or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence? - Page 5

post #161 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I agree the last 8 years could be referred to as an abomination, thanks to Bush, his
enablers and those that continue to enable him.

I'm talking more of his legacy, not the US itself.

The US will recover it's tarnished leadership role, but Bush's Presidency?

It's not him though is it? He is a figurehead for a certain mindset and ideology that he probably does not understand.

The real players are behind him and they aren't going to go away because he has to... and as long as they are still there then Bush's 'legacy' is the last thing we will have to worry about.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #162 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It's not him though is it? He is a figurehead for a certain mindset and ideology that he probably does not understand.

The real players are behind him and they aren't going to go away because he has to... and as long as they are still there then Bush's 'legacy' is the last thing we will have to worry about.

Do you mean the incoming president doesn't bring his, her, own people in?

Give some egs. of who isn't going away.
post #163 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Do you mean the incoming president doesn't bring his, her, own people in?

Give some egs. of who isn't going away.

Let's say Clinton gets in.

How would she be different re Iran. If anything she would take a harder line - war would be more likely if anything. Ditto Obama.

If one takes the view that the war drumbeat is a false one that essentially echoes Iraq - again, a war based on lies - then you should really think about where the lies are coming from and who is actually pushing them.

Then you might see how it doesn't matter which people the new Potus brings in - they are merely dancers to the tune or else they wouldn't be there.

The question is who is playing the tune not who is dancing to it.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #164 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Let's say Clinton gets in.

How would she be different re Iran. If anything she would take a harder line - war would be more likely if anything. Ditto Obama.

If one takes the view that the war drumbeat is a false one that essentially echoes Iraq - again, a war based on lies - then you should really think about where the lies are coming from and who is actually pushing them.

Then you might see how it doesn't matter which people the new Potus brings in - they are merely dancers to the tune or else they wouldn't be there.

The question is who is playing the tune not who is dancing to it.

Oh, I see, the shadow government.

C'mon, elaborate.
post #165 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Oh, I see, the shadow government.

C'mon, elaborate.

Nah - I've got a tin-foil hat. You don't need me to provide an argument for it to be dismissed. It can quite easily be dismissed unheard.

What about you?

What's your explanation for how a party which is allegedly an opposition can follow exactly the same policy?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #166 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Let's say Clinton gets in.

How would she be different re Iran. If anything she would take a harder line - war would be more likely if anything. Ditto Obama.

If one takes the view that the war drumbeat is a false one that essentially echoes Iraq - again, a war based on lies - then you should really think about where the lies are coming from and who is actually pushing them.

Then you might see how it doesn't matter which people the new Potus brings in - they are merely dancers to the tune or else they wouldn't be there.

The question is who is playing the tune not who is dancing to it.

Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far The Favorite

Quote:
The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.

An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.

Insofar as defense workers making political donations reflect the interests of their employers, the contributions clearly suggest that the arms industry has reach the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed. Since their profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts, companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House.

The strong support for Clinton indicates that a majority of defense industry executives currently believe Clinton is a favorite to win the Democratic nomination and, in November, 2008, the general election.

Doomed I tell ya, we're all doomed...we're...ah, whatever.

post #167 of 309
Iran to fire '11,000 rockets in minute' if attacked

Quote:
\tIran warned on Saturday it would fire off 11,000 rockets at enemy bases within the space of a minute if the United States launched military action against the Islamic republic.

"In the first minute of an invasion by the enemy, 11,000 rockets and cannons would be fired at enemy bases," said a brigadier general in the elite Revolutionary Guards, Mahmoud Chaharbaghi.

"This volume and speed of firing would continue," added Chaharbaghi, who is commander of artillery and missiles of the Guards' ground forces, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

The United States has never ruled out attacking Iran to end its defiance over the controversial Iranian nuclear programme, which the US alleges is aimed at making nuclear weapons but Iran insists is entirely peaceful.

Iran has for its part vowed never to initiate an attack but has also warned of a crushing response to any act of aggression against its soil.

"If a war breaks out in the future, it will not last long because we will rub their noses in the dirt," said Chaharbaghi.

Why does this guy come to mind?

post #168 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


Why does this guy come to mind?

I miss that guy...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #169 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Iran to fire '11,000 rockets in minute' if attacked



Why does this guy come to mind?


The difference is that Iran has not been under a sanction-regime and has not been disarmed like Iraq in the process, quite to the contrary, Iran has bought weapon-systems from Russia and developed their own variations.

The problem Iran has is that they are way too defensive, they are waiting for the US to attack first. I think that is noble in principle but in reality it is a huge drawback to let the enemy all the time he wants to build up his offensive and to let him strike first at his pace and choosing.

The first strike would be devastating and quick given the airtechnology of the US, therefore it would be way more effective for Iran to make the first strike preemptively.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #170 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

The difference is that Iran has not been under a sanction-regime and has not been disarmed like Iraq in the process, quite to the contrary, Iran has bought weapon-systems from Russia and developed their own variations.

The problem Iran has is that they are way too defensive, they are waiting for the US to attack first. I think that is noble in principle but in reality it is a huge drawback to let the enemy all the time he wants to build up his offensive and to let him strike first at his pace and choosing.

The first strike would be devastating and quick given the airtechnology of the US, therefore it would be way more effective for Iran to make the first strike preemptively.

Nightcrawler

The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know

If the US attacks Iran, Iran is completely justified in destroying every US base in the region. Frankly, I hope they succeed. This government and military is out of control (and weakening). Nationalism is no excuse for insanity. Whether they succeed is another matter. But Iran and any country and people on this planet for that matter has the fundamental, natural, legal, and moral duty and right to self-defense in the event of aggression.
post #171 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know

If the US attacks Iran, Iran is completely justified in destroying every US base in the region. Frankly, I hope they succeed. This government and military is out of control (and weakening). Nationalism is no excuse for insanity. Whether they succeed is another matter. But Iran and any country and people on this planet for that matter has the fundamental, natural, legal, and moral duty and right to self-defense in the event of aggression.

Dude...you're off the hook. You HOPE that US bases are destroyed? You think it's justified? And let's talk about aggression....how can you ignore President Tom's statements? He's made statements that sounds like Hitler in the 1930s. The only difference is that he doesn't have the military power Hitler had.

Now I'm not advocating an attack, as I've said for years. But what if it comes down to them either developing a nuclear weapon, or us attacking them? Are you really willing to tolerate a nuclear Iran? I'm not, even if it means a risky military operation. We cannot have a nuclear Iran, and we must do everything possible to prevent it. Everything. My sincere hope is that we can do it without war. We can use diplomacy, covert ops, etc. But then we have President Anti-semite-ajhad making his statements and defying the UN and building nuke capacity when he's sitting on 133 gigabarrels of oil. We have a nation where the real power is held by the Imams, many of whom believe it is their duty to bring about the return of the 12th Imam by causing the "end times" to happen. You're OK with this?

Heres my question Art: If Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, what should we do? Nothing?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #172 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

how can you ignore President Tom's statements? He's made statements that sounds like Hitler in the 1930s.

Stop that train.....AGAIN

This is the bit I ask you which statements - yet again.

And you run off and ignore - yet again.

Or trot out the usual lies and propaganda.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #173 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Dude...you're off the hook. You HOPE that US bases are destroyed? You think it's justified? And let's talk about aggression....how can you ignore President Tom's statements? He's made statements that sounds like Hitler in the 1930s. The only difference is that he doesn't have the military power Hitler had.

One nation launches a pre-emptive attack on another nation that did nothing to provoke them. Yes. The attacking nation in such a scenario deserves to be hit back. Hard. And hopefully effectively. US strong-arming is completely out of control and needs to be put in check. I support the destroying of all US military installments in the area if that's what it takes.

Quote:
Now I'm not advocating an attack, as I've said for years.

But what would you do if the US did attack, even if you didn't advocate it? I know what you would do. Help the US administration make excuses and say things like "they know more than we do about the situation". You'd be an apologist, like always. In this respect, you do support the attack, even if you don't advocate it, and that's just as reprehensible.

Quote:
But what if it comes down to them either developing a nuclear weapon, or us attacking them? Are you really willing to tolerate a nuclear Iran? I'm not, even if it means a risky military operation. We cannot have a nuclear Iran, and we must do everything possible to prevent it. Everything. My sincere hope is that we can do it without war. We can use diplomacy, covert ops, etc. But then we have President Anti-semite-ajhad making his statements and defying the UN and building nuke capacity when he's sitting on 133 gigabarrels of oil. We have a nation where the real power is held by the Imams, many of whom believe it is their duty to bring about the return of the 12th Imam by causing the "end times" to happen. You're OK with this?

Heres my question Art: If Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, what should we do? Nothing?

We should do nothing until we have irrefutable proof. Proof that's presented to the public, and that's recognized as proof by experts in the field. I repeat... we should do NOTHING AT ALL based on conjecture or unsubstantiated "claims" be they by Bushco, Hillary, or "major intelligence agencies". No consensus of any proof, no attack. Period.
post #174 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

The first strike would be devastating and quick given the airtechnology of the US, therefore it would be way more effective for Iran to make the first strike preemptively.

If it was a real test of strength against strength, even a small edge from a first strike would be of interest. But it is not. Iran only has one path to victory and one strategic goal in the eventuality of a war: to make it so incredibly expensive to continue that the US will not want to.

The negative propaganda from Iran "being the aggressor" would give the US a lot more will to go on. Iran won't take that role lightly.

I'm also not convinced that either side has such a big edge to gain from a first strike in this conflict. If Iranians aren't idiots and are disciplined/proficient enough, the majority of their equipment is hidden, buried and/or moves constantly under cloud cover, so it shouldn't matter which day the bombs fall. Just look at how much the Serbs cared about a nonstop NATO bombing campaign. Iran itself doesn't have weapons apart from some missiles that carry a reasonable surprise element. Due to use of conventional warheads and accuracy problems, those things won't hurt anything that they couldn't hurt the next day just as well.
post #175 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And let's talk about aggression....how can you ignore President Tom's statements? He's made statements that sounds like Hitler in the 1930s. The only difference is that he doesn't have the military power Hitler had.

OK... what statements are those? We're waiting.

That he wants to "wipe Israel off the map"?

That's already been proven a lie. Yet you keep repeating it, over, and over, and over, and over... please explain why you keep repeating the lie. Go ahead.

1) You don't think it's a lie, and you don't think it's been disproven that he said and meant that he wanted to obliterate Israel with violence. Despite all the evidence against such a claim by people much smarter and less biased than you.

2) You don't care what the truth is.
post #176 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

If it was a real test of strength against strength, even a small edge from a first strike would be of interest. But it is not. Iran only has one path to victory and one strategic goal in the eventuality of a war: to make it so incredibly expensive to continue that the US will not want to.

The negative propaganda from Iran "being the aggressor" would give the US a lot more will to go on. Iran won't take that role lightly.

I'm also not convinced that either side has such a big edge to gain from a first strike in this conflict. If Iranians aren't idiots and are disciplined/proficient enough, the majority of their equipment is hidden, buried and/or moves constantly under cloud cover, so it shouldn't matter which day the bombs fall. Just look at how much the Serbs cared about a nonstop NATO bombing campaign. Iran itself doesn't have weapons apart from some missiles that carry a reasonable surprise element. Due to use of conventional warheads and accuracy problems, those things won't hurt anything that they couldn't hurt the next day just as well.

Different situation though as Iran could employ suicide bombers which gives a massive edge.

There may be numerous suicide boat squadrons for example and it would only take one of these to get alongside a US vessel to cause some serious damage.

Also the US is pretty much a sitting-duck in Iraq and Afghanistan - the propaganda insists that Iran is carrying out attacks in Iraq but when they really do it will be a different story. In any case, very few suicide bombers have targeted US personnel or facilities. If they do they will be practically unstoppable.

I don't think it would be wise for ran to make a first strike - the game plan would be far better to absorb the initial massive US attack on infrastructure and lure them into an ongoing guerilla war on four fronts; Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and via resistance groups on US soil.

Or alternatively - and hopefully this has already been put in place - arrive at a deal with Russia and/or China to stave off US incursions either by direct confrontation or by arming and funding resistance fighters.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #177 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Why does this guy come to mind?


Because he is SDW's dopplenganger.

The SDW version is wearing a US uniform and repeating:

"President Tom said wipe Israel off the map....Hitler...froth, foam......Holocaust denier....wipe Israel off the map....President Tom, can you hear me President Tom?"

And he waves his arms a lot more....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #178 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Heres my question Art: If Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, what should we do? Nothing?

The Supreme Leader of Iran issued this fatwa:

Quote:
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. - Wiki

But this administration isn't listening or negotiating. Sanctions were imposed. Iran won't back down in pursuit of peaceful nuclear production. More sanctions. But the fatwa still stands. Anyone overstepping the Ayatollah is asking for death. There has been no evidence of Iran producing nuclear weapons. None.

If this administration lies again as it did with Iraqi WMDs, keeps pushing this rhetoric for a "showdown" with Iran, bombs or attacks them without any provocation, we deserve what we get from them.

I am personally sick of our warmongering, neo-con administration and I think this will be their downfall if they invade or attack Iran (not just them, but our country worldwide as a whole). China's waiting for it, Putin's waiting for it too. We are playing into their hands (let us not forget Israel's stake in this).

Here's a brilliant idea, send some of our nuclear scientists over and help them build modern, safe and efficient reactors. Exchange ideas and work together. Oh wait, we missed that...Russians have that ball.

Whether Iran's boast of sending 11,000 missiles on target into our bases is true or not, they will only do it if they are attacked first. Fine, give it their best shot. They aren't going to fold as quickly as Iraq did.
post #179 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Different situation though as Iran could employ suicide bombers which gives a massive edge.

There may be numerous suicide boat squadrons for example and it would only take one of these to get alongside a US vessel to cause some serious damage.

Something like this does little to further their goal of repelling the US attack on their soil. Sinking one small ship and a few sailors at best... it would be a big propaganda victory for Iraqi rebels, but Iran will wage real war.
Quote:
Also the US is pretty much a sitting-duck in Iraq and Afghanistan - the propaganda insists that Iran is carrying out attacks in Iraq but when they really do it will be a different story. In any case, very few suicide bombers have targeted US personnel or facilities. If they do they will be practically unstoppable.

I don't think it would be wise for ran to make a first strike - the game plan would be far better to absorb the initial massive US attack on infrastructure and lure them into an ongoing guerilla war on four fronts; Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and via resistance groups on US soil.

That's a wee bit warmer.

