U.S. imposes financial sanctions on Iran

[Christians4LessGvt]

U.S. imposes financial sanctions on Iran

Nov 06, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) The Bush administration has moved to clamp down on
Tehran by barring financial institutions from routing certain money transfers
through the United States on behalf of Iranian banks, Iran's government
and others in that country.

Specifically, the Treasury Department announced Thursday that it is
revoking Iran's so-called "U-turn" license that until now has allowed
for such money transfers.

"This regulatory action will close the last general entry point for Iran to the
U.S. financial system," according to a department release on the action.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-06-us-iran_N.htm
 

[kimba1]

uhm
not really sure that does much in our favor
iran is a fairly advance and capable country.
it`ll more likely just make them angrier at us.

[Plane]

It isn't an act of war.

What can we do ,short of acts of war, when we are unhappy with them?

[Christians4LessGvt]

it`ll more likely just make them angrier at us

what is "angrier" than chants of "Death To America"? 

[Michael Tee]

<<WASHINGTON (AP) The Bush administration has moved to clamp down on
Tehran by barring financial institutions from routing certain money transfers
through the United States on behalf of Iranian banks, Iran's government
and others in that country. >>

They'll route the transfers through other banks not in the U.S.A.  They must have seen this coming long ago and prepared other banking circuits to take over.  The U.S. banks will lose their commissions and some other banks will gain them plus something extra for obliging the Iranians and pissing off the U.S.A.

I'm sure this will cause some inconvenience and expense to the Iranians, though.

I'm not so sure this wasn't done to give the incoming Obama administration a few extra bargaining chips when the negotiations begin.  Hope the Iranians aren't fooled by phony American shell games.  But since they are even more evil than the Americans, it doesn't really matter anyway.

[Xavier_Onassis]

what is "angrier" than chants of "Death To America"?  Roll Eyes

===================
I would think that some actual physical action would be "angrier".

[Plane]

what is "angrier" than chants of "Death To America"?  Roll Eyes

===================
I would think that some actual physical action would be "angrier".

Supplying bombs to people already busy killing Americans count?

Kidnapping an embassy staff count?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Supplying bombs to people already busy killing Americans count?

Kidnapping an embassy staff count?


============
So, you are unaware that the US deposed Iran'd democratically elected (and secular) president. Mossadegh, nd installed the nasty, dictatorial, oppressive Shah for 26 years?

There is a reason why the Iranian students took those hostages, many of who were spies, by the way. It was payback, and 444 days seems hardly a fair trade for 26 years of oppression.

Iran would be a secular democracy today had the Dulles Brothers and th CIA not deposed Mossadegh. Naturally, your indoctrination did not include a thing about all the people murdered by the Savak, the Shah's secret police.

[Plane]

Do you suppose that some of the personell in washington embassys are spys?

Lets take them and blindfold them for a year, all of them, if haveing spys amoung them is an excuse there is no embassy anywhere that can claim safety .

That "spys" excuse is a total canard.

The excuse that the CIA and the British did them dirt twenty years earlyer is not much better , President Carter was at that very same time hobbleing the CIA and bringing them to heel , have you heard of the "Carter Doctrine"?. President Carter was the best president they could have ever asked for to get a good deal from and all he did for the Shah was give him a place to run to .


I do not see the Iranians being excused for this crime , and if you don't want to acnoledge it a crime then I count you as being in favor of haveing no embassys or diplomatic effort anywhere in the world.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Most embassies have spies on their staffs. The US, the Russians, everyone. The US has spies in the UK, and vice versa. Industrial spies, commercial spies, all sorts of vile creepoids. So not all those people were innocent victims. They could have chosen other, more honorable careers. Plus, the US had plates for minting US currency in that embassy, all manner of equipment for forging passports of eny country, and all sorts of other stuff that should have been removed beforethis whole mess started.

Overthrowing the government of Iran and imposing the Shah on that country for 25 years was a vile, hateful deed. Sure, taking the embassy people hostages was also a foul deed. They should blame Kissinger for that, as he told Carter to keep them there in harm's way at the same time he gave the Shah shelter in the US. It was wrong to admit the Shah to the US, and even more wrong to keep those people in that embassy. Carter should have grabbed Kissinger by his dong, twirled him 433 times over his head, and flung him out the back door of the White House. Kissinger is an enemy of decency and humanity and a war criminal.

Again, the US hostage thing was a far less serious event than deposing Mossadegh. The US has no right to screw around with deposing any elected leader of any country. The hostage crisis was blowback. If you break the rules and depose elected governments, you can expect the wronged party to respond any way they can.

