Will the 12th Imam cause war with Iran?

[avatar4321]

This is a pretty important topic when understanding what we are facing with Iran. So I am posting this article:

Will the 12th Imam cause war with Iran? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/28/do2804.xml)


Not since the prime minister of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada presented an address claiming that UFOs posed a mortal threat to the future of mankind has the United Nations been treated to such a bizarre spectacle.

Many people believe the greatest threat to world peace concerns Iran's nuclear programme, so there was understandably great interest at this week's general assembly in New York when the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, took the platform.

But instead of seeking to reassure delegates that Iran's nuclear intentions were purely benign, Mr Ahmadinejad took advantage of his official visit to a country deemed – in the lexicon of the Iranian Revolution – "the Great Satan" to embark on a discourse about the wonders of the 12th Imam.

For those unacquainted with the more obscure tenets of Islamic theology, the 12th Imam is held by devout Shi'ite Muslims to be a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed who went into "occlusion" in the ninth century at the age of five and hasn't been seen since.

The Hidden Imam, as he is also known by his followers, will only return after a period of cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed – what Christians call the Apocalypse – and then lead the world into an era of universal peace.

Rumours abound of Mr Ahmadinejad's devotion to the 12th Imam, and last year it was reported that he had persuaded his cabinet to sign a "contract" pledging themselves to work for his return.

Another example of his messianic tendencies surfaced after 108 people were killed in an aircraft crash in Teheran. Mr Ahmadinejad praised the victims, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."

For many of the hundreds of delegates who attended Mr Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN this week, his discourse on the merits of the 12th Imam finally brought home the reality of the danger his regime poses to world peace.

Rather than allaying concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions, Mr Ahmadinejad spoke at length about how a Muslim saviour would relieve the world's suffering.

The era of Western predominance was drawing to a close, he said, and would soon be replaced by a "bright future" ushered in by the 12th Imam's return. "Without any doubt, the Promised One, who is the ultimate Saviour, will come. The pleasing aroma of justice will permeate the whole world."

The really alarming aspect is that – if the world's leading intelligence agencies are to be believed – he is seriously attempting to acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal.

Only yesterday, the opposition group that first revealed the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz claimed that Iran was building a new bomb-proof underground site for developing nuclear weapons.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) said the regime was near to completing a vast underground chamber that was linked by two tunnels to the existing complex at Natanz, and was protected against aerial attack.

As with so many of the allegations relating to Iran's nuclear activities, the NCRI's claims are impossible to verify, not least because Iran continues to impede UN nuclear inspectors.

And even if, as Mr Ahmadinejad claimed in New York, Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons, there is every indication that Teheran is preparing itself for war, not least because the clash with Western civilisation that the Iranian president so obviously desires will hasten, or so he believes, the arrival of the 12th Imam.

Before flying to the US, Mr Ahmadinejad addressed a military parade in Teheran at which he said Iran would retaliate with missile strikes against Western targets in the event of the West launching air strikes to neutralise Iran's nuclear aspirations.

Recent changes to the regime's hierarchy also suggest that the country is now being put on a war footing in anticipation of Western military action. The most significant appointment is that of Mohammed Ali Jaafari as the new head of the Revolutionary Guards.

Mr Ahmadinejad – a former Revolutionary Guards commander – regards the 200,000-strong organisation as the storm troops of the Islamic Revolution and, by appointing Mr Jaafari its new commander this month, he is giving the guards primary responsibility for protecting the country against attack.

Major-General Rahim Safavi, the previous commander, was hardly a soft touch, having masterminded the capture and subsequent release of 15 British service personnel this year.

Mr Safavi, who commanded the guards for 10 years, is understood to have fallen out with Mr Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's spiritual leader, after he argued that the guards were too weak to repel an attack from abroad.

Mr Safavi was also criticised within the regime for failing to establish effective supply lines between Teheran and Hizbollah, the Iranian-funded militia in southern Lebanon. A train carrying vital military supplies for Hizbollah from Iran to Syria blew up in mysterious circumstances last May in northern Turkey, severely disrupting Iran's attempts to re-arm Hizbollah following last year's war with Israel.

Mr Jaafari, by contrast, has a proven track record as an effective Revolutionary Guards commander. Regarded in Iranian circles as an ultra-conservative, Mr Jaafari was, until recently, in charge of Iran's anti-American activities in Iraq, and narrowly escaped capture by US forces in January when the Americans seized five guards belonging to the secretive Quds force.

And, unlike his predecessor, Mr Jaafari is bullish about the Revolutionary Guards' capacity to defend Iran from attack. He attracted international attention this year when he boasted that more than 50,000 volunteers were being trained in Iran to carry out "martyrdom-seeking operations" against the West.

Just the kind of carnage Mr Ahmadinejad believes will hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam.

The best way to survive is to know our enemies and I think understanding this is key to any chance we have in defeating Iran

[diuretic]

The best way to survive is to know our enemies and I think understanding this is key to any chance we have in defeating Iran

So, who goes first?

[truthmatters]

I agree knowing the enemy is very important to winning the battle.

Please remember that when we are talking about knowing why they hate us beyond the simplistic ideas the current admin gives us.

[jimnyc]

Please remember that when we are talking about knowing why they hate us beyond the simplistic ideas the current admin gives us.

What the hell does that mean? Are you implying the information given to us about Iran is only from the current administration? Once again you'll try to take ANY topic as an opportunity to bash the Bush administration, and look foolish while doing so.

[truthmatters]

How many times have people on the left here tried to talk about the real reasons for this war to be baraged with insults and told to quit making excuses for the enemy?

Understandig their motovations is the key to stopping the spread of terror.

This admin has told us over and over silly things like they hate us for our freedoms which is not the case.

[jimnyc]

How many times have people on the left here tried to talk about the real reasons for this war to be baraged with insults and told to quit making excuses for the enemy?

Understandig their motovations is the key to stopping the spread of terror.

This admin has told us over and over silly things like they hate us for our freedoms which is not the case.

So it's ONLY this current administration that has stated such things? And no other media entities or prior administrations have stated similarly? But sure, go ahead and once again try to take a subject and derail it into a blame game against Bush. :rolleyes:

[diuretic]

What the hell does that mean? Are you implying the information given to us about Iran is only from the current administration? Once again you'll try to take ANY topic as an opportunity to bash the Bush administration, and look foolish while doing so.

They're the ones in there at the moment. They have to understand the current situation in Iran and they have to develop policy from that. Of course given they're totally bloody incompetent I haven't much hope of anything constructive coming out of there other than Darth Cheney doing a McCain chorus.

[truthmatters]

I dont remember anyone but this admin saying the radical islamics hate us for our freedoms?

[diuretic]

I dont remember anyone but this admin saying the radical islamics hate us for our freedoms?

Rule 1 - radical Islamists are nutters.

Rule 2 - don't forget Rule 1.

[jimnyc]

I dont remember anyone but this admin saying the radical islamics hate us for our freedoms?

Then you are terribly misinformed. The media has been stating such for YEARS, but of course you want to lay the blame at the feet of this administration for these thoughts.

[truthmatters]

They are pro this admin and have proven it over and over.
We have a corporate media which helps this admin whenever they can get away with it.

[Dilloduck]

They are pro this admin and have proven it over and over.
We have a corporate media which helps this admin whenever they can get away with it.

Dan Rather was trying to help Bush ? :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

Dan Rather is not the media and the media fired him. His suit will bring the truth to bear.

[Dilloduck]

Dan Rather is not the media and the media fired him. His suit will bring the truth to bear.

LOL--ok i'll bite--who do you consider to be the media ?

[jimnyc]

They are pro this admin and have proven it over and over.
We have a corporate media which helps this admin whenever they can get away with it.

Like I said, terribly uninformed/misinformed - but we already knew that about you!

[truthmatters]

It is a fact that the main stream media has consolidated over the years and is corporate owned. Corporations have one goal and that is to make more money. They will do anything to do so.

[diuretic]

It is a fact that the main stream media has consolidated over the years and is corporate owned. Corporations have one goal and that is to make more money. They will do anything to do so.

That is absolutely true. People get confused with means and ends. A corporation does things (ie carries out a particular business) in order to achieve its end, the end is to make money. Everything is focused on the end, that is, making money. If someone hasn't worked that out already then they need to get better informed. It's about the money, stupid. :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

There needs to be oversite of these industries so they do not subvert our govenment and this is why consolidation limmits need to be applied. Without them we will lose our government.

[Dilloduck]

It is a fact that the main stream media has consolidated over the years and is corporate owned. Corporations have one goal and that is to make more money. They will do anything to do so.

who owns the corporations?

[diuretic]

who owns the corporations?

