Posted By: Kinji_2007
U.S. versus IRAN - 04/15/07 21:39
Do you think that the United States is looking for a reason to jump on Iran? Whats your opinion on the outcome of such a situation?
U.S. versus IRAN
Posted By: zazang
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/16/07 02:45
Its hard to say the real goals because I
mistrust media bigtime...history and facts are usually written by the winners..
If we want to know the truth,then we should hear from the defeated side too and
then judge...but even then it may not be the truth !
mistrust media bigtime...history and facts are usually written by the winners..
If we want to know the truth,then we should hear from the defeated side too and
then judge...but even then it may not be the truth !
Posted By: NITRO777
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/16/07 03:15
Quote:yep, history is always written by the victors. And it IS hard to judge objectively because we (the ordinary people) very rarely have all the facts. And if we did have the all the facts it is doubtful that we would synthesize them correctly.
history and facts are usually written by the winners
In world government there is never any absolute good or absolute evil. Nearly every society does what it does based on its own relative sense of protection for its people.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/16/07 03:35
If George Bush says they're evil, then they probably are.
Posted By: Ran Man
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/16/07 03:35
If Iran get the "bomb", then the world is dead.
Their outrageous support of terrorist like "Hezbellah" is well documented.
It will brings us closer to WW3 for sure.
They will, no doubt, give Bin Laden nukes and then they will be blown to kingdom come.
Their outrageous support of terrorist like "Hezbellah" is well documented.
It will brings us closer to WW3 for sure.
They will, no doubt, give Bin Laden nukes and then they will be blown to kingdom come.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/16/07 10:19
Quote:
If Iran get the "bomb", then the world is dead.
By the time Iran wants to dominate the world perhaps, but that's not what they want. For all we know they could already have it.
Quote:
Their outrageous support of terrorist like "Hezbellah" is well documented.
By whom? CIA? Lol, you're kidding right?
Quote:
They will, no doubt, give Bin Laden nukes and then they will be blown to kingdom come.
It's always a possibility, but terrorists could also simply steal a nuke. Some say Bin Laden already has one and that he's "planning something bigger than 9/11".
Quote:
It will brings us closer to WW3 for sure.
... because then the USA will start it?
Iran may have a big mouth, just like North-Korea but they won't start WW3, they are not crazy. I really think the scare tactics from Bush and co are working for some, there are so many reasons why a WW3 won't happen anytime soon ...
Cheers
Posted By: Kinji_2007
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/16/07 11:02
Quote:
... because then the USA will start it? Iran may have a big mouth, just like North-Korea but they won't start WW3, they are not crazy.
They will not intentionally start ww3. I do think Bush has proved he is not scared to take full measure when he "thinks" he is right. Whats the purpose of still having two aircraft carriers present in the Persian Gulf? I personally think Bush is looking for a reason to jump. North Korea has a big mouth, on that I agree. If the U.S. was ever in a weakened state from being at war with another country.. I think that big mouth would lean toward action.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/18/07 05:41
There is evidence that certain members of the Pentagon have been interested for some time in the destruction of the Islamic Republic. Certainly many people and organizations would have their interests served by the removal of the Islamic government.
Just as the War in Iraq was mainly about securing oil supplies and US power in the middle East, A US invasion of Iran would have the same benefits.
However, I believe the Pentagon planners are aware that a US invasion and occupation of Iran in the near future is unfeasible.
Reasons that an invasion will likely not take place:
1) Iran is significantly larger and more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan, which have both proven difficult to control and occupy.
2) Iran has a much more effective government than Iraq or Afg. had--Iran is actually a kind of democracy, with established command and control, military cohesiveness, and competent leadership.
3) iran has a more diversified economic and industrial base than Iraq, with a maturing military industry..meaning that Iran has the capabilities to be self-sufficient in an extended conflict.
4) Geographically, Iran is more varied and rugged than Iraq, with many areas of high mountains, forests, desert, etc. An assymetrical insurgency would be even more effective in Iran than in Iraq.
5) there is even less support internationally for a war with Iran than there was for Iraq; I doubt a single nation would support the US.
6) The current administration has spent all it's political capital and no longer has the popular authority to conduct such a war.
