issue exist (or even that it is an issue). It takes research to dig things up and find out the history and how things developed. I do have to limit what I research and what topics I get involved with - time consuming and I have limited time as do we all.
Have a great day.
Perry
I don''t assume that the Iran dabble into democracy would necessarily have survived the growing pains. The founders of the Turkish Constitution understood that while democracy was an "ideal" that it might be tough to get there - and specifically built into their Constitution a mechansim to recover and reset when things went badly due to those growing pains. To my knowledge it was a unique approach in the world - but it worked where many other countries faltered becasue they did not have a similar safty catch - not to mention a professional enough military that faithfully carried out their constitutional responsibilities and worked to restore power back to a civilian based government. The Iran Constitution did not have such a catch feature. Why would you expect it to have survived...
But, I have to admit that now you are asking a really good question: Why is the US (and others) so easily mislead?
That is the heart of the matter more often in the world. Many of the issues in the world are complex and based on a long term play on cultures and trading patterns - or colonialism in the world by Britian, France, Spain, Russia, China, Japan, etc.
Very rarely if you research an issue will you find that the US was the instigator into a situation - or the major player of how these issues developed. The US had a policy of non-interfearance with the world until about WW I. Note that WW I and WW II would have had completely different results if US ships and assetts had not been attacked and the US did not directly enter the war. However, the reason most of Europe is highlly democratic today is because the US was in a position to dictate terms at the end of those wars becasue of it''s participation and the fact that it was the reason that the war finished the way they did (look at the historical forms of government for the European Nations prior to those wars - and even the reason for warfare in general: Nations in general have wars to get something for nothing - to steal the resources of others; In a few cases the wars is about estabilshing a more secure defendable boundy to protect it from the steeling invasions. But in general in the history of the world - once a nation has enough power to invade and steal - it has almost always done so: and the US is an engima in world history that it has rarely done so - otherwise we would have conqured Canada, Mexico, and possibly the entier South American contenent).
What interest me is given the overall history of low US interfearance in the World, and how other nations sowed the seeds for most of the current political and culture disputes in the world - Is why it seems that so many people want to blame the US for so many things (yet the US is the destination of choice for people wishing to move to a place where they can have a better life). Much of this is also based on Misinformation (why does Iran blame the US so much - why have they not just moved on like most other countries have?)
Of course, in the last 50 years, the US has been a world dominating trading partner and market - but most often a a consumer of other nations goods which has provided a high level of prosperity for those other nations.
There has also been the effects of the "cold war" between the US and the USSR (and a few other nations who favored goverments that restricted the rights of the people) during this period (personnally, I suspect that the cold war would have nailed any Iranian democratic government in the 60''s had it survived its earlier growing pains).
Why are people mislead? In the end I see two major factors:
1) National / political / local group "leaders" mislead in order to gain or continue to control their power (or their organizations power).
2) People by and large are lazy and willing to buy into things that sound "good." Few people are willing to do even the research you did to find the Wikipeadea article. The just hear that the US destroyed the democracy of Iran - and want to believe it and believe that Iran had our kind of democracy and was stable (don''t ask me why). In my case I looked at about 2 dozen sources of information on the history of Iran in the period and looked for general agreement on what had happened. I also have a long built historical perspective based on years of researching issues that allows me to see things in a better contex of how the world works (age has that advantage if you are willing to research issues).
Pick the issue, and the level (work group, local, state, national, international) - the same patttern repeats far too often.
The two can cumulate into major national/international issues when they combine: Did the CIA mislead the President of the US by presenting totally false information - or did they just present the information that matched the direction of the US Presidents suspiciions, and not mention that their was other resonably credible information that suggested otherwise? I''ll wager on the later. You gain power and respect in too many circles by going along. Did the President and his advisors move in a way that temporarily made them more powerfull - and did they look hard for other evidence (what would have been the temporary benifit of looking for other informaion)?
What I have found on the issues that I take the time to research - is that usually the issue is complex with a mismashed background - and that there is no easy way to blame one group or one individual for it''s development (it usually takes multiple parties to create a real mess)- and there really is no easy fixes either. Rarely, are people or orgainzations really willing to sit down and openely discuss their faults and weakensses with another organization on an issue and try to resolve the biggest problems with that issue. This seems to be against human nature. Great things have happened the few times it has been done (both on a personal level - and a larger level).
Why are people so easily mislead? Great question.
I hope you start researching the history (and differences in history by different parties - which history or what part of it is correct?) in the future. Then you can also help straigten things out. As an example: I for one almost never believe an initial claim about why some issue exist (or even that it is an issue). It takes research to dig things up and find out the history and how things developed. I do have to limit what I research and what topics I get involved with - time consuming and I have limited time as do we all.