You fail to understand that all people everywhere have the same rights and the same obligations to act decently. Somehow, you seem to think that the CIA has the right to overthrow any elected government, but that the people who that are affected by their evil deeds have no rights to retaliate, because they are, after all, lesser human beings, or perhaps not human at all.


 

[Plane]

Most embassies have spies on their staffs. The US, the Russians, everyone. The US has spies in the UK, and vice versa. Industrial spies, commercial spies, all sorts of vile creepoids. So not all those people were innocent victims. They could have chosen other, more honorable careers. Plus, the US had plates for minting US currency in that embassy, all manner of equipment for forging passports of eny country, and all sorts of other stuff that should have been removed beforethis whole mess started.

Overthrowing the government of Iran and imposing the Shah on that country for 25 years was a vile, hateful deed. Sure, taking the embassy people hostages was also a foul deed. They should blame Kissinger for that, as he told Carter to keep them there in harm's way at the same time he gave the Shah shelter in the US. It was wrong to admit the Shah to the US, and even more wrong to keep those people in that embassy. Carter should have grabbed Kissinger by his dong, twirled him 433 times over his head, and flung him out the back door of the White House. Kissinger is an enemy of decency and humanity and a war criminal.

Again, the US hostage thing was a far less serious event than deposing Mossadegh. The US has no right to screw around with deposing any elected leader of any country. The hostage crisis was blowback. If you break the rules and depose elected governments, you can expect the wronged party to respond any way they can.

You fail to understand that all people everywhere have the same rights and the same obligations to act decently. Somehow, you seem to think that the CIA has the right to overthrow any elected government, but that the people who that are affected by their evil deeds have no rights to retaliate, because they are, after all, lesser human beings, or perhaps not human at all.


 

Kidnapping the whole embassy did nothing to redress the deposing of Mossadegh twentyfive years prior. Carter would have been wide to kidnap the entire Iranian embassy staff in Washington and at the UN and persuede each of our allies to do the same blockadeing all of the Iranian spies inside their own walls untill the Iranians could see how extremely foolish they were to call such an action legitqamate.

Diplomats cannot be kidnapped and also conduct any thing like negotiations , President -elect Obama has suggested that we should do more diplomacy , but you are suggesting that Ambassidors should serve as hostages ?

To depose a government is an act of war , and to kidnap an embassy is an act of war , which is worse ? I think the kidnapping is worse and more craven.

[Xavier_Onassis]

To depose a government is an act of war , and to kidnap an embassy is an act of war , which is worse ? I think the kidnapping is worse and more craven
======================================================
 The Republican-controlled CIA of the 1950's deposed Mossadegh, bringing the Iranians 25 years of absolutist tyranny, followed by so far, another 31 years of religious tyranny.

The Iranian student fanatics took several dozen people hostage for 444 days, causing them some discomfort and resulting in the loss of Carter, punishing the US with rule by a doddering old fool of an actor.

I don't see how 444 days of captivity of some diplomats is worse than 25 years of the Shah's tyranny, which actually resulted in the loss of many lives. True, they were not "real" (American) lives, but the mothers of those murdered by Savak loved them just as much as your mommy loved you.
 
In every fight, the party starting the fight is more deserving of criticism than those fighting back. Peal Harbor was worse than Hiroshima in the sense that the Japanese brought the war on themselves, even though the number of casualties, especially of civilians, at Hiroshima, was much greater.

The US started the Iranian problem by overthrowing Mossadegh. The hostage crisis was payback.

The Iranians were happy, because they deposed our government. And replaced an intelligent man with an aged and rather silly old actor.

[Plane]

To depose a government is an act of war , and to kidnap an embassy is an act of war , which is worse ? I think the kidnapping is worse and more craven
======================================================
 The Republican-controlled CIA of the 1950's deposed Mossadegh, bringing the Iranians 25 years of absolutist tyranny, followed by so far, another 31 years of religious tyranny.

The Iranian student fanatics took several dozen people hostage for 444 days, causing them some discomfort and resulting in the loss of Carter, punishing the US with rule by a doddering old fool of an actor.

I don't see how 444 days of captivity of some diplomats is worse than 25 years of the Shah's tyranny, which actually resulted in the loss of many lives. True, they were not "real" (American) lives, but the mothers of those murdered by Savak loved them just as much as your mommy loved you.
 
In every fight, the party starting the fight is more deserving of criticism than those fighting back. Peal Harbor was worse than Hiroshima in the sense that the Japanese brought the war on themselves, even though the number of casualties, especially of civilians, at Hiroshima, was much greater.

The US started the Iranian problem by overthrowing Mossadegh. The hostage crisis was payback.

The Iranians were happy, because they deposed our government. And replaced an intelligent man with an aged and rather silly old actor.