Shareholders/stockholders (terminology thing).

[truthmatters]

who owns the corporations?


Those who hold the largest shares.

[Dilloduck]

Those who hold the largest shares.

Some of whom are liberals ?

[truthmatters]

Can you name them?
http://www.cjr.org/resources/
heres some help

[Dilloduck]

Can you name them?
http://www.cjr.org/resources/
heres some help

If you are actually going to argue that liberals have no influence in the media I'm going to let that statement stand as is for all to see.

[truthmatters]

If you are actually going to argue that liberals have no influence in the media I'm going to let that statement stand as is for all to see.


Again putting words in my mouth?

Where did I say liberals have no influence on the media?

What I am saying is that the biggest influence on our media is the corporations who are consolidating it. They are predominately owned by fewer and fewer people. The majority of share holders are the VERY wealthy and the majority of those have consevative leanings because they like the ability to further consolidate and make more money.

Please lets stick with what is really said here.

[Dilloduck]

Again putting words in my mouth?

Where did I say liberals have no influence on the media?

What I am saying is that the biggest influence on our media is the corporations who are consolidating it. They are predominately owned by fewer and fewer people. The majority of share holders are the VERY wealthy and the majority of those have consevative leanings because they like the ability to further consolidate and make more money.

Please lets stick with what is really said here.

That would be a lot simpler if you were willing to answer direct questions.
Show me where a majority of very wealthy share holders in media stock have "conservative leanings". This myth that most rich people are conservatives really needs to be busted.

[truthmatters]

Most want to just make money. Most are not concerned with making sure nothing but the truth is printed even at the cost of profit. They are trying to get a higer yeild from their shares even if it means the truth suffers. The current Republican leadership is helping their interests by lower corporate taxes and allowig them to further consolidate which gives them a bigger market share. Democrats lean toward oversight , higher corporate taxes and limmits on consolidation of the media.

Its just common sense and is why they helped Bush to war by not investigating the claims Bush made about WMDs and AQ ties enough to show they were weak at best. Out of it they got Big headlines and lower taxes and a market they could cinch up to create profits.

Its common sense.

[Dilloduck]

Most want to just make money. Most are not concerned with making sure nothing but the truth is printed even at the cost of profit. They are trying to get a higer yeild from their shares even if it means the truth suffers. The current Republican leadership is helping their interests by lower corporate taxes and allowig them to further consolidate which gives them a bigger market share. Democrats lean toward oversight , higher corporate taxes and limmits on consolidation of the media.

Its just common sense and is why they helped Bush to war by not investigating the claims Bush made about WMDs and AQ ties enough to show they were weak at best. Out of it they got Big headlines and lower taxes and a market they could cinch up to create profits.

Its common sense.

In other words---no link ?

[Gaffer]

Concerning the subject of the post. I have been warning about this for years. iran is a very dangerous enemy and they intend to start a war. The longer we hold off going after them the more they are able to build up. A medium range rocket has a range of a thousand miles. Such a rocket can be launched from a ship disguised as a freighter.

A country building nuclear technology for use in generating power has no need of underground facilities to develop that power. ahmalittlehitler is out to start a cataclysmic war. He has even stated publicly they he doesn't care if most of iran is totally destroyed. This is not a sane individual that you discuss things with.

[truthmatters]

In other words---no link ?

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html

Here is a link which can teach you all about the history of the consilidation of the


media.http://www.changingchannels.org/consol2.htm

There is also this.

Media Consolidation: What Are the Effects?

In an earlier time, it was a fact of life in the television business that there were certain things that the local station or network did as a good corporate citizen - enforced, of course, by FCC regulations. Good, solid news reporting that was independent from the advertising department was one thing; the news department was not really expected to be profitable, but was carried by profit from the rest of the station or network. Quality children's programming was another expectation. Equal time for opposing viewpoints was another requirement.

These "good citizen" requirements have largely been swept away, and the maximization of profit has become the dominating force.

As a smaller number of "voices" dominate the marketplace, serious questions have arisen about the impact on democracy itself. Since most Americans get nearly all their news about the world from TV, and thus from these Big Ten companies, the concept of an "informed electorate" is called into question. Many surveys have revealed that Americans are very poorly informed about international and public policy issues. What happens when the corporations see fit to withhold news for corporate gain or strategy? What happens when several of the "Big Ten" want to push a particular candidate for office? Or oppose a candidate they see as a threat to their interests.

> Read more about the impact on democracy

Media companies respond that they dominate the market because they are popular with consumers, and they should not be penalized for being popular. They point out that internet radio stations, web sites, and so on have created a huge proliferation of "voices" in the marketplace. They speak of FCC regulations as violations of their free speech.

> What's wrong with the "Free Market" arguments

Over the last ten years, the massive consolidation of ownership has also resulted in:

Loss of independence of news departments --A complete demolition of the "Chinese wall" that once (at least in theory) existed between the news department and the advertising department.


News departments are expected to be profitable. No matter how much money the rest of a station or network is making, the news department is expected to show a profit or it faces cancellation. Many stations no longer have local news; the national news broadcasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC may be cancelled in the next few years.


News broadcasts rarely feature stories that contradict corporate positions and agenda. While the giant media companies were spending millions of dollars to lobby for deregulation, they very carefully kept news of the issue off their newscasts - and thus out of the public mind. Read more about it.


Reduced localism: local affiliates have always been allowed to refuse to carry network programming that they consider inappropriate for their local audience, and to buy syndicated programs from other suppliers. Networks want to own as many local stations as possible to eliminate this lack of control.


Reduced quality of local news: network-owned TV stations are more likely to rate a lower score (than locally-owned affiliates) for their local news broadcasts in reviews by groups like The Project for Excellence in Journalism http://www.changingchannels.org/news/news.php?id=17 Read about it.


"Homogenization" of programming. In the same way that every mall in every city has the same stores carrying the same products, you can tune into a Clear Channel radio station in Phoenix and hear the same music that the Clear Channel station in Milwaukee is playing. Sometimes the same announcer, too. Just try calling their request line!


Concentration of children's programming (and control of the children programming market) onto a few cable channels - Viacom-owned Nickelodeon, Disney, and AOL Time Warner's Cartoon Network. All three have shown an increasing disregard for the educational and emotional needs of younger children. PBS' children's programming remains the bright spot, but even there the overall changes in the marketplace have taken a terrible toll. Programs like Reading Rainbow face cancellation due to lack of funding. Read the story.


Children's programming has become regarded solely as a promotional tool for lines of toys. The effect of the marketing and programming content on children is mostly disregarded. Rude, aggressive, and negative behavior is often portrayed as normal and acceptable.


The accounting focus on cost-to-profit ratio has caused the networks to emphasize cheap programs (like Fear Factor and Survivor) that can predictably attract a younger audience. Because advertisers will pay more for "young eyeballs," networks have cancelled programs with huge ratings because they have older-skewing audiences. This practice has caused a huge loss of viewers in the 40+ age bracket, who no longer find anything they want to watch.


The formerly sacrosanct "Family Hour" has become a cesspool of questionable comedies that are mostly unacceptable for viewing with younger children. This has come up as a constant complaint in parent surveys; in a recent telephone survey, 64% of adults said that current network programming was not appropriate for family viewing.


Independent producers and syndicators are squeezed out of the marketplace - even when their programming is high quality and would find a substantial viewership.

[avatar4321]

How many times have people on the left here tried to talk about the real reasons for this war to be baraged with insults and told to quit making excuses for the enemy?

Understandig their motovations is the key to stopping the spread of terror.

This admin has told us over and over silly things like they hate us for our freedoms which is not the case.

The left attempts to show the motivation of the terrorists rests solely in attacking America and saying something we are doing is wrong. They are trying to tell us the terror attacks are our fault.

They arent. There is nothing we could possibly change to make them not continually attack us. Their motivation is chaos, destruction etc in an effort for their own political power.

[avatar4321]

I dont remember anyone but this admin saying the radical islamics hate us for our freedoms?

except of course, you know, the radical islamics.

[avatar4321]

Rule 1 - radical Islamists are nutters.

Rule 2 - don't forget Rule 1.

Rule 1 is nuts. They arent nuts. They are just evil.

[avatar4321]

Dan Rather is not the media and the media fired him. His suit will bring the truth to bear.

You mean the truth that he forged documents to try to attack President Bush? Yep. Sure will.

[avatar4321]

There needs to be oversite of these industries so they do not subvert our govenment and this is why consolidation limmits need to be applied. Without them we will lose our government.

yeah. Heaven forbid we allow freedom to flourish. The only solution is government control.

[avatar4321]

Most want to just make money. Most are not concerned with making sure nothing but the truth is printed even at the cost of profit. They are trying to get a higer yeild from their shares even if it means the truth suffers. The current Republican leadership is helping their interests by lower corporate taxes and allowig them to further consolidate which gives them a bigger market share. Democrats lean toward oversight , higher corporate taxes and limmits on consolidation of the media.

Its just common sense and is why they helped Bush to war by not investigating the claims Bush made about WMDs and AQ ties enough to show they were weak at best. Out of it they got Big headlines and lower taxes and a market they could cinch up to create profits.

Its common sense.

in other words: Republics support market place freedom.

[avatar4321]

Concerning the subject of the post. I have been warning about this for years. iran is a very dangerous enemy and they intend to start a war. The longer we hold off going after them the more they are able to build up. A medium range rocket has a range of a thousand miles. Such a rocket can be launched from a ship disguised as a freighter.

A country building nuclear technology for use in generating power has no need of underground facilities to develop that power. ahmalittlehitler is out to start a cataclysmic war. He has even stated publicly they he doesn't care if most of iran is totally destroyed. This is not a sane individual that you discuss things with.

No, he is perfectly sane. That is the scary part. If he was insane we could dismiss him as a lunatic. He would destroy his own country. But he is sane. He has complete control. He knows what he is doing and that is stiring up chaos, conflict, death and destruction.

[truthmatters]

Damn if I did 7 posts in a row I would get in alot of truoble here.

[truthmatters]

Explain to me how what I say is wrong?

[diuretic]

Concerning the subject of the post. I have been warning about this for years. iran is a very dangerous enemy and they intend to start a war. The longer we hold off going after them the more they are able to build up. A medium range rocket has a range of a thousand miles. Such a rocket can be launched from a ship disguised as a freighter.

A country building nuclear technology for use in generating power has no need of underground facilities to develop that power. ahmalittlehitler is out to start a cataclysmic war. He has even stated publicly they he doesn't care if most of iran is totally destroyed. This is not a sane individual that you discuss things with.

Why would Iran start a war? I can't think if a reason for them to do so. I'm no expert in military affairs but it seems to me that wars are the result of a failure of international politics and are usually over economic rather than ideological reasons. I'll stand correct on that of course.

It also seems to me that Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power to declare war. He's just a front man for the real power in Iran. That being so if he were ordered by them to do it then he would, I have no doubt about that. But as I said, I can't think of a reason for them to do so.

[diuretic]

No, he is perfectly sane. That is the scary part. If he was insane we could dismiss him as a lunatic. He would destroy his own country. But he is sane. He has complete control. He knows what he is doing and that is stiring up chaos, conflict, death and destruction.

He's not even popular in Iran, his handling of the domestic economy has been pretty poor.

[Yurt]

He's not even popular in Iran, his handling of the domestic economy has been pretty poor.

Do you have a link?

[Yurt]

Damn if I did 7 posts in a row I would get in alot of truoble here.

kids should be seen, not heard, not go back to your corner crybaby .....

:cool:

[diuretic]

Do you have a link?

This is one - http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-09-04-iran-economy-usat_x.htm

[truthmatters]

Geopolitics casts pall on hobbled Iranian economy
Updated 9/5/2006 1:11 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions


Enlarge By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY

Young men hang out in a Tehran park. Jobs are scarce in the city, and the rest of Iran.



By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
TEHRAN, Iran — They are young men, willing and able to work. But they spend all day, every day, sitting in a crummy city park waiting for jobs that rarely appear.
"It's awful. It's almost impossible to find a job. I've been looking for six months," says 25-year-old Siamak Adyen, one of about a dozen men sitting cross-legged on a grassy strip in the Saadat Abad neighborhood.

Without a steady paycheck, their lives are on hold. Those with wives in distant provinces can't afford to bring them to the capital. Those who are single lack the money to marry and establish new households. Emptying his pockets, Adyen displays a 2,000 rial note — worth less than 25 cents. "Look! I'm a young man in this country and this is all I have," he says, shaking his head in disgust.

As Iran hurtles toward a confrontation with the United States over its nuclear program, the nation's economy remains a dysfunctional wreck. Neither wholly free nor entirely socialist, the Iranian market is a ramshackle hybrid buttressed by lofty oil prices. One year after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president on a vow to share Iran's oil wealth with the poor, Tehran's army of jobless men is a reminder of the squandered potential that characterizes revolutionary Iran.

"We need to create jobs. Unfortunately, the government is not a good businessman," says businessman Ali Sharghi.

The official unemployment rate is 11%, although economists such as London Metropolitan University's Parvin Alizadeh say the actual total is twice that figure. Even government ministers acknowledge jobless rates as high as 18% in some provinces.

Heydar Pourian, editor of the magazine Iran Economics, says he recently advertised a janitorial opening and had an engineer aggressively pursue the $160-per-month job. "We were shocked," he says.

Geopolitics also is casting a pall on Iran's economy. For much of its 27-year history, the Islamic Republic has been under one form or another of U.S. sanctions. That's fueled a drive for self-sufficiency in industries such as pharmaceuticals and consumer goods. But sanctions prevent Iran from tapping the best U.S. technology to fully exploit its massive oil and gas reserves. So daily oil output of about 4.2 million barrels is almost one-third below its 1970s-era peak.

Foreign direct investment in the current year is expected to reach just $1.5 billion; neighboring Turkey, of comparable size, anticipates $11 billion. For the Iranian year that ended in March, the economy grew an estimated 6%, but that mostly reflects the impact of surging oil revenue and expansionary government spending, which has doubled in four years, says the International Monetary Fund.

Three years of confrontation between Iran and the U.S. over the nuclear issue have chilled domestic businesses that depend upon the outside world. Near the ancient ruins at Persepolis, about 30 miles outside Shiraz, restaurateur Rasoul Azeemzadeh mourns lost opportunities.

His "Peacock Nest" eatery once drew scores of foreign tourists with its tasty regional cuisine and poolside ambience. Azeemzadeh acquired land nearby and drew up plans to expand with a tourist hotel. But business started to sag after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and in the last year, amid continuing tensions over Iran's nuclear program, it's plummeted 70%, he says.

"I'm just like a sailing ship. The wind comes from each direction and just drags me along," says Azeemzadeh. "An official says something somewhere, and it affects my business."

Now, the expansion plans are forgotten, and he regards the land as a place to grow crops to feed his family if the restaurant fails.


I so wish people of fall political perspectives would allow the truth of these situations to be considered in their viewpoints. We should all seek out the facts of the situation we are talking about to come up with the best plans for American based on all the facts not just a few.

[Gaffer]

Why would Iran start a war? I can't think if a reason for them to do so. I'm no expert in military affairs but it seems to me that wars are the result of a failure of international politics and are usually over economic rather than ideological reasons. I'll stand correct on that of course.

It also seems to me that Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power to declare war. He's just a front man for the real power in Iran. That being so if he were ordered by them to do it then he would, I have no doubt about that. But as I said, I can't think of a reason for them to do so.

He wants to achieve the return of the 12th imam. As stated earlier. This can only be accomplished by a cataclysmic war and the conversion of the remaining people in the world to islam. This is the ONLY way this can be accomplished. His puppet masters have the same beliefs. We are not talking about politics or conquest for land or riches. We are talking fundamentalist religious nuts that don't care who or how many die.

We are not dealing with rational people here. They are gearing up for a major war. The longer we wait and talk the more they build up.

[Gaffer]

He's not even popular in Iran, his handling of the domestic economy has been pretty poor.

popularity means nothing there. Its a theocracy. The president is chosen by the mullahs, not the people.

[Said1]

Again putting words in my mouth?

Where did I say liberals have no influence on the media?

What I am saying is that the biggest influence on our media is the corporations who are consolidating it. They are predominately owned by fewer and fewer people. The majority of share holders are the VERY wealthy and the majority of those have consevative leanings because they like the ability to further consolidate and make more money.

Please lets stick with what is really said here.

Gore group owns one of the biggest media outlets in Canada. Our 24/7 news stations. :laugh2::clap:

[Gaffer]

Geopolitics casts pall on hobbled Iranian economy
Updated 9/5/2006 1:11 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions


Enlarge By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY

Young men hang out in a Tehran park. Jobs are scarce in the city, and the rest of Iran.



By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
TEHRAN, Iran — They are young men, willing and able to work. But they spend all day, every day, sitting in a crummy city park waiting for jobs that rarely appear.
"It's awful. It's almost impossible to find a job. I've been looking for six months," says 25-year-old Siamak Adyen, one of about a dozen men sitting cross-legged on a grassy strip in the Saadat Abad neighborhood.