Have a great day.
Perry
I''m beginning to think I am the only one who relies mostly on first hand accounts. I feel that someone who has been in the situation is most likely to have a handle on what goes on. Yes, INDEED some Afgani''s consider themselves Persian. The one''s I know left because of religious persecution. The Brit''s I know who were kids in Iran were targeted & hated by the people. The other little children would throw stones at the school bus leaving the "English" school. I only know of one American Iranian - was deep into real estate development. Left in the middle of the night with being able to transfer only a small amount of assets out of the country. The rest, I was told, was seized by the Ayatolla (sp?). Not much seeds of democracy brewing there.
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
Perry, do you actually believe i don''t already research issues?!
you are much more articulate than i am but to say and i quote, "I hope you start researching the history (and differences in history by different parties - which history or what part of it is correct?) in the future." is not only condescending, its downright insulting.
i will agree that a fledgling Iran democracy does not a democracy make, but an attempt was being made and the Brits as well as the US managed to scuttle that so we''ll never know.
a book to add to your readling list: Overthrow : America''s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
movie zombie
you are much more articulate than i am but to say and i quote, "I hope you start researching the history (and differences in history by different parties - which history or what part of it is correct?) in the future." is not only condescending, its downright insulting.
i will agree that a fledgling Iran democracy does not a democracy make, but an attempt was being made and the Brits as well as the US managed to scuttle that so we''ll never know.
a book to add to your readling list: Overthrow : America''s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
movie zombie
rainbowtrout
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,105
Date: 4/11/2006 4:15:01 PM
Author: AGBF
I''m shocked that you assume the United States is is charge of Iran.
We''re not in charge of Iran, no. But we are a political entity that wishes to ensure its survival. Unless we can convicince the rest of the world to start playing by Star Trek rules, we will have to allow/disallow what is in our best interestes within the spectrum of what is considered to be morally acceptable.
Like F&I, I''ve talked to several Iranians..actually my godfather is one. He didn''t have this hate programming, but then he wasn''t raised under the Ayatollah and forced to step on an American flag every day entering kindergarten like they do now.
I am not sure what to do..but I am very, very worried about that government possessing nucular weapons because (as an atheist) I consider religious fanatics insane and generally incapable of reasoning on what the rest of the world considers a logical level. And that country is run by religious fanatics. perhaps they will get into a cold war with Israel---assuming they can accept the idea of mutually assured destruction.
On the other hand, other votile governments possess them and they do not seem to have lobbed them at us yet.
OT but related: Did anyone see the article that we are starting to re-arm???? Gov''t is getting funds for a new plant.
rainbowtrout
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,105
Date: 4/11/2006 6:14:11 PM
Author: fire&ice
Interesting - but I'm not sold. Thing is from every personal account - it was the Brits that really wanted control of Iran - and more Brits than Americans were there. And, during this Mo. regime that the Jews left 'Persia'.
I'm talking out my butt from account of ex Persians (never called themselves Iranian, Afgani, etc.).
I just recall a mass exodus from any of those old Persian governments because of religious persecution. The fall of the Shaw being the case for Iran.
Anyway, I still think we have that tactical invasion of Canada still on the table.
I am pretty sure it was the British as well...earlier than the Shah though.
Re: regimes. The shah wasn't perfect, no...he was a bit like peter the great and the kings of Turkey, he forced his people to modernize and they went kicking and screaming. He also did have secret police, torture, etc. Plenty of human rights violations for him too...and yes, he was heavily in the US's pockets.
By the way, most of my information is coming from a Jewish professor who does research in Iran, a book called Reading Lolita in Tehran, the NYT (read with skepticism), my godfather, and various classes/books taken and read on the subject. Sorry, but its the best bibliography I can come up with on short notice
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
f&i, i heard that one too....on the same day....and hearing the two made me realize how we are really being sold once again a bill of goods in a rush to panic, paranoia, and war.
however, i was wrong: the title of the program is ''open source'' but i did hear it on a radio station that is primarily npr programing.
see: http://www.radioopensource.org/can-we-live-with-a-nuclear-iran/
program: can we live with a nuclear iran?
movie zombie
however, i was wrong: the title of the program is ''open source'' but i did hear it on a radio station that is primarily npr programing.
see: http://www.radioopensource.org/can-we-live-with-a-nuclear-iran/
program: can we live with a nuclear iran?
movie zombie
- Status
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)