In short, if the Pentagon and the Administration have any sanity whatever, they will not attempt an invasion of Iran at this time. Such an act, if carried out unilaterally by an executive order, might well result in domestic civil strife, impeachment, even revolution. I also think some military commanders might refuse the order, preferring to resign.
Just as the War in Iraq was mainly about securing oil supplies and US power in the middle East, A US invasion of Iran would have the same benefits.
However, I believe the Pentagon planners are aware that a US invasion and occupation of Iran in the near future is unfeasible.
Reasons that an invasion will likely not take place:
1) Iran is significantly larger and more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan, which have both proven difficult to control and occupy.
2) Iran has a much more effective government than Iraq or Afg. had--Iran is actually a kind of democracy, with established command and control, military cohesiveness, and competent leadership.
3) iran has a more diversified economic and industrial base than Iraq, with a maturing military industry..meaning that Iran has the capabilities to be self-sufficient in an extended conflict.
4) Geographically, Iran is more varied and rugged than Iraq, with many areas of high mountains, forests, desert, etc. An assymetrical insurgency would be even more effective in Iran than in Iraq.
5) there is even less support internationally for a war with Iran than there was for Iraq; I doubt a single nation would support the US.
6) The current administration has spent all it's political capital and no longer has the popular authority to conduct such a war.
In short, if the Pentagon and the Administration have any sanity whatever, they will not attempt an invasion of Iran at this time. Such an act, if carried out unilaterally by an executive order, might well result in domestic civil strife, impeachment, even revolution. I also think some military commanders might refuse the order, preferring to resign.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/18/07 06:03
Quote:
If the U.S. was ever in a weakened state from being at war with another country.. I think that big mouth would lean toward action.
It's a possibility, but judged on North Korea's most recent attitude they seem to be willing to negotiate a little longer, perhaps even totally give up their current nuclear politics. Perhaps they are simply trying to buy more time (like they did before), but contrary to Iran, North Korea is quite poor so they do not have that much time. I think North Korea would settle for any deal that would involve a joint-nuclear program with another country. For example support from Russia or China to get nuclear energy ready in exchange for abandoning their nuclear weapons program.
The two carriers are there for a reason indeed, but then again both Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan can be easily reached from the Arabian Sea area in case emergency actions are required. Aircraft carriers are not enough to start an invasion, as Iraq showed the bombing of Bagdad early on was highly ineffective.
I could even imagine spy planes flying towards North Korea from there, but for offensive tactics they are a bit too far away I think. Off course the US has some vessels in the Pacific Area, no doubt about it, that could also respond to N-Korea I guess.
Cheers
Posted By: zazang
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/18/07 06:38
In political matters,I wonder how much to trust the media 
Posted By: William
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/18/07 10:43
No matter how much someone hates Bush, the Republicans, or war, theres no denying how insane Iran's ruler is. This is someone who repeatedly talks of annihilating Israel and the United States. If he has nukes and starts taunting with them, a war would be guaranteed, Democrats or Republicans, and the international community would rightfully support it. One has to believe this is a fair bit different than the North Korea situation; especially if he really follows through with his extremist Islam beliefs.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/18/07 13:40
Well, the media can make us believe practically anything when it comes to Iran ... I would be interested to know Iran's governments 'exact' words on some topics. Part of Iran's spokesmen act as a pure part of their propaganda machine, that's clear, but don't underestimate the other sides either.
Cheers
Cheers
Posted By: Robotronic
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/18/07 13:45
Quote:
... theres no denying how insane Iran's ruler is.
I never met him personally.
And as for the word "ruler", just to give you an idea of his actual power: I remember, that during the World Cup he wanted to allow Iranian woman to attend soccer games. He had not the power, to decide this.
The title "president" actually doesnīt mean very much in Iran, which is a theocracy with some democratic elements, but everyone with a little insight will tell you, that the real power is with the clerics.
Quote:
This is someone who repeatedly talks of annihilating Israel and the United States.
When did he talk of "annihilating" the United States?
As for Israel, I have read in several western newspapers (the Guardian, the New York Times), that his actual speech was quite different from the hysterical quote "wipe off the map", that is now repeated time and again, because it sells so good.
According to these sources he did not mention Israel directly, but "the regime occupying Jerusalem" and he listed it in a long speech together with the soviet regimes and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
He was not saying, that Iran is going to "wipe" anything "off the map", but expressed his expectation, that this regime would "disappear from the page of time". This means not more and not less, than that he is unhappy with the current politics of the Israeli government - an attitude that is not really exceptional in this region of mutual mistrust.
Quote:
If he has nukes and starts taunting with them, a war would be guaranteed
We are talking here of a nation, that has made it clear through its highest religious authority, that it regards nuclear weapons as "unislamic", accused by nations that do have real nuclear weapons. One of these nations has used them in the past. Another one has just decided to modernize its arsenal.
We are talking of a nation, that has not started wars in recent centuries, accused by nations who just recently did this, based on false accusations.
Someone here mentioned, they could deliver their non-existent nukes to Bin Laden. This is absolute nonsense, because Bin Ladens terror group is Sunni and Iran is predominantly Shia. Bin Laden and his gang are currently blowing off Shias everyday in Iraq, and Mr Ahmadinedjad would more likely give his hypothetical nukes to Israel, before he would give them to Bin Laden.
But he doesnīt have them.
Posted By: NITRO777
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/18/07 14:00
Quote:
I would be interested to know Iran's governments 'exact' words on some topics
Ahmadinejad denys the holocaust
Death to Israel
Hes a racist.
psycho Iranian childrens show
The cure for AIDS
evil dictator evil agenda : "cure AIDS...tell NOONE" muhahhha
Tom and Jerry is the JEwish conspiracy LOL
Posted By: Thracian
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/18/07 14:03
Of course an Iran having the bomb is bad - but as long as the other states, especially the US, donīt drop the idea of having nucelear weapons, the Iran wonīt either.
Posted By: William
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/19/07 09:10
I don't know what media sources you receive in Germany, but I've seen many videos on T.V showing him, yes, in real life, mostly at speeches talking of the destruction of Israel.
Well I really don't know what more I can say about a "regime occupying Israel". If this is indeed what he meant, obviously he meant the Jewish peoples who occupy, not some minor government change.
This is indeed why there are many problems in the middle east with Israel, because all the Muslim states want Jerusalem back.
While I'm not a war monger, and am a Canadian(we did not participate in Iraq), I must say Iran looks to be a much different situation than Iraq. Again, I really hope peoples hatred of Pres. Bush and the Republicans don't get in the way of the real issues at hand(Many people tie Iran+nukes=insane with Bush).
Quote:
According to these sources he did not mention Israel directly, but "the regime occupying Jerusalem" and he listed it in a long speech together with the soviet regimes and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
He was not saying, that Iran is going to "wipe" anything "off the map", but expressed his expectation, that this regime would "disappear from the page of time". This means not more and not less, than that he is unhappy with the current politics of the Israeli government - an attitude that is not really exceptional in this region of mutual mistrust.
Well I really don't know what more I can say about a "regime occupying Israel". If this is indeed what he meant, obviously he meant the Jewish peoples who occupy, not some minor government change.
This is indeed why there are many problems in the middle east with Israel, because all the Muslim states want Jerusalem back.While I'm not a war monger, and am a Canadian(we did not participate in Iraq), I must say Iran looks to be a much different situation than Iraq. Again, I really hope peoples hatred of Pres. Bush and the Republicans don't get in the way of the real issues at hand(Many people tie Iran+nukes=insane with Bush).
Posted By: vartan_s
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/19/07 09:57
Even if Iran acquires a nuke, what can it do. It doesn't have the aircraft to make a strike. In fact WW3 is impossible. World Wars take place when two major superpowers go against each other and all other countries take sides. There are other superpowers, mainly China and Russia which are growing but there is no superpower capable of challenging the US at the moment. I think the US wants to jump on Iran, how it will do so I'm not so sure. As Matt said, it's unrealistic for the Pentagon.
Posted By: Robotronic
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/19/07 14:01
There is a huge difference between the expressed expectation, that a "regime" will come down and a call for genocide. Like this it was presented in the mainstream western media.
There are many governments in the world that do not recognize each other: Western Germany for example did not recognize East Germany, China does not recognize Taiwan, the US has a whole list of states where they desire "regime change" ...
For a full translation of the speech that turned somehow into "wipe of the map":
What he really said
You can also find a comprehensive discussion of this issue at wikipedia:
whatīs going on here?
Here you can also find out more about the official position towards Israel:
Well I know that it is hard to believe, that something, that is repeated over and over again might not be true. In German TV it was handled in a very similar way as in Canada or the US. Whoīs to blame for this? Maybe a stupid translator, maybe a superficial and hysterical media? I donīt know. Itīs one of the reasons, why I prefer to use the www and multiple sources.
I do not want to imply, that Iran and Israel have warm relations at the moment, but it should also be mentioned in this context, that Israel and the US had a desire for regime change in Teheran long before Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad came to power.
This is from an article, published in 2003:
article
So my personal conclusion is, that the Iranians feel threatened by the US and Israel, and make loud noises in order to appear at least a little bit more dangerous.
About the nuclear issue: itīs an excellent rallying point in government propaganda. This programm, started a long time ago by the Shah, is in Iran a matter of national pride.
Ahmadinedjad is a populist and of course he can exploit the situation like this: the evil US doesnīt want us to become a rich and prosperous nation, itīs the US, thatīs to blame for all economic shortcomings.
Finally: The real world is not a black_or_white issue. Just look at this colorful
There are many governments in the world that do not recognize each other: Western Germany for example did not recognize East Germany, China does not recognize Taiwan, the US has a whole list of states where they desire "regime change" ...
For a full translation of the speech that turned somehow into "wipe of the map":
What he really said
You can also find a comprehensive discussion of this issue at wikipedia:
whatīs going on here?
Here you can also find out more about the official position towards Israel:
Quote:
Iran's stated policy on Israel is to urge a one-state solution through a countrywide referendum. Juan Cole and others interpret Ahmadinejad's statements to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for; which would normally be an end to the "Zionist state".
In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:
We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.
Well I know that it is hard to believe, that something, that is repeated over and over again might not be true. In German TV it was handled in a very similar way as in Canada or the US. Whoīs to blame for this? Maybe a stupid translator, maybe a superficial and hysterical media? I donīt know. Itīs one of the reasons, why I prefer to use the www and multiple sources.
I do not want to imply, that Iran and Israel have warm relations at the moment, but it should also be mentioned in this context, that Israel and the US had a desire for regime change in Teheran long before Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad came to power.
This is from an article, published in 2003:
Quote:
In fact, right-wing Israelis and their advocates in Washington consider the ayatollahs' Iran a more dangerous enemy than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Last November Sharon, in an exclusive interview with the Times of London, described the Islamic Republic as "a center of world terror" and openly called upon the United States and Britain to "attack Iran once they are finished with Iraq."[...]
The only conceivable way to overthrow the Islamic regime through external military force is to invade Iran with hundreds of thousands of troops. Only the United States has such a capacity, and Sharon is hoping to persuade President Bush to undertake the mission while his forces are in the region--preferably "the day after" he "finishes off Saddam Hussein," he told the Times. Ranan Lurie, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, approvingly explains Sharon's argument for popular audiences as follows:
It is inconceivable that [the US] will attack Iraq, succeed, destroy its unconventional laboratories and arsenal, come home for a ticker-tape parade on Wilshire Boulevard and go to the beaches while Iran is still there. Imagine a brain surgeon penetrating the skull of a patient who has two malignant tumors and yet extracting only one of them. Logic says that, as long as you are in that skull, the same incision should serve for the removal of the second tumor.
article
So my personal conclusion is, that the Iranians feel threatened by the US and Israel, and make loud noises in order to appear at least a little bit more dangerous.
About the nuclear issue: itīs an excellent rallying point in government propaganda. This programm, started a long time ago by the Shah, is in Iran a matter of national pride.
Ahmadinedjad is a populist and of course he can exploit the situation like this: the evil US doesnīt want us to become a rich and prosperous nation, itīs the US, thatīs to blame for all economic shortcomings.
Finally: The real world is not a black_or_white issue. Just look at this colorful
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/19/07 16:24
Quote:
Quote:
I would be interested to know Iran's governments 'exact' words on some topics
Ahmadinejad denys the holocaust
Death to Israel
Hes a racist.
psycho Iranian childrens show
The cure for AIDS
evil dictator evil agenda : "cure AIDS...tell NOONE" muhahhha
Tom and Jerry is the JEwish conspiracy LOL
Tom and Jerry is off course no Jewish conspiracy, but even these animation movies have moral or political messages. Eventhough it may seem ridiculous, it's just another example of culture clash, don't underestimate the fact that some cultures totally do not understand our culture ... Just look at the stir up of emotions caused by these comic caricatures of Mohammed. They don't understand that kind of humor,
Edit: By the way, there's western propaganda in some of those movies too. Iran never said they had the cure, they said they were developing it.
Cheers
Posted By: Blattsalat
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/19/07 16:36
radicals will find radical motives in everything. for gods sake, they can even rape religions to be the excuse for murder and hate. and both sides are equal here.
the key for peace is the youth in this countries and how successful we are supporting them to achieve their goals of freedom.
the biggest danger is not the nuclear bomb but the narrow minded and radical selfish attitude that dicides to use it.
and again both sides are ment. people like to forget that or even worse.
cheers
the key for peace is the youth in this countries and how successful we are supporting them to achieve their goals of freedom.
the biggest danger is not the nuclear bomb but the narrow minded and radical selfish attitude that dicides to use it.
and again both sides are ment. people like to forget that or even worse.
cheers
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/19/07 16:54
Note that while Amedinejad & Co. have said many outrageous things, they have not done much at all to harm Isreal or anyone else. Iran has never invaded another country, nor started any wars (since ancient times). Even if Iran aquired nuclear weapons I would not worry that they would use them irresponsibly. To think so is basically ignorant. The reason the US fears Iran is that we would lose much of our influence in the region if Iran became a nuclear state.
Also, Amedinejad is essentially saying the same things Khomieni said about Isreal, making this nothing new for Iran's leadership. Frankly, I think there will never be peace in the Middle East until Isreal is dissolved or substantially chnaged.
Also, Amedinejad is essentially saying the same things Khomieni said about Isreal, making this nothing new for Iran's leadership. Frankly, I think there will never be peace in the Middle East until Isreal is dissolved or substantially chnaged.
Posted By: Ran Man
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/19/07 17:00
Quote:
Tom and Jerry is the JEwish conspiracy LOL
HA, HA, HA! Too Funny!
I laughed really good at that one.
He thinks that --> Jews = Mice ?
Gee, what a whacko.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/19/07 17:45
Quote:
He thinks that --> Jews = Mice ?
No, he didn't say that, he was talking about the fictional mice in the Tom and Jerry cartoon which could be seen as the Jews according to him. I'm not defending the overly absurd analogy and theory of that Iranian scholar, but at least attack him on what he really said.
Cheers
Posted By: Ran Man
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/19/07 19:25
Yes good point, but in the video he points out that:
Hitler tried to get Germans in WW2 to think that Jews were dirty mice. Right?
It's in the movie!
Okay, so why be concerned about the "Tom and Jerry" cartoon?
Why the concern?
He must be concerned about the cartoon, because it is clouding the ORIGINAL image that Hitler wanted to show?
Namely that Jews = Mice.
Right? Why be concerned?
Oh the pain...
Because that evil disney guy made the mouse to be good, and old Hitler was right? lol, HAHA! , God what a sicko...
Hitler tried to get Germans in WW2 to think that Jews were dirty mice. Right?
It's in the movie! Okay, so why be concerned about the "Tom and Jerry" cartoon?
Why the concern?
He must be concerned about the cartoon, because it is clouding the ORIGINAL image that Hitler wanted to show?
Namely that Jews = Mice.
Right? Why be concerned?
Oh the pain...
Because that evil disney guy made the mouse to be good, and old Hitler was right? lol, HAHA! , God what a sicko...
Posted By: Robotronic
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/19/07 19:55
Itīs a propaganda war after all.
I just clicked on two of these videos and they were both provided by a group called Memri.
It is an organisation that was founded by an Israeli intelligence officer, and it is frequently accused of handselecting the worst and most stupid stuff from the Islamic world and presenting this to a western audience. Their translations may or may not be "sexed up", but chances are high, they are:
Memri / wikipedia
But I have to admit, that the one about Tom&Jerry was funny ...
On a more serious note and back to topic:
I think it is very likely, that the US or Israel will bomb Irans infrastructure in the not so distant future.
This will be good for the US weapons industry and for the current regime in Iran, because the people will rally around their leaders, just like many Americans embraced Bush and the neocons after 9/11.
I do not think, that Iran has a real intent on developping nuclear weapons. I just donīt think, they would make so much noise about this. All military nuclear programms were developped in a secretive way ...
I just clicked on two of these videos and they were both provided by a group called Memri.
It is an organisation that was founded by an Israeli intelligence officer, and it is frequently accused of handselecting the worst and most stupid stuff from the Islamic world and presenting this to a western audience. Their translations may or may not be "sexed up", but chances are high, they are:
Quote:
Ken Livingstone, former British MP and the current Mayor of London, has stated of MEMRI that: "The translation and selection of quotes tend to portray Islam in a very negative light." He has accused MEMRI of "outright distortion".
Ibrahim Hooper, a director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, stated in the Washington Times that "MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."
Hussein Ibish comments that "There is of course some horrific stuff in the Arab press, but one tends to forget that the American press can also be very nasty.
William Rugh, former US ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, describes MEMRI as a service which "does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media. ...Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue."
Memri / wikipedia
But I have to admit, that the one about Tom&Jerry was funny ...
On a more serious note and back to topic:
I think it is very likely, that the US or Israel will bomb Irans infrastructure in the not so distant future.
This will be good for the US weapons industry and for the current regime in Iran, because the people will rally around their leaders, just like many Americans embraced Bush and the neocons after 9/11.
I do not think, that Iran has a real intent on developping nuclear weapons. I just donīt think, they would make so much noise about this. All military nuclear programms were developped in a secretive way ...
Posted By: William
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/22/07 07:39
Well, sometimes it's best to deal with crazy people before they do something stupid. I think the world should have learned it's lesson with Hitler.
This looks like it's an conversion where some think Iran's leader is a bit crazy and doesn't need nukes, and another side who support him, and don't mind him or want him having nukes. It also seems like the latter half denies that Iran or it's populace have any problem with the Jewish peoples occupying Israel. Unfortunately, this isn't the way things work. As well, basing Iran's capabilities and intentions to attack off of it's History is a bit foolish, things can change very quickly depending on who's in charge and what is happening globally.
Don't let your hate of the Republicans, Bush, Jewish peoples, or America get in the way of proper thinking here. The only reason Bush is somewhat at the forefront of addressing Iran is because he is in power; I would like the think the Democrats would have done the same if they were in power.
This looks like it's an conversion where some think Iran's leader is a bit crazy and doesn't need nukes, and another side who support him, and don't mind him or want him having nukes. It also seems like the latter half denies that Iran or it's populace have any problem with the Jewish peoples occupying Israel. Unfortunately, this isn't the way things work. As well, basing Iran's capabilities and intentions to attack off of it's History is a bit foolish, things can change very quickly depending on who's in charge and what is happening globally.
Don't let your hate of the Republicans, Bush, Jewish peoples, or America get in the way of proper thinking here. The only reason Bush is somewhat at the forefront of addressing Iran is because he is in power; I would like the think the Democrats would have done the same if they were in power.
Posted By: Robotronic
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/22/07 13:08
Quote:
Well, sometimes it's best to deal with crazy people before they do something stupid.
So what about a preemptive strike on, letīs say, Switzerland. They havenīt done "something stupid" recently, but you never know ...
But on the other hand, there are no oil springs in Switzerland.
Quote:
I think the world should have learned it's lesson with Hitler.
Sure. And they are so simple ...
Everyone who doesnīt agree with the next "preemptive strike" must be either
a) the next Hitler.
b) be the next Chamberlain.
Quote:
This looks like it's an conversion where some think Iran's leader is a bit crazy ...
Guess youīre talking of the guy with the complicated name. Unfortunately you still did not convince me, that he is
a) Iranīs leader (see my previous post)
b) crazy.
He made some highly provocative statements. Far less provocative, than the propaganda version, but nevertheless not really helpful.
My biggest problem however is: thatīs what our (western) leaders do all the time. Hereīs a recent example from a US presidential candidate:
Quote:
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in South Carolina: Another man wondering if an attack on Iran is in the works wanted to know when America is going to send an air mail message to Tehran. McCain began his answer by changing the words to a popular Beach Boys song. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, he sang to the tune of Barbara Ann. He stopped short of answering the actual question.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/19/bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-iran/
Will there be the same outcry in the western media about this? Something like: Senator Mc Cain favours genocide!!! No? I also donīt think so.
Quote:
... and another side who support him, and don't mind him or want him having nukes.
There is a subtle difference between supporting someone and wanting "him having nukes" on the one hand and my humble attempt to clarify some misconceptions on the other hand.
To be clear about this: my trust in the human mind in general is very limited. I do not like to see human beings playing around with nukes and such stuff.
But before we demonize and threaten those who havenīt such toys, maybe we should be a little bit concerned about those who have?
Quote:
It also seems like the latter half denies that Iran or it's populace have any problem with the Jewish peoples occupying Israel.
Why? Because I gave some information about the background of Memri?
Because I have learned - one of the "lessons of Hitler", btw. - that
propaganda != truth
The simple answer here is, that - after decades of war - Israel is indeed not very popular in the Arab and to a large extent in the wider Muslim world.
And of course vice versa - the Arabs are not very popular in Israel.
I donīt think however, that another war will make Israel - or the US - more popular.
Apart from this I understand both positions.
Itīs true, however, that I do not belong to the Christian Zionist school of thought:
Quote:
According to author Grace Halsell, Christian Zionists believe that "Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us."
source
I also donīt think, that we should actively work for Armageddon.
Quote:
As well, basing Iran's capabilities and intentions to attack off of it's History is a bit foolish ...
Thatīs why itīs so important, that we launch a massive attack on Switzerland, because they didnīt attack someone in the past. This shows, how dangerous they are ...
Quote:
Don't let your hate of the Republicans, Bush, Jewish peoples, or America get in the way of proper thinking here.
Oops. I didnīt know, why I should hate so many people ...
a) America. I often try to convince myself, that Americans in general are better and wiser than Europeans, that they use their great power with more care and more restrictions. But unfortunately they seem to be just common human beings making all the mistakes that previous empires also made.
But I am aware, that a growing number of Americans - if not a majority - doesnīt like anymore, whatīs being done in the name of America.
b) Jewish Peoples. I already admitted, that I do not belong to the Christian Zionist movement, but thereīs really no reason for me to hate them. Unlike the US, they have some very good reasons to be a little bit paranoid about their neighbours.
c) Itīs really great, that in America presidents can only be elected twice.
d) Republicans. Considering the above statement by Mc Cain, maybe they should spend some time in opposition, just a few years, so that the Democrats can clean up the mess.
A final and important note to all citizens of Switzerland, who might have read this:
Whenever I mentioned Switzerland in this context - I know, I shouldnīt have done this
- it was just by accident. I could have also mentioned many other countries or even some planets from outer space.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/22/07 14:30
Quote:
This looks like it's an conversion where some think Iran's leader is a bit crazy and doesn't need nukes, and another side who support him, and don't mind him or want him having nukes.
There's no moral reason why ONLY the US should be allowed to have nukes. So basically the same freedom they are "fighting" for to have is what they fear others to have. That's not right, don't you think?
When looking back at the Cold War, Russia apparently never intended to fire their missiles, instead it waited for the US to make any trigger happy moves. The USA tries to be a world police kind of nation and denies other people's rights in favor of their own. If it ever does go wrong, it wouldn't surprise me if the USA is to blame.
Quote:
It also seems like the latter half denies that Iran or it's populace have any problem with the Jewish peoples occupying Israel.
No, but Iran isn't the only one having "problems" with that actually. I'm not against Jews, not at all, I am however against people occupying other people's land by force, especially when it's a people that have had such a horrible history in WWII and especially for the 'reason' the Jewish people in Israel do. Talking about 'superior races' and 'racism'... take a look at Israel. It's stupid that we are hardly allowed to say this.
Quote:
Don't let your hate of the Republicans, Bush, Jewish peoples, or America get in the way of proper thinking here. The only reason Bush is somewhat at the forefront of addressing Iran is because he is in power; I would like the think the Democrats would have done the same if they were in power.
Aah, so anyone who simply disagrees suddenly hates them all? Lol, no way, a part of me is Jewish actually...
Quote:
I also donīt think, that we should actively work for Armageddon.
Indeed. They claim Iran is, but in reality I'm not so sure who really is.
Cheers
Posted By: Ran Man
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/22/07 21:03
Quote:
I'm not against Jews, not at all, I am however against people occupying other people's land by force,
Hmmnnn, yes I agree.
The Jews are occupying too much land.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/22/07 22:45
Quote:Quote:
I'm not against Jews, not at all, I am however against people occupying other people's land by force,
Hmmnnn, yