Terrorist label for Iranian Guard

[Mr. Wyndham]

I know I've posted a few have-nothing-to-do-with-cars-at-all threads, but I needed to share this with somebody.

I'm not anti-military, or anti-"patriotic", or anything - please don't get me wrong on that. I support our troops and everything they do for us - past and present - 100%, if not the cause. Having said that:

Terrorist Label for Iran Guard Reflects U.S. Impatience With U.N.

function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1344916800&en=0b7cf3cd514a8941&ei=5124';} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/world/middleeast/16iran.html'); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('Terrorist Label for Iran Guard Reflects U.S. Impatience With U.N.'); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent('The Bush administration is adopting a more confrontational approach with Tehran, reflecting frustration with a stalled sanctions package at the U.N. Security Council.'); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent('Embargoes and Economic Sanctions,United States International Relations,Iran,Security Council,United Nations'); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent('world'); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent('International / Middle East'); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent('middleeast'); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent('By HELENE COOPER and NAZILA FATHI'); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent('August 16, 2007'); }



By HELENE COOPER and NAZILA FATHI
Published: August 16, 2007
WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — In moving toward designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, the Bush administration is adopting a more confrontational approach with Tehran, reflecting frustration with a stalled sanctions package at the United Nations Security Council, officials said Wednesday.
White House and State Department officials were debating when to make the formal designation — White House officials want to do so now, and the State Department wants to wait until various August recesses are over — but the administration was already adopting tougher talk toward Tehran.
“We are confronting Iranian behavior across a variety of different fronts, on a number of different, quote unquote, battlefields, if you will,” the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, told reporters in Washington. His use of the word “battlefields” was described by some European diplomats as another ratcheting up of the anti-Iran statements.
Mr. McCormack maintained that his use of the word did not mean that the State Department had adopted the view that the United States should confront Iran militarily, a view that has been advocated by some officials in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office.
“I was trying to illustrate that you don’t just confront Iran with guns and soldiers; sometimes you do it with lawyers and accountants and diplomats,” Mr. McCormack said.
But other administration officials said that the United States was getting increasingly frustrated that Security Council sanctions, which were meant to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, have been anemic. Beyond that, administration officials are worried that America’s allies in imposing the sanctions — particularly Russia and China — have been slow to agree to increase the pressure and have balked at imposing tougher measures.
In Tehran, politicians across the board said Wednesday that if the United States proceeded with plans to declare the Revolutionary Guard a foreign terrorist organization, the action would only unify politicians in Iran and lead to an escalation of hostility between the countries.
Iranian government officials were not available to comment on the issue. But the Fars News Agency, which is close to the Revolutionary Guard, quoted an official at the Foreign Ministry as dismissing the news as propaganda.
Analysts and former government officials in Tehran, both conservative and reformist, said the planned designation of the Guard as a terrorist organization was intended to destabilize the government.
“Maybe the Revolutionary Guards have done certain things in their own backyard,” said Saeed Leylaz, an economist and a reformist political analyst, referring to Afghanistan and Iraq. “But they have also cooperated with Americans there.”
“Now the United States is asking Iran to help stabilize Iraq, but in the meantime suggests that after stability in Iraq it will come after Iran,” added Mr. Leylaz, who often criticizes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Iran and the United States have held three rounds of talks on an ambassadorial level in Baghdad in recent months to discuss how to stabilize Iraq. The talks were held as United States officials accused Iran of stepping up support for radical Shiite militia groups in Iraq.
Iran has brushed off the accusations and has said its efforts are aimed at stabilizing a democratic government in Iraq.
“The Americans want to cover up their own failure in Iraq with these kinds of accusations,” said Akbar Alami, a reformist member of Parliament.
A former deputy defense minister, Alireza Akbari, warned that the measure could cause instability in the region. “If they put pressure on the security apparatus of a country, they should expect a similar reaction,” he said. “And it would certainly serve the real terrorists in the region if the United States and Iran move toward confronting one another.”

The Bush Administration is intent on taking on the whole of the Middle-East, aren't they? If this pisses off Iran, we're just in store for more shit - excuse my French.

[acscamarochick06]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The Bush Administration is intent on taking on the whole of the Middle-East, aren't they? If this pisses off Iran, we're just in store for more shit - excuse my French.

George W. Bush is a freakin' joke and is probably ranking about the top of the list of "Dumbest Presidents EVER!" lol Sorry, but that's just my 2 cents. I have never liked the guy, would have never voted for him if I was of voting age at the time, and I don't understand how he ever got elected to office.

Not to mention I thought I heard on the news that his Approval Ratings by the citizens are at record lows right now... Well DUHHH!!

[CamaroSpike23]

how do you think I feel? I work for the guy.

[Mindz]

That's what republican's get for nomiating an inbred C average candidate.

Bush has strategery.
He can remember phrases well (Fool me once...).
He has the attention span of a gnat. I ... buhleeve....our.....c-c-c-country....should OOOOHLOOKATTHEKITTY!.
He looks straight off planet of the apes, but even more primal with a smaller brain.
He's a C average student.
He only got elected once because of his cousin who was a mayor (Dade County) where people are too stupid to pay attention to the voting ballots.
He planned 9/11.
He's trying to follow in his daddy's footsteps by bringing on the war that he planned by executing 9/11.
and there's many more...

I just don't feel like typing anymore and wasting my time on the sad excuse for a pile of poop we call a president.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Well, then I'm not alone... AHHRG!!! I thoughougly DESPISE this guy! He has single-handedly increased the National debt from no debt (in fact, a surplus of money :eek to more than 8 trillion dollars!!!

I don't think he "planned" 9/11, but I think he let it go. It worked in his favor. that's a touchy subject so I won't go into it.

I hope his Father realises finally what a failure he is by raising such a failure of a son.

Had our presidents been elected by Popular Vote, like IMO they should be, he would never have gotten into office. I bet he couldn't even find the door to the office when he got it.

He tried to get oil in Iraq, and failed miserably when he stepped on the beehive that was the Taliban. But we got Saddam! Whoo Hoo, he had < 1% of anything to do with 9/11.

He will go down in History books as one of the Most Famous Presidents Ever - up there with Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt. But for the opposite reasons. Chapter Title: What NOT to look for in a President.

ppheww. That felt good. Thanks for listening to my rant.

[TAG UR IT]

No...No...No....I had posted up something a while back about jihad, war, presidents, and more and the whole idea got shot down because it was about to blow up the boards and really piss off some members. This is a VERY heated debate and because of the content of the quick four posts from the last thread, I do not think this is a great idea.

[Mr. Wyndham]

I completely understand, TAG. But I think this stuff is very important. I'm sure it'll get into the News, but too many people skip, miss, or ignore this stuff.

Can we all just agree to keep it 'G' rated (and that includes no politician-blasting)? I will.

[TAG UR IT]

Fine.

Then keep it strictly to the subject and DON'T start talking about Bush "planning" the 9/11 attacks or any other tangent for that matter or it's CLOSED.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Deal! Thanks, TAG!

Okay, so in regards to the Article, which is what I really wanted to talk about, why do you guys think The admnistration doesn't wait for the UN, ever. I mean - as far as I know - they didn't let the UN investigators finish their search of Iraq for "weapons of Mass Destruction". And now this. Wouldn't you think that if we had a conglomerate of nations by our side when we tell Iran to "quit it", it would be easier than if we went up to them alone, and called them "terrorists"?

[unkbd]

The UN and NATO were formed and worked when there was a clear and present enemy(socialism). Since the fall of Russia there has been no significant socialist republic(save China) forcing the spread of socialism, thus the need for NATO/UN has gone by the wayside. Not to mention the fact that the countries that we are talking about do not recognize NATO/UN as any kind of authoritative figure. IMO NATO/UN should both be scrapped and/or revamped and given some teeth and claws to enforce a "standard of conduct" among nations. Besides, NATO/UN never really did anything for America other than giving us a place to voice our displeasure of other countries in a public forum, and suck money from our coffers.

[Urthman]

It doesn't matter what the U.S. government decides to "label" someone as. It won't change anything. The UN is not going to step up anything, and the U.S. can't afford another front if it came down to a war between the U.S. and Iran. The Iraq war has sucked too much money from the U.S. along with willing support from the citizens of the country. Iran knows this as well as everyone else in the world. They know that the "superpower" status is slowly falling away from our country. Yeah, we're big, yeah, we're bad, but we're also broke and unsupportive of our leadership. (Not just the President either.)

[Silverado]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You can't blame Bush for everything that happens/doesn't happen in this country. The President (and I mean the office, not the individual person) doesn't have as much power as most people believe.

You want to complain about the war in Iraq...complain to congress. They voted for it. You want to complain about the money being spent on that war....complain to congress they voted on it.

Now, that comment about "planning 9/11" really pisses me off (no need to close the thread Tag, just making my comment). The planners of 9/11 were those terroristic assholes that hate America because we have stuff and they don't, because we have money and they don't, because we eat food multiple times a day and they don't. It was those crazy motherf$%#ers that attacked this country. They've been doing it for a long time and will continue to do it unless we do something about it.

You want to talk about what would happen if we elected by popular vote....sure, Gore would have been in office. When, not if, WHEN an attack (or numerous attacks) happened on his watch, he would have sent in negotiators to see what we could do to negotiate a peace (meaning, what can the US give you so you will stop attacking us?) The negotiators probably would have been killed. He would have done nothing. Like when Clinton did nothing about the attacks on the World Trade Center (the first time), on an embassy, or the USS Cole. Not to mention, with Gore, oil and gas would be at higher prices than they are now. He'd push for legislation that all cars should get 50mpg, be electric, etc. We wouldn't see products like the Camaro (or the G8, the Super Vette, etc) even coming out of Detroit for fear of fines from the government. Heck, you might not see much coming out of Detroit because he'd be pushing for more products from China and Japan. All the military guys here could just get used to working for the UN, not the US. And, it's not like I'm making this stuff up, these are things that he has said he believes should happen.

Don't get me wrong, I do not and will not blindly agree with everything Bush has done or is doing (his Immigration ideas are some of the worst, right up there with the Democrats in Congress). But at least he did something about the terrorists. What did Clinton do? Were there mistakes? Yes. Will there be more mistakes with the next President? Yes. Regardless of their party. Was Bush the best choice? Out of all the people in the country, of course not. But, he was far, far better than the alternative.

Back to the comment about voting by popular vote....we use the current system today, because that's the current, active law. Don't like them? Then work to change them, but the current rules are the ones everyone has to play by until they are changed. It doesn't mean they are right or better than any alternative, it just means they are what we have now.

Here's the overall problem with whoever we elect to be President. The people most qualified, most likely to serve the country the best....won't run. They already have good/great jobs that pay them extremely well. They don't want all the BS that comes with the position. So, you end up with someone who is power hungry or attention hungry or some other usually-self-serving reason, running for and being elected to the office.

The biggest problem with all of the politicians anymore is that they aren't representing their people. They make promises, get elected, and then they follow their own agenda. 99% of the politicians could care less what their constituents want or need, it's whatever lines their pockets and then gets them elected the next time.

[Jak]

Ahh, damn, I gotta throw my two cents in now. I also don't agree with everything Bush says or does, but I also agree Bush is not to blame for every freaking thing that goes wrong in the world, hell I'm surprised some nutcase hasn't blamed him for the bridge collapse and that mine cave in. As far as the National Debt goes, yes, when Bush took office there was a surplus. And the 9/11 came. Who foot the bill for grounding all the airlines afterwords? You don't think the Airlines swollowed that do you? The US Government paid every airline for there losses, who paid the bill for the Ground Zero clean up/ over time, ect? NYC? No the federal government. That's where the surplus went too.
As for the war in Iraq. The thing that pisses me off is that everyone seems to think that war is like tv, you click a channel and "poof" it's over. Wars can't be won over night, they take time. And don't forget, we're fighting a people that have no respect for human life, I mean how could they, when they strap bombs into little kids, women, themselves and send them into markets to kill as many innocent people as they can.
And personally, I'd much rather have the fighting going on over there in the streets of bagdad then here in our streets. Though, don't get me wrong, it'd be stupid to think that it's not gonna happen here.With our borders wide open, it bound to happen eventually.
There, that's my two cents. Though, I suppose I'll get flamed now cause I'm not with the anti-Bush/ Hate-Bush crowd.

[Silverado]

Well put Jak, and I'm glad to see I'm not alone in not being anti-Bush/hate-Bush crowd. I knew when I posted that I would probably take a bunch of heat for saying it, but I had to say it anyway. You mention the bridge and the mine, and I agree, someone is probably blaming him. They also blame him for a Category 5 hurricane slamming into the Gulf Coast in '05, but... Blaming Bush for that kind of crap is ridiculous....okay, I'm not going to get all riled up again.

Thanks for your post Jak, nice to see I'm not alone.