You'd be surprised how hard it is to go into an open war against someone far worse equipped if they dig in, refuse to fold upon taking some losses and play good layered defense. Iran has the physical capability and weapons necessary to prolong open, conventional warfare for a long time without even considering unofficial resistance, hiding among civilians or use of desperation tactics like suicide bombers. Properly executed delaying warfare will also bleed the attacker, partly in bodies and partly in money. A lot more bodies when the attacker is in a hurry to reach an objective. As we know, US' tactics in recent history have been all about pouring in as much iron and explosive as needed to take near zero casualties. That works against a tough defender, but the pace you can proceed at is glacial, the expense is staggering even to the likes of US and Russia, and as you push deep enough, the massive supply route you need to sustain your tactics becomes such a point of vulnerability that your momentum dies down. No one has enough conventional bombs to go very far like this, even if all your opponent has is men in bunkers and foxholes, bearing weapons good enough to be dangerous to your armor and helicopters. The attacker will have to engage in close combat against an actual army. Regardless of who the parties are, in that situation there will be real casualties, counted in multiples of ten percent.

In contrast to e.g. the Serbs, Iran's location allows strategic strikes. Possibly the most pressure they can put on the US would come from tiny guerrilla detachments swarming the neighboring countries' oil production facilities and pipelines, with the goal of significantly impeding production and transport. At the same time, Iran can activate agents long embedded in those locations for sabotage. The few long-range missile launchers Iran has can be used against targets as large as an oil refinery or harbor terminal even if they have serious accuracy problems. Those launchers can be driven out of their bunkers for just one launch at a time, during cloud cover to keep them operational and churning out more missiles on the strategic targets. I don't have any idea about the effectiveness of this kind of rocketry with mere conventional warheads, but I do know (not from an Internet source) that expert attack from the inside on oil-related facilities would be devastating in many locations. Oil pipelines being vulnerable to someone bombing them open, or shooting them up with a RPG from outside fences and minefields, is just common sense.
post #180 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Stop that train.....AGAIN

This is the bit I ask you which statements - yet again.

And you run off and ignore - yet again.

Or trot out the usual lies and propaganda.

Oh right, that bit again. You know full well which statements. And as soon I post them, you'll tell me why they mean something other than what they do. Whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

One nation launches a pre-emptive attack on another nation that did nothing to provoke them. Yes. The attacking nation in such a scenario deserves to be hit back. Hard. And hopefully effectively. US strong-arming is completely out of control and needs to be put in check. I support the destroying of all US military installments in the area if that's what it takes.

Uh, unprovoked? How about killing American soldiers in Iraq? How about providing weapons to insurgents? How about funding and sponsoring terrorism? Threatening Israel? And really..."strong arming?" Perhaps we "strong arm" them (whatever that means) because...oh, I don't know...they have "Death to America" rallies in their streets, sponsored by the government? And what exactly does "what it takes" mean? What is your goal...to but the Big Bully US in its place?

Quote:

But what would you do if the US did attack, even if you didn't advocate it? I know what you would do. Help the US administration make excuses and say things like "they know more than we do about the situation". You'd be an apologist, like always. In this respect, you do support the attack, even if you don't advocate it, and that's just as reprehensible.

I would support it because I support our military and I am of the opinion that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Period. I would much prefer to see it solved without force, for reasons I've listed before. If it comes to force, then yes...I would support it. But that is not my first choice.

Quote:

We should do nothing until we have irrefutable proof. Proof that's presented to the public, and that's recognized as proof by experts in the field. I repeat... we should do NOTHING AT ALL based on conjecture or unsubstantiated "claims" be they by Bushco, Hillary, or "major intelligence agencies". No consensus of any proof, no attack. Period.

The problem with that is you'll accept nothing as irrefutable proof. Nothing. Tel Aviv could be turned into a mushroom cloud and you'd still be posting on AI telling everyone how it might have been someone else. So I don't know where that leaves us. I've been honest about my view...I think you should be honest about yours: You'll not accept a military solution. Period. Just say it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

OK... what statements are those? We're waiting.

That he wants to "wipe Israel off the map"?

That's already been proven a lie. Yet you keep repeating it, over, and over, and over, and over... please explain why you keep repeating the lie. Go ahead.

1) You don't think it's a lie, and you don't think it's been disproven that he said and meant that he wanted to obliterate Israel with violence. Despite all the evidence against such a claim by people much smarter and less biased than you.

2) You don't care what the truth is.

It's not been proven a lie. It was a statement made by the Ayatollah, one that he agreed with. He's made several other inflammatory statements as well. You know the ones. Don't play dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

The Supreme Leader of Iran issued this fatwa:


And you actually believe that. You know, because Iran has been trustworthy on these matters before.
Quote:

But this administration isn't listening or negotiating. Sanctions were imposed. Iran won't back down in pursuit of peaceful nuclear production. More sanctions. But the fatwa still stands. Anyone overstepping the Ayatollah is asking for death. There has been no evidence of Iran producing nuclear weapons. None.

And there has been no evidence their program is peaceful. Meanwhile, they've been defying the UN and IAEA. And let me ask...why the hell does Iran need peaceful nuclear power? Hint: They don't. They have, I repeat..133 gigbarrels of oil and falling oil revenues. What...they're going to put MORE downward pressure on internal oil markets by using nuclear power?

Quote:

If this administration lies again as it did with Iraqi WMDs, keeps pushing this rhetoric for a "showdown" with Iran, bombs or attacks them without any provocation, we deserve what we get from them.

Bush Lied Bush Lied Bush Lied Bush Lied Bush Lied Bush Lied !!!

Quote:

I am personally sick of our warmongering, neo-con administration and I think this will be their downfall if they invade or attack Iran (not just them, but our country worldwide as a whole). China's waiting for it, Putin's waiting for it too. We are playing into their hands (let us not forget Israel's stake in this).

Well, that's an opinion. Not much point in getting into it. You think how you do.

Quote:

Here's a brilliant idea, send some of our nuclear scientists over and help them build modern, safe and efficient reactors. Exchange ideas and work together. Oh wait, we missed that...Russians have that ball.

Yeah, lets do that. Let's do exactly that. Let's take them at their word, help them and place nice. I'm sure that will stop them from chanting Death to America in the streets, sponsoring terrorism, threatening Israel, etc. Awesome idea!

Quote:

Whether Iran's boast of sending 11,000 missiles on target into our bases is true or not, they will only do it if they are attacked first. Fine, give it their best shot. They aren't going to fold as quickly as Iraq did.

Yeah...poor Iran. They'll only respond to our aggression! Go Iran!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #181 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh right, that bit again. You know full well which statements. And as soon I post them, you'll tell me why they mean something other than what they do. Whatever.

Whatever. Let's just agree that you are a liar. Presumably you wish to lie to ensure Iranian deaths but that really is not my concern.

I think we can all agree now that you will lie in the face of the facts to support your warped agenda. Should not be a surprise - you are a wingnut after all.

Quote:
Uh, unprovoked? How about killing American soldiers in Iraq? How about providing weapons to insurgents? How about funding and sponsoring terrorism? Threatening Israel? And really..."strong arming?" Perhaps we "strong arm" them (whatever that means) because...oh, I don't know...they have "Death to America" rallies in their streets, sponsored by the government? And what exactly does "what it takes" mean? What is your goal...to but the Big Bully US in its place?

Americans are massacring Shi'i in Iraq oh, wait - I get it, America can kill whoever it likes - women and kids too - and anyone attacked cannot respond. Got that.

And threatening Israel - of course no such threat has ever been issued - despite your lies to the contrary- but so what? Israel is an apartheid quasi-Nazi State. It should be threatened far more often imo,

Quote:
I would support it because I support our military and I am of the opinion that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Period. I would much prefer to see it solved without force, for reasons I've listed before. If it comes to force, then yes...I would support it. But that is not my first choice.

Even if it had a nuclear weapon - and right now it is at 3% enrichment compared to the 75+ needed for a bomb - then so what? It is not threat to the US or Israel who have hundreds if not thousands more.

So if Iran let off one it would be 'wiped off the map' - as you like to say - within minutes.

And it can't be that the US is against nukes being used per se as, despite being the only country to massacre hundreds of thousands of people in this fashion, it states it will use them first if it feels like.

Quote:
The problem with that is you'll accept nothing as irrefutable proof. Nothing.

And the problem with you is that you are so braniwashed you will swallow any lie - even ones that have been soundly debunked even by right-wing extremists like yourself.

Quote:
Tel Aviv could be turned into a mushroom cloud and you'd still be posting on AI telling everyone how it might have been someone else.

Ah, Tel Aviv..now we get somewhere...poor little Israel.... what would we do if there were no friendly fascists to persecute and massacre Palestinians in their own land?

Quote:
So I don't know where that leaves us.

I do; it leaves some of us lying through our teeth and getting in the kleenex and pizza for the next live Shock and Awe Show and some of us feeling repugnance.

Quote:
I've been honest about my view

Honest is the one thing you have not and will not be....

Quote:
It's not been proven a lie. It was a statement made by the Ayatollah, one that he agreed with. He's made several other inflammatory statements as well. You know the ones. Don't play dumb.

He was quoting Khomeini.

Khomeini's quote does not say what you repeatedly claim - or rather, repeatedly parrot long after the brainwashers you are hooked up to have given it up because it was exposed as BS.

Therefore; you lie.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #182 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And you actually believe that. You know, because Iran has been trustworthy on these matters before.

I don't know why you place the same mistrust in the Supreme Leader with President I'madinnerjacket. The Ayatollah's word is law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And there has been no evidence their program is peaceful [CITATION PLEASE]. Meanwhile, they've been defying the UN and IAEA. And let me ask...why the hell does Iran need peaceful nuclear power? Hint: They don't. They have, I repeat..133 gigbarrels of oil and falling oil revenues. What...they're going to put MORE downward pressure on internal oil markets by using nuclear power?

Oil is their mother's milk to everyone around them. They know it is a bargaining chip for the countries that are dependent on it. Electricity can be produced much more efficiently without using oil powered generators. Get your head out of the 19th century. Nuclear power is much more cleaner and efficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Bush Lied™ Bush Lied™ Bush Lied™ Bush Lied™ Bush Lied™ Bush Lied™ !!!

Yep, yep, yep, yep!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well, that's an opinion. Not much point in getting into it. You think how you do.

No that's a fact. Russia has made deals with Iran; Oil for Nuclear scientists, weapons and other things. They have also blocked sanctions for a third time. China has deals with them for oil too. If we interfere there will be consequences.

At Iran summit, Putin says no to use of force in region
Declares any military action unacceptable


Quote:
"Not only should we reject the use of force, but also the mention of force as a possibility," Putin said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yeah, lets do that. Let's do exactly that. Let's take them at their word, help them and place nice. I'm sure that will stop them from chanting Death to America in the streets, sponsoring terrorism, threatening Israel, etc. Awesome idea!

Israel's MSM has their Iran propaganda machine going at full Armageddon level now...

Israel Warns World War III May be Biblical War of Gog and Magog

Quote:
US President George W. Bush said a nuclear Iran would mean World War III. Israeli newscasts featured Gog & Magog maps of the likely alignment of nations in that potential conflict.

Channel 2 and Channel 10 TV showed the world map, sketching the basic alignment of the two opposing axes in a coming world war, in a manner evoking associations of the Gog and Magog prophecy for many viewers. The prophecy of Gog and Magog refers to a great world war centered on the Holy Land and Jerusalem and first appears in the book of Yechezkel (Ezekiel).

On one side were Israel, the United States, Britain, France and Germany. On the other were Iran, Russia, China, Syria and North Korea.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yeah...poor Iran. They'll only respond to our aggression! Go Iran!



Yeah poor USA! Fuck Yeah!

Good to hear the back surgery went well by the way.
post #183 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Whatever. Let's just agree that you are a liar. Presumably you wish to lie to ensure Iranian deaths but that really is not my concern.

I think we can all agree now that you will lie in the face of the facts to support your warped agenda. Should not be a surprise - you are a wingnut after all.

Yes, yes, seg. Attack the person. Say he actually wants people to die. It's so much easier than actually having a debate on the issue itself. Oh, and psssst: My "agenda" is that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. That's all.

Quote:

Americans are massacring Shi'i in Iraq oh, wait - I get it, America can kill whoever it likes - women and kids too - and anyone attacked cannot respond. Got that.

Wait..we're "massacring" Shi'i? Yes, because we...as a matter of policy..go around "massacring" people. Absolutely. If you could only hear yourself.

Quote:

And threatening Israel - of course no such threat has ever been issued - despite your lies to the contrary- but so what? Israel is an apartheid quasi-Nazi State. It should be threatened far more often imo,

We've been here before. Ahmadinejad gets every benefit of the doubt. Every statement and action has an explanation, a justification, no matter what it is. He's done nothing to threaten Israel, of course. He's a Man of Peace standing up to the Nazi Jewish Regime. But George Bush? Oh, well he's a war monger. For him, it doesn't matter what he says...the hidden message is always "War! War! War!" I see.

Quote:

Even if it had a nuclear weapon - and right now it is at 3% enrichment compared to the 75+ needed for a bomb - then so what? It is not threat to the US or Israel who have hundreds if not thousands more.


So if Iran let off one it would be 'wiped off the map' - as you like to say - within minutes.

And it can't be that the US is against nukes being used per se as, despite being the only country to massacre hundreds of thousands of people in this fashion, it states it will use them first if it feels like.[/quote]

This is what you refuse to grasp. A significant portion of Iran's leadership WANTS to cause a nuclear holocaust. They believe that in doing so, they will bring on the End Times, and therefore the return of the 12th Imam. They view the end of the world as a good thing, and believe it is their duty as good muslims to bring it on. So the pursuit of nuclear weapons is merely a means to an end. THE end.

Quote:

And the problem with you is that you are so braniwashed you will swallow any lie - even ones that have been soundly debunked even by right-wing extremists like yourself.

I won't even dignify that with a further response.

Quote:

Ah, Tel Aviv..now we get somewhere...poor little Israel.... what would we do if there were no friendly fascists to persecute and massacre Palestinians in their own land?

Yes, in your view Israel "massacres" the Palestinian people. Then again, there are jews getting blown up on busses, even when Israel withdraws from large amounts of territory. But, since we won't solve that here, I'll focus on the fact that you apparently feel it's justifiable to nuke Tel Aviv because of the perceived wrongs of te Israeli regime.

Quote:
I do; it leaves some of us lying through our teeth and getting in the kleenex and pizza for the next live Shock and Awe Show and some of us feeling repugnance.



Honest is the one thing you have not and will not be....



He was quoting Khomeini.

Khomeini's quote does not say what you repeatedly claim - or rather, repeatedly parrot long after the brainwashers you are hooked up to have given it up because it was exposed as BS.

Therefore; you lie.

You can attack me all you want, but your credibility on this issue is nil. You are and have been virulently anti-Israel in your positions, and pro-Iranian at the same time. But regardless....this is what wiki has to say about the statement controversy. Perhaps you could explain why the statement he made was not a threat, semantics aside.

Quote:
According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13]

Norouzi's translation is identical.[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[14]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly.[15] On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this reasoning.[16]
Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.[17][18][19] On 20 February 2006, Irans foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel wiped off the map, saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said.[20][21][22]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/en/), refer to wiping Israel away. Bronner stated: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[14]
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #184 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I don't know why you place the same mistrust in the Supreme Leader with President I'madinnerjacket. The Ayatollah's word is law.



Quote:
Oil is their mother's milk to everyone around them. They know it is a bargaining chip for the countries that are dependent on it. Electricity can be produced much more efficiently without using oil powered generators. Get your head out of the 19th century. Nuclear power is much more cleaner and efficient.

Well, your use of the "more cleaner" aside, I don't think that washes. There is no reason they'd need to worry about that kind of efficiency. Building nuclear reactors is not like building McDonald's. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars and significant technical knowledge, as well as years of work. Why make that investment in infrastructure when one has all that easily refined oil? Also, hint: Oil is actually a very efficient and energy laden fuel. It doesn't add up, buy hey..let's give 'em the benefit of the the doubt!

Quote:

Yep, yep, yep, yep!



No that's a fact. Russia has made deals with Iran; Oil for Nuclear scientists, weapons and other things. They have also blocked sanctions for a third time. China has deals with them for oil too. If we interfere there will be consequences.

At Iran summit, Putin says no to use of force in region
Declares any military action unacceptable

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for US. Actually, I think it's a tremendously bad idea. But that's just me.

Quote:

Israel's MSM has their Iran propaganda machine going at full Armageddon level now...

Israel Warns World War III May be Biblical War of Gog and Magog

(clever images)

Yeah poor USA! Fuck Yeah!

Good to hear the back surgery went well by the way.

Thanks dude it did. Now I have time to argue with you bastards all day.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #185 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, yes, seg. Attack the person. Say he actually wants people to die. It's so much easier than actually having a debate on the issue itself. Oh, and psssst: My "agenda" is that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. That's all.

Well, a debate would be good but you don't seem to be bale to accept the facts.

Quote:
Wait..we're "massacring" Shi'i? Yes, because we...as a matter of policy..go around "massacring" people. Absolutely. If you could only hear yourself.

Massacres happen. Fallujah was Shi'i if I recall and Haditha.

Quote:
We've been here before. Ahmadinejad gets every benefit of the doubt. Every statement and action has an explanation, a justification, no matter what it is. He's done nothing to threaten Israel, of course. He's a Man of Peace™ standing up to the Nazi Jewish Regime. But George Bush? Oh, well he's a war monger. For him, it doesn't matter what he says...the hidden message is always "War! War! War!" I see.

Look, Ahmedinejad is probably a reactionary. Quite possibly he is anti-Israel but then I do not view that as a cardinal sin. They are after all an apartheid regime and yes, Zionism - which is what he referred to - absolutely must go.

I think you will find many people who agree with this. Many of them Jews.

Quote:
This is what you refuse to grasp. A significant portion of Iran's leadership WANTS to cause a nuclear holocaust. They believe that in doing so, they will bring on the End Times, and therefore the return of the 12th Imam. They view the end of the world as a good thing, and believe it is their duty as good muslims to bring it on. So the pursuit of nuclear weapons is merely a means to an end. THE end.

Well I do refuse to grasp it. The question is why do I refuse and why do you accept - on what basis?

My basis would be a familiarity with the region, degrees at Postgraduate level focussing on Shi'i jurisprudence and theology and a knowledge of Farsi.

Now if you want to discuss actually what the eschatology of radical Shi'i Islamism really is then we can do that. But there are many versions; twelver, sevener, sixer, Ismaili, Mu'atizilte and on and on....they all believe different things.

Do you know which sect Ahmedinejad belongs to? How powerful (or not) it is? Whether it has support of the clerics?

Quote:
I won't even dignify that with a further response.

Fair enough. I apologize. It is possible I overstepped the boundaries a bit there.

Quote:
Yes, in your view Israel "massacres" the Palestinian people. Then again, there are jews getting blown up on busses, even when Israel withdraws from large amounts of territory. But, since we won't solve that here, I'll focus on the fact that you apparently feel it's justifiable to nuke Tel Aviv because of the perceived wrongs of te Israeli regime.

Well, perhaps we have even less chance of a concord on this issue so maybe avoid it. But I would say I can see no circumstances whatsoever where anyone whosoever is justified in using nukes on anyone.

Quote:
You can attack me all you want, but your credibility on this issue is nil. You are and have been virulently anti-Israel in your positions, and pro-Iranian at the same time. But regardless....this is what wiki has to say about the statement controversy. Perhaps you could explain why the statement he made was not a threat, semantics aside.

Well, being anti-Israel and pro-Iranian is not the benchmark of credibility but on...

The 'threat': Juan Cole is correct. The idiom does not exist but surely the quote explains far better than I could?

He is saying that Zionism as an ideology will fade from history. The 'must' in Farsi is a usage which implies something that is inevitable in the scheme of things even though it seems unlikely and is out of one's control.

It is a usage which would be an equivalent to when the Eagles lose their tenth game on the trot and someone tries to cheer you up by saying "they will win their next one" or "they must win some day".

Neither implies that the profferer of the condolences is engaged in a massive match-fixing operation that is aimed at rigging the games and forcing the Eagle's opponents to throw matches.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #186 of 309
Thread Starter 
Meanwhile, some breaking news:

Iran would need 3 - 8 years to build bomb

That's even if they are trying to.

Clearly, the US drive to war is just that; yet another attempt to illegally invade on the pretext of lies and deceit.

Quote:
Iran would need three to eight years to produce a nuclear bomb, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog said in an interview published today.

"I cannot judge their intentions, but supposing that Iran does intend to acquire a nuclear bomb, it would need between another three and eight years to succeed," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told France's Le Monde newspaper.

"All the intelligence services agree on that," he said.

Dr ElBaradei said force should be used only when all diplomatic options have failed, adding there was plenty of time for diplomacy, sanctions, dialogue and incentives to bear fruit.

"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb," he said.

"We are not at all in that situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it."
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #187 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Well, a debate would be good but you don't seem to be bale to accept the facts.

The facts are that Iran is aggressive. It is complicit in the deaths of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians. It is exceptionally hostile to the US and Israel. It sponsors terrorism. It's pursuing nuclear power and defying the UN repeatedly while doing so. Iran is an oppressive regime run by mostly religious fanatics. All facts. Iran took US hostages in 1979, and is run by a similar regime today.

Now on the other side, their program has not been proven to be for weapons. In fact, we've had little no evidence of that at all. But it's also an area of great concern given the other facts above. They're not exactly being open about it, and it's existence doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with given their oil reserves. So those are the facts. Where do we disagree?

Quote:
Massacres happen. Fallujah was Shi'i if I recall and Haditha.

Most of the Haditha marines were acquitted, yes? Also, I'm not suggesting that mistakes don't happen. But these "massacres" don't happen as a matter of policy. People are punished for these things when they are deemed to be at fault.

Quote:
Look, Ahmedinejad is probably a reactionary. Quite possibly he is anti-Israel but then I do not view that as a cardinal sin. They are after all an apartheid regime and yes, Zionism - which is what he referred to - absolutely must go.

I think you will find many people who agree with this. Many of them Jews.

Probably a reactionary? Quite possibly anti-Israel? How can you even post that with a straight face? The only question is whether or not he is a full blown anti-semite. He might as well have an anti-Israel bumper sticker. Please. And I don't think Jews would agree with your statement either. Not the vast majority.

Quote:

Well I do refuse to grasp it. The question is why do I refuse and why do you accept - on what basis?

My basis would be a familiarity with the region, degrees at Postgraduate level focussing on Shi'i jurisprudence and theology and a knowledge of Farsi.

Now if you want to discuss actually what the eschatology of radical Shi'i Islamism really is then we can do that. But there are many versions; twelver, sevener, sixer, Ismaili, Mu'atizilte and on and on....they all believe different things.

Do you know which sect Ahmedinejad belongs to? How powerful (or not) it is? Whether it has support of the clerics?

You don't really seem to be disagreeing, just poking around. Surely you don't deny that there are significant extreme elements within Iran's leadership. The question is just how much power they have. Clearly, you're more educated on the details than I, but two points remain: 1) Such Islamic "armageddonists" exist in the world and 2) They exit in Iran's leadership. This is my concern.

Quote:
Fair enough. I apologize. It is possible I overstepped the boundaries a bit there.

Thanks.

Quote:


Well, perhaps we have even less chance of a concord on this issue so maybe avoid it. But I would say I can see no circumstances whatsoever where anyone whosoever is justified in using nukes on anyone.

I actually disagree...I think that one would be justified if attacked with a nuclear weapon, or as a weapon of absolute last resort.

Quote:

Well, being anti-Israel and pro-Iranian is not the benchmark of credibility but on...

No, but your statements should be looked at in that context.

Quote:

The 'threat': Juan Cole is correct. The idiom does not exist but surely the quote explains far better than I could?

He is saying that Zionism as an ideology will fade from history. The 'must' in Farsi is a usage which implies something that is inevitable in the scheme of things even though it seems unlikely and is out of one's control.

It is a usage which would be an equivalent to when the Eagles lose their tenth game on the trot and someone tries to cheer you up by saying "they will win their next one" or "they must win some day".

Neither implies that the profferer of the condolences is engaged in a massive match-fixing operation that is aimed at rigging the games and forcing the Eagle's opponents to throw matches.

I still say you're debating semantics. In some ways, I notice liberals do this a lot....they operate on information overload.

I'm reading a book right now called "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. http://www.gladwell.com/blink . Do you know it? It's all about snap judgments, or what he calls "thin-slicing." One of the main points is that we often have so much information, our brains cannot deal with it. There are multiple examples in the book, one of which is a new three step process Cook County Hospital (Chicago) uses to diagnose possible heart attacks in the ER. Long story short...a guy came up with a three step/tier/question algorithm that can predict with 95% accuracy whether or not someone is actually suffering an M.I. And how were the physicians doing before... when they asked the patients entire medical history, etc? Around 65% accuracy, if I recall. The point is that sometimes more information and details is not better.

And that's what I think here. At it's simplest:

1. Iran is run by an anti-US, theocratic, oppressive regime.
2. Iran supports terrorism world-wide.
3. Iran's President and Supreme Leader are very "anti-Israel."
4. Iran is developing nuclear power when they have ass-loads of oil already.
5. Iran's President, has made anti-Irsraeli and anti-American comments.
6. Iran holds government sponsored "Death to America" rallies and calls us the Great Satan.
7. Iran is defying the UN with regard to their nuclear program
8. Iran is providing support for forces in Iraq, forces that are killing US soldiers.
9. Iran's leaders have at least questioned the existence of the holocaust.
10. Iran's president has made references to Israel not having a right to exist.

Those ten factual statements are most significant. In fact, it can be boiled down ever further: Iran is a serious problem. So now we're trying to deal with with that problem. Diplomacy has been the approach to date, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere. So what do we do? Trust that they wont make a nuke? Trust further that they won't drop it on Tel Aviv? Ask them nicely to stop funding terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #188 of 309
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Operation Ajax

Iran - Iraq War

Iran Air Flight 655

Meanwhile...

Bush Wants to Avoid World War Three With Iran

Quote:
"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace," Bush said. "We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

"I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat," Bush said.

And this just in...Actually, segovius already posted it, but try again...

Iran bomb would take '3-8 years' to build

Quote:
I cannot judge their intentions, but supposing that Iran does intend to acquire a nuclear bomb, it would need between another three and eight years to succeed
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
post #189 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is what you refuse to grasp. A significant portion of Iran's leadership WANTS to cause a nuclear holocaust. They believe that in doing so, they will bring on the End Times, and therefore the return of the 12th Imam. They view the end of the world as a good thing, and believe it is their duty as good muslims to bring it on. So the pursuit of nuclear weapons is merely a means to an end. THE end.

Really? You know this?

This is what you refuse to grasp. You constantly pull statements to support your position out of your ASS.
post #190 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Really? You know this?

This is what you refuse to grasp. You constantly pull statements to support your position out of your ASS.

Really? You don't know this? What..let me guess...it's just more Pro-War Propaganda?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #191 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Operation Ajax

And this, in your opinion, is the source of their current pattern of anti-Americanism?


Yes, we supported Iraq. But that was a different time. It was after the hostage crisis and during the Cold War. Iran had close ties to the Soviets and at the time, we were fighting a proxy war. I'm sure it didn't make us popular, but one can't just dismiss all context.


It was an accident. Unless, of course, you believe that we deliberately shot down a civilian airliner. One would then need to ask...why?

Meanwhile...

Bush Wants to Avoid World War Three With Iran



And this just in...Actually, segovius already posted it, but try again...

Iran bomb would take '3-8 years' to build

3-8 years. Hmm. Tell ya what...let's assume that's accurate, mmmk? Let's assume that even without full access in a closed, oppressive regime, the IAEA can make a solid prediction there. That means that Iran could have an operational nuclear weapon by 2010. Yeah, that's comforting. My car won't even be paid off by then. Phew. Now I feel better.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #192 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


And that's what I think here. At it's simplest:

1. Iran is run by a (snip) theocratic, oppressive regime.

and so is the US! There is no denying that one!

Quote:
2. Iran supports terrorism world-wide.

Why single out Iran? Virtually every goddamned country on the planet either has, at some point, or is currently sponsoring terrorism. We have sponsored terrorism here on the grand scale, especially in Central America. We even have institutions for such activity, paid for by we the taxpayer.... This administration has even hired people with intimate links to terrorism:
Otto Reich and John Negroponte anyone?

Quote:
3. Iran's President and Supreme Leader are very "anti-Israel."

So? Israel's leadership is very anti-Iran. Is that not equally.. um... bad?

Quote:
4. Iran is developing nuclear power when they have ass-loads of oil already.

Why should that suddenly be such a problem???? Iran has had a nuclear program for FIFTY DAMNED YEARS!!!!! And they have shown, during those 50 years, ZERO intention to manufacture nuclear weapons. And, Israel has the world's 4th largest arsenal of nukes. When was the last time UN Inspectors visited Dimona?

Quote:
5. Iran's President, has made anti-Irsraeli and anti-American comments.

Good heavens! How appalling....

When one's nation is under threat of invasion, or its cities threatened with being flattened, (possibly by nuclear weapons courtesy of the US or Israel by proxy), one might expect a bunch of angry rhetoric from that threatened nation's leaders. Iran has not attacked anyone in modern history. Why would they suddenly break with tradition and do something that is 100% out of character? In fact they were attacked by US-sponsored Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and in 1953, Iran had their parliamentary democracy overthrown by the US (CIA) to install a freakin' dictator ! So much for "who is the aggressor"....

Have not the US and Israel made numerous anti-Iranian remarks? In fact, many of the movers and shakers of the NeoConservative movement (a political extension of the Zionist concept) have expressed irrational Islamophobic remarks over the years. Have you never heard the bile spewing from the mouths of Michael Ledeen et al? I guess thats when your ears close down?

How about these (relatively) recent comments from two high profile Jewish religious leaders:

"The nation of Israel is pure and the Arabs are a nation of donkeys. They are an evil disaster, an evil devil, and a nasty affliction. The Arabs are donkeys and beasts. They want to take our girls. They are endowed with true filthiness. There is pure and there is impure and they are impure."

Rabbi David Batzri, (Magen David Yeshiva, Jerusalem)... [Haaretz, March 21, 2006]

and...

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [front page, New York Times, 2/28/1994]

~

SDW, the insults flow both ways. You just dont want to know it......

Quote:
6. Iran holds government sponsored "Death to America" rallies and calls us the Great Satan.

People in the middle east tend not to forget the past as easily as we do....
Words are cheap, especially when not backed up by physical aggression. Regard it as a way of enabling people to let off steam en masse, without doing any actual harm. They do similar things in Cuba and elsewhere: the Castro regime frequently sponsors anti-US rallies, and no harm is done. The point being.. these people are expressing their anger and frustration against the foreign policies of a government wildly out of control, not the US people. There is a huge difference....

Quote:
7. Iran is defying the UN with regard to their nuclear program

If defying the UN is such a terrible thing, how come Israel has gotten away wth defying some 60 UNSC resolutions in so many years, regarding numerus topics, with impunity every time? Anyway, I thought you hardline conservatives hate the U.N. as a concept....I guess that only duplicitous people reference UN decisions when it's politically expedient...

Quote:
8. Iran is providing support for forces in Iraq, forces that are killing US soldiers.

Hearsay! Or fabrication?
This charge is led directly from the White House, that is a good reason to be skeptical. They lied about "no nation building". They lied about "compassionate conservatism". They lied about "protecting the Constitution of the United States". They lied about WMDs in Iraq. They lied about torture. They lied about Afghanistan, and yes, they lied about..... (fill in the blank). With a record of dishonesty that makes Bill Clinton look like Mother Teresa, there is no reason for anyone believe anything they tell us, especially when they are trying to drum up support for a another preordaine war, itself part of an agenda.

Quote:
9. Iran's leaders have at least questioned the existence of the holocaust.

Not good. Bad Iran. Bad Ahmadinejad.

Yes the Holocaust happened. Some 5,850,000 Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis. I hope that statement is not going to invoke Godwin's Law.......

The Holocaust has, however, been promoted as a purely Jewish tragedy, especially by the most visible organizations dedicated to its remembrance (SWC, ADL etc). Some 12-45 million people were killed in the Holocaust, depending on who/where one references, and what the time scale of the Holocaust was. Those killed included almost 6 million Jews, 5 million non-Jewish Poles, and several million others comprising Blacks, mulattos, homosexuals, the disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses, Romanies, Slavs... even German citizens who were against Hitler's plans... but these folk, for some unknown reasoning with those in charge of the Holocaust Remembrance organizations, are forgotten and ignored. Most people in the U.S. (and many other nations perhaps?) have no clue that at least half (and possibly a greater percentage) of the people murdered in the Holocaust were not Jewish people. It looks as if there is plenty of Holocaust denial in the world, but its the kind of Holocaust denial thats never going to get any coverage in our media. Evidently, Iran is not the only offender when it comes to Holocaust denial....

Quote:
10. Iran's president has made references to Israel not having a right to exist.

Israel has the right to exist, but the way it happened, with hundreds of thousands of people being forced off their land into concentration-camp like "existence" in foreign exile, while the world's powerbrokers looked on in appeasement, was, and still is 50 years later, an international atrocity, a travesty of civilized values. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that there is animosity towards Israel. If Israel could behave itself and conform to the standards expected of other nations in the region (or the rest of the world for that matter), then the problems in the region would largely evaporate. 99.99% of people as a rule want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors, no matter what race, color or creed. Unfortunately, "peace and harmony" is less profitable than war and hatred, and many of those who would lose out from a sudden outbreak of peace in the Middle East are heavily involved in the decision-making re. the possibilities of peace. The point being, militant conservatives on both sides aim to preserve a state of conflict and unrest, while fooling the world with occasional, empty gestures towards peace.

Quote:
Those ten factual statements are most significant. In fact, it can be boiled down ever further: Iran is a serious problem. So now we're trying to deal with with that problem. Diplomacy has been the approach to date, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere. So what do we do? Trust that they wont make a nuke? Trust further that they won't drop it on Tel Aviv? Ask them nicely to stop funding terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere?

Iran is a problem, because the Bush Administration and its NeoConservatives have decided to classify it as such. They have wanted a war against Iran (and others) since before September 2000, when the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" paranoid screed was published. Rumsfeld himself told Wes Clark, 10 days after 9/11, that "we intend to take out 7 nations in 5 years". Taking out Iran is part of a preordained (Straussian) agenda, nukes, or no nukes. If you really want to worry about nukes, then Pakistan is far more of a potential problem than Iran.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #193 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Really? You don't know this?

Where have I heard that one before...?

CON∙JEC∙TURE

WMDWMDWMDWMDWMD "Everybody Knows It!!!"
Saddam is working with Al Qaeda "Everybody Knows It!!!"

Name one single disproven allegation that the Republican Party, The Talking Heads or Fox News fed you that you didn't believe. Name one. You're nothing more than a gullible tool, of the type that Rovian strategists COUNT on.

"Everybody knows it! Question Nothing! Un-American! TREASON!"

What a buffoon.
post #194 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Where have I heard that one before...?

CON∙JEC∙TURE

WMDWMDWMDWMDWMD "Everybody Knows It!!!"
Saddam is working with Al Qaeda "Everybody Knows It!!!"

Name one single disproven allegation that the Republican Party, The Talking Heads or Fox News fed you that you didn't believe. Name one. You're nothing more than a gullible tool, of the type that Rovian strategists COUNT on.

"Everybody knows it! Question Nothing! Un-American! TREASON!"

What a buffoon.

It seems strange really - there really seems to be some sort of extreme brainwashing in operation. I don't think there is any other way to put it.

The claim is that Iran is somehow Apocalyptic - yet the people who make this claim know nothing about Islamic eschatology or even anything about Islam.

And the claim is of course false. There is a belief in the Mahdi returning but this is subordinate to a belief in the second coming of Christ and the appearance of the anti-Christ (who is stated to actually come from Iran in some traditions). There are some prophecies about war and death - but these involve an invasion of Iraq and the reducing of its populace to a degraded state and also an attack on and partial eradication of Syria.

But these are prophecies rather than desires or aims and this should be fairly obvious by the fact that in them all - virtually without exception - the Muslims come off very badly and Muslim countries are subject to onslaught and attack without relief.

But this is the weird bit; it is the CHRISTIAN tradition (or rather, the perversion of the Christian tradition) which really has an apocalyptic wish-fulfillment meme - and in this paradigm the Christians DO emerge victorious wiuth everyone else being destroyed.

And worse still; there is a huge amount of evidence that Bush sees things in this way and even if not, he is surrounded by people who undeniably do.

Nutter #1; John Hagee:

Quote:
Hagee interprets the Bible to predict that Russia and the Islamic states will invade Israel and be destroyed by God. This will cause the anti-Christ, the head of the European Union, to create a confrontation over Israel between China and the West. A final battle between East and West at Armageddon will then precipitate the Second Coming of Christ.

Actually this view has no Biblical basis at all and is merely one (insane) man's warped opinion.

But more, there is NO equivalent belief in Islamic thought. Quite the opposite. So for it to be true then the 'Islam' in question would have to reject Islam in order to make it happen - and in that case they would not be Islamic and the whole thing falls apart! But I digress....

Unlike Ahmedinejad, whose opponents have to actually pervert or make up incriminating quotes, there are numerous insane and worrying quotes from these 'Christian' hate-mongers who do actually (unlike Iran) lust for Armageddon.

Here are some from Hagee:

Quote:
"Anyone who makes the life of Jewish people difficult or grievous, as did the Pharaoh, as did Hitler, will be cursed by God." - keynote address to AIPAC, (March 12, 2007)

"All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." .

Despite his love for Israel, Hagee has also uttered comments which, had they been stated by Ahmedinejad would have been blazoned from here to Timbuctoo and slated on every newscast as anti-Semitic comments.

Which indeed they are.

Here, from the Jews On First website (a leading Jewish lobby group) are the comments in question:

Quote:
That explains Hagee's demand that Israel keep all the land it occupied in 1967. And it also undoubtedly explains -- though hardly excuses -- his statement in Jerusalem Countdown that the Holocaust resulted from Jews' refusal to move to Israel when bidden by Theodor Herzl:

God then sent the hunters. The hunter is one who pursues his target with force and fear. No one could see the horror of the Holocaust coming, but the force and fear of Hitler's Nazis drove the Jewish people back to the only home God ever intended for the Jews to have -- Israel. I stand amazed at the accuracy of God's Word and its relevance for our time.

God sent the Nazis to kill the Jews

These people are in control in the US government.

They are insane. They want to cause Armageddon. They want to cause death and chaos throughout the Middle East and now in Iran.

And they are so sick that they and their supporters see nothing wrong in all these views and actions and accuse others - falsely and on no basis - of the very sick twisted hate they themselves have.

And all so more death and killing can occur.

Everyone should acquaint themselves with these psychopaths. They are a far greater threat than any spurious or concocted 'terror' group or 'rogue state'.

Lobbying for Armageddon

Christian Right yearn for Armageddon

Bush and Armageddon

Bush's Messiah Complex

It's Bizzarro world.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #195 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Where have I heard that one before...?

CON∙JEC∙TURE

WMDWMDWMDWMDWMD "Everybody Knows It!!!"
Saddam is working with Al Qaeda "Everybody Knows It!!!"

Name one single disproven allegation that the Republican Party, The Talking Heads or Fox News fed you that you didn't believe. Name one. You're nothing more than a gullible tool, of the type that Rovian strategists COUNT on.

"Everybody knows it! Question Nothing! Un-American! TREASON!"

What a buffoon.

This is nonsense. I've never believed Saddam worked with Al-Queda, for example. Your other "challenge" is a loaded one. You're asking me to find a "disproven allegation," made by the Republican Party, and prove I didn't believe it at the time. That's an impossible task, and you know it. So stick to the topic or go away.

All I'm saying is that there are truly radical elements within Iran's government. Are you actually denying this, or just being coy in asking me to prove something that is literally common knowledge?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #196 of 309
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Operation Ajax

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And this, in your opinion, is the source of their current pattern of anti-Americanism?

Fuck yeah. Disposing a democratic leader with a despot that tortured his own people for decades. But it got us all that sweet oil didn't it?

Iran - Iraq War


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, we supported Iraq. But that was a different time. It was after the hostage crisis and during the Cold War. Iran had close ties to the Soviets and at the time, we were fighting a proxy war. I'm sure it didn't make us popular, but one can't just dismiss all context.

One can't dismiss the Iran/Contra deal either. Sell some missiles for twice as much money to the Iranians (the enemy!). Scim off the profit to finance the Contras. Not only that, but get caught in the process. We wouldn't negotiate for the release of the hostages, we brokered a deal illegally. Now that may not show Iran's evil side, but it did reveal that we are as shady (evil) as they are.

Iran Air Flight 655

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It was an accident. Unless, of course, you believe that we deliberately shot down a civilian airliner. One would then need to ask...why?

Whether we did or not, we never apologized. In fact daddy Bush had this to say about it:

Quote:
"I will never apologize for the United States of America—I don’t care what the facts are"

If there is anything that the Iranians never forget, it is this incident. Their 9-11 you might say.

Meanwhile...

Bush Wants to Avoid World War Three With Iran

Iran bomb would take '3-8 years' to build

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

3-8 years. Hmm. Tell ya what...let's assume that's accurate, mmmk? Let's assume that even without full access in a closed, oppressive regime, the IAEA can make a solid prediction there. That means that Iran could have an operational nuclear weapon by 2010. Yeah, that's comforting. My car won't even be paid off by then. Phew. Now I feel better.

If anything, it is a window of opportunity. One that is available. But you and the administration you support won't go through it.

I recall another Republican/Conservative who saw an opportunity not only to boost his own lagging popularity but realized a moment where it was time to set animosities aside and start talking.

Quote:
The 1972 Nixon visit to China was the first step in formally normalizing relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China. It also marked the first time a U.S. president had visited the PRC, which considered the United States one of its biggest enemies. From February 21 to February 28, 1972, U.S. President Richard Nixon traveled to Beijing, Hangzhou and Shanghai.

I'd feel better if we had a president that could do that today.

If not, my opinion still stands. If we attack Iran, they have every right to defend their country.


Oh and the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality, anyway
.

Quote:
The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)
post #197 of 309
Artman:

Quote:
If not, my opinion still stands. If we attack Iran, they have every right to defend their country.

I'll focus on that as the rest is basically just blustering, some of it rather intellectually dishonest blustering.

One could call your view unpatriotic in a sense. I'm not sure what else one would call openly routing against your nation in a war. It's also a very narrow view to say the least. Every story has two sides, and Iran has definitely done it's fair share of being provocative. I'm not saying it's unpatriotic to oppose going to war, or to want to end a war, but to essentially route for the other side and hope they defend themselves against your own country...yeah, that fits the bill, I think.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #198 of 309
Artman - WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?





eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #199 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Artman:



I'll focus on that as the rest is basically just blustering, some of it rather intellectually dishonest blustering.

One could call your view unpatriotic in a sense. I'm not sure what else one would call openly routing against your nation in a war. It's also a very narrow view to say the least. Every story has two sides, and Iran has definitely done it's fair share of being provocative. I'm not saying it's unpatriotic to oppose going to war, or to want to end a war, but to essentially route for the other side and hope they defend themselves against your own country...yeah, that fits the bill, I think.

What you fail to understand is that Artman, Sego and I firmly believe that a check in the left cheek is in the best interest of the United States of America and her people.

Now Sego is British, but as US citizens, Artman and I are definitely patriots if this is how we honestly feel about the situation. We want what's best for America. What's best for America at this point is to be humbled, so that we can stop swaggering aroud the world like John Wayne without a conscience and actually do something that starts to resemble promoting peace among a plethora of systems and beliefs, rather than obsequience to the "American Way".
post #200 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What you fail to understand is that Artman, Sego and I firmly believe that a check in the left cheek is in the best interest of the United States of America and her people.

Now Sego is British, but as US citizens, Artman and I are definitely patriots if this is how we honestly feel about the situation. We want what's best for America. What's best for America at this point is to be humbled, so that we can stop swaggering aroud the world like John Wayne without a conscience and actually do something that starts to resemble promoting peace among a plethora of systems and beliefs, rather than obsequience to the "American Way".

Thank you.

Quote:
The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. - Mark Twain
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?