Without a steady paycheck, their lives are on hold. Those with wives in distant provinces can't afford to bring them to the capital. Those who are single lack the money to marry and establish new households. Emptying his pockets, Adyen displays a 2,000 rial note — worth less than 25 cents. "Look! I'm a young man in this country and this is all I have," he says, shaking his head in disgust.

As Iran hurtles toward a confrontation with the United States over its nuclear program, the nation's economy remains a dysfunctional wreck. Neither wholly free nor entirely socialist, the Iranian market is a ramshackle hybrid buttressed by lofty oil prices. One year after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president on a vow to share Iran's oil wealth with the poor, Tehran's army of jobless men is a reminder of the squandered potential that characterizes revolutionary Iran.

"We need to create jobs. Unfortunately, the government is not a good businessman," says businessman Ali Sharghi.

The official unemployment rate is 11%, although economists such as London Metropolitan University's Parvin Alizadeh say the actual total is twice that figure. Even government ministers acknowledge jobless rates as high as 18% in some provinces.

Heydar Pourian, editor of the magazine Iran Economics, says he recently advertised a janitorial opening and had an engineer aggressively pursue the $160-per-month job. "We were shocked," he says.

Geopolitics also is casting a pall on Iran's economy. For much of its 27-year history, the Islamic Republic has been under one form or another of U.S. sanctions. That's fueled a drive for self-sufficiency in industries such as pharmaceuticals and consumer goods. But sanctions prevent Iran from tapping the best U.S. technology to fully exploit its massive oil and gas reserves. So daily oil output of about 4.2 million barrels is almost one-third below its 1970s-era peak.

Foreign direct investment in the current year is expected to reach just $1.5 billion; neighboring Turkey, of comparable size, anticipates $11 billion. For the Iranian year that ended in March, the economy grew an estimated 6%, but that mostly reflects the impact of surging oil revenue and expansionary government spending, which has doubled in four years, says the International Monetary Fund.

Three years of confrontation between Iran and the U.S. over the nuclear issue have chilled domestic businesses that depend upon the outside world. Near the ancient ruins at Persepolis, about 30 miles outside Shiraz, restaurateur Rasoul Azeemzadeh mourns lost opportunities.

His "Peacock Nest" eatery once drew scores of foreign tourists with its tasty regional cuisine and poolside ambience. Azeemzadeh acquired land nearby and drew up plans to expand with a tourist hotel. But business started to sag after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and in the last year, amid continuing tensions over Iran's nuclear program, it's plummeted 70%, he says.

"I'm just like a sailing ship. The wind comes from each direction and just drags me along," says Azeemzadeh. "An official says something somewhere, and it affects my business."

Now, the expansion plans are forgotten, and he regards the land as a place to grow crops to feed his family if the restaurant fails.


I so wish people of fall political perspectives would allow the truth of these situations to be considered in their viewpoints. We should all seek out the facts of the situation we are talking about to come up with the best plans for American based on all the facts not just a few.

This is what sanctions are for. To make the people mad enough to do something about their conditions. Unfortunately if they do they will be arrested and executed. Most of the people there, while unhappy, are controlled by their religion.

There are two choices. Sanctions which makes all the iranians miserable and maybe inspires an over throw of the government or all out war. Doing nothing will definitely lead to all out war.

[Said1]

This is what sanctions are for. To make the people mad enough to do something about their conditions. Unfortunately if they do they will be arrested and executed. Most of the people there, while unhappy, are controlled by their religion.

There are two choices. Sanctions which makes all the iranians miserable and maybe inspires an over throw of the government or all out war. Doing nothing will definitely lead to all out war.

That article is so bad in so many ways. It totally ignores anything Iran has done that might have placed in a hostile position with a large portion of the world (represented by the precious UNSC).

[avatar4321]

That article is so bad in so many ways. It totally ignores anything Iran has done that might have placed in a hostile position with a large portion of the world (represented by the precious UNSC).

That's because its never Iran's fault. its only us that are capable of doing wrong.

[Gaffer]

That article is so bad in so many ways. It totally ignores anything Iran has done that might have placed in a hostile position with a large portion of the world (represented by the precious UNSC).

it also leaves out all the imprisonments and executions that go on in iran. There is a very good reason the people don't rise up in revolt. I posted a link in another thread that showed what happened to people who defy the ayatollahs.

[diuretic]

Well the people did rise up in revolt against Pahlavi. They have it them, they just need motivation and opportunity.