They were happy to loose Carter cause they liked Reagan better?

It was with Carter that they could have made a better deal, no two ways about that. Some other president might have done more to preserve the Shah regime.

The Shah was not totally free of redeeming values , he tried to establish a social security system , he tried to improve the lot of Women , he tried to improve the literacy of the people at large , things like that. I don't know if he would have ever liberalised so much that he would have made Iran into a place I would want to live , he certainly had a log way to go yet .

If the Revolution that overthrew the Shah was supposed to improve on this , I don't see it.

Overthrowing Mossedegh was primarily to prevent him from costing the English a lot of money , but If the CIA involvement was construed as an anti-communist action then the act of war was just another act of the cold war.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"Steven Hayward in his book published in 2004 under the title, ?The Real Jimmy Carter? writes; ?Carter betrayed a man whose fall to the Ayatollah Khomeini on Carter?s watch spawned the resurgence of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism that is now the War on Terror.

Two months after the Shah?s death in Egypt, Iran?s brave armed forces who were trained as first class troops with the best armaments but without their top generals who had all been executed in the previous twenty months, were the key factors in stopping Saddam Hussein invading our country in an eight year war with Iraq.

Had the Shah of Iran remained in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have occurred. By 1975, Iran?s superior military and economic power, supported diplomatically by her good neighbour policy that promised peace and progress for all, had drawn Saddam Hussein to a politics of mutual respect and friendly interaction. The Algiers Agreement of 1975 and Saddam?s expulsion of Khomeini from Iraq in 1978 attest to the efficiency of Iranian power and diplomacy. Had the war not occurred, a million Iranians and Iraqis would have not died in vain and several million would not have been forced from home and family.

Moreover, Iran?s national power and international prestige, and her interest in the Persian Gulf, would have made it impossible for Saddam to invade Kuwait. With the fall of the Soviet system, Iran, boasting the most advanced economy, technology and military in the region, would be the hub of peaceful and profitable diplomatic, cultural, economic and commercial relations in Central Asia and the Middle East.

Iran?s power and her friendly and rational relations with the West would have made the presence of American troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf region redundant and consequently anti-American feeling would not have been excited by the likes of Khomeini or Khamanei or Osama Bin Laden. Islamist movements and organizations would not have the Islamic Republic as a model for emulation or support for expansion. A powerful, secular, and peaceful Iran ? non-Arab and non-Jewish- would be a pillar on which both Israel and the Arab world could lean for balance and security as they and the world strived for peace in justice and dignity.

Henry Kissinger in Years of Upheaval in relation to the Shah and his fall wrote; ?What overthrew the Shah was a coalition of legitimate grievances and an inchoate accumulation of resentment aimed at the very concept of modernity and at the Shah?s role as a moderate world leader. The Shah was despised less for what he did wrong than for what he did right. He was brought down by those who hated reform and the West; who were against absolute rule only if it was based on secular principles. The immediate victors were not enlightened dissidents of liberal democratic persuasion but the most regressive group in Iranian society: the religious ayatollahs who identified human dignity not with freedom and progress but with an ancient moral and religious code.?

Today the Shah of Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini are both gone. Khomeini left a prosperous country in ruins and damaged Islam more than any one else since its advent.

Iranian youth today realising the catastrophic mistake that their parents made are eager more than ever before to learn about the truth. As Princess Ashraf called her book, it is ?Time for Truth?.

The new generation who has escalated their pro democratic and secularist demand in recent years have so far received no international support while paying the heaviest price. They would only need to go through the pages of their family albums and see their parents during their teenage years or when they dated each other to begin questioning them about the country we had during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Many of them blaming the older generation for today?s ills are determined to put an end to this absurdity ruling our ancient land in the 21st century.

All they expect from the international community is to stick by them and to stop cutting deals with the religious apartheid that is bringing our nation to a complete annihilation.

If some of those in the older generation agreed with Ayatollah Khomeini and brought a system of government that they deserved, the new generation obviously deserves better and will demolish the system whether the European Union decides to be with us or with the terrorists."

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Shah was not going to remain in power.

He was doomed by his own self-imposed image, a tragic figure, one could say.

The Shah had cancer of the colon. The Shah was so important that no doctor was permitted to examine his royal rectum, and no treatment was given until it was far too late.

He was on the decline anyway: his people hated Savak, and Savak grew more brutal. Eventually they hated the Shah himself.

It would have been best by far had the Brits and the most despicable fools ever to make US foreign policy, the Dulles brothers not overthrown the secular government of Mossadegh. Iran would likely have been more like Turkey to day. It was all due to greed. Gred of the oil companies and the banks the Dulles Brothers were invested in.