An object lesson on what oppression looks like for those in this country who like to talk about it. The Iranian government has started cracking down on satellite television. They announced a crackdown and immediately began doing so, ripping dish antennas off buildings and destroying them. While Cuba warned about it, the Cuban government does not appear to have made aggressive moves yet, Iran went full bore after these connections to the outside world.
The use of satellite dishes is prohibited by law and we ask people not to use this equipment anymore," Morteze Talaie was quoted as saying in the press.
Police armed with warrants raided rooftops of large apartment blocks and high-rises in the chic northern and western areas of Tehran on Sunday and have conducted similar operations in other cities, witnesses and press reports said.
"Police seized scores of satellite dishes in Velenjak (northern Tehran) and after loading their vans, they took off," a resident identifying himself as Hamid told AFP.
We heard the other day that Iran was clamping down on bloggers, now that they are shutting off outside channels of communication. This is an ominous sign.
Speaking of Iran, it’s being reported they are shelling Kurds in Northern Iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1852843,00.html
This is confusing because I thought they were aiding and abedding the Kurds to drag Turkey into the conflict or something like that. Isn’t that what you said in an ealier post about the Axis of Egos?
Maybe we can use this attack on Iraqi soil as an excuse to invade Iran!
To say on topic with this post, consider: If you look at the previous reformist Iran Administration (1997-2005), they were OK with satellite dishes..they said a crackdown would be meaningless and that state TV had to improve its quality to entice viewers (how very progressive!).
But then something happened- one of Iran’s neighbors was attacked and occupied by a western country. Then that invading country called Iran an Axis of evil, even after Iran condemmed 9/11 and offered help to track down Bin Laden! At that point the people VOTED the reformists out and replaced them with hard line, anti-Western candidates. And now those hard-liners are enacting their hard-line beliefs– No exposure to the evil Western influence that you find on satellite TV.
Welcome to the world of cause and effect.
Well thanks for clearing that all up. So the Iranians were able to see into the future and see the Iraq invasion and start a nuclear bomb prgram more than 20 years ago. One that continued through the “reformist” government. And of course they wouldn’t even consider putting agents in place to stir trouble up with Turkey. And of course, their shelling is going after the PKK, but is only hitting farmers, so they are obviously just helping out now right?
I guess it’s just so much easier in your world to blame America first and let all else flow from that, right?
No, Iran started a nuclear weapons program because they could. Just as we signed treaties not to develop biological weapons but continue to do so covertly. Get off that moral high horse and stop acting like only America and our allies are entitled to the nuke. Since are the only country to use a nuke against civilians, that argues against us being the only one to have it. Or is there some Rightroots Indepdents(tm) formula of nuclear entitlement of which I’m not aware? Please enlighten us as to who should and shouldn’t be allowed to have a nuke.
Bill,
Nations don’t invest in a nuclear weapons program because they can. What reasons would Iran, after 1979, want to invest in a nuclear weapon? There are different types of reactors; some produce material that can be used for nuclear weapons, some don’t. Which is Iran investing in? Why do they want them? Do you trust the current Iranian government armed with nuclear weapons? That is a hypothetical question.
Biological weapons: what evidence do you have that we are developing biological weapons? The treaty allows for development of samples in order to develop antidotes, but I have never seen or heard of US weaponized biological agents. There is a huge difference between samples maintained in laboratories and weaponized agents. And what does this have to do with Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
Get off the moral ‘no’ horse and quit equivocating. As we discussed on a different thread, the sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons, and the effects of carpet bombing and general ‘hell’ of war, led to the current standards for conducting war. The US and USSR had a very uneasy truce under the umbrella of MAD. This was a policy that developed over time in the 50s and early 60s after some close calls. Both nations agreed to conditions, checks and balances, and verifiable means to prevent an incident from escalating to global holocaust. Does the current Iran government agree to these terms? Do you trust them to abide by those terms? I don’t.
If a state wants to develop a nuclear weapon, there is very little we can do to stop it, short of going to war. But we can influence, and have had many successes (Brazil, South Korea, Libya). Sometimes it takes more drastic measures (Iraq). Sometimes diplomacy fails and we choose not to intervene (India, Pakistan, Israel).
You don’t advocate a position. You only criticize. What are you FOR? A nuclear Iran under it’s current government? An isolationist US? More diplomacy without a military option? I believe that Clausewitz was right: war (and the threat thereof) is an extension of diplomacy. What do you believe in? What are you for?
> What reasons would Iran, after 1979, want to invest in a nuclear weapon?
One possibility (kinda weak):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
> Why do they want them?
They want the bomb. I think every country wants the bomb, but sometimes there are incentives for not having it that outweigh making or getting one. In general, the more scared a country is of invasion, the more it will want the bomb.
> Do you trust the current Iranian government armed with nuclear weapons?
I trust no government with nuclear weapons! However that can’t change the reality of them existing. I think we agree that we want to limit the amount of nuclear weapons in the world as much as possible.
> what evidence do you have that we are developing biological weapons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dugway_Proving_Ground
Ask yourself how many tests you can do on the same substances, and look at home many scientists work there full time. Draw your own conclusions.
You bring up Iraq and nuclear weapons. Please show me that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons in the last 10 years. I think Iraq/Saddam wanted the bomb, but was too afraid of the consquences if the UN caught him making one. Turns out it didn’t matter and we invaded anyway on phony evidence.
> What are you FOR?
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.”
I’d like citizens of the world, when thinking of the United States, to visualize Hospitals waving the American flag, not Abraham Tanks and Hum Vees firing rounds. If the United States went into poor countries and built hospitals and dispensed medicine all labelled “made in the USA,” people of the world wouldn’t hate or fear us, they would love us. This theory of mine has been born out in Indonesia, the only Muslim country who’s approval of us has gone up in the last five years. Those polls of Islamic countries weren’t just polling “Islmofascists,” but all Muslims. What we’ve been doing in the five-six years isn’t helping our image, as the polls prove. Ask yourself why radical Muslims aren’t blowing up the red light district in Amsterdam, where drugs, sex and other things anti-Muslim go on openly.
I’m guessing your asking for my position so you can spend your energy criticising it. But my position shouldn’t matter, because the reality is the policy you support is being played out, and MSM influence or not, it’s not going well. You can blame it on an Islam-Illuminati, but what’s happening in Iraq was predicted well before the invasion by the Carnegie Institute for Peace. They identified the key factors for a successful democracy, and Iraq had maybe 2 of the 10 factors. I’ve spent too much time find links for this post, if you care to find the report, it’s out there on the ‘net, circa 2002-2003.
In another post here it was positioned that a failure in Iraq will mean a failure for the entire country. Fortunately I think most of this mess is seen as being on the shoulders of Dubya. When the world sees him leave and Republicans voted out, they understand a different leader will do things differently. So don’t pin the nation’s success on the outcome of the Iraq occupation. Unless you are talking about Dubya bankrupting the country, which if you recall is Bin Laden’s plan. Something to consider since the war is costing us about five thousand dollars every second.
No thoughts on Iraqi “oppresion” of Arabiya?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800595_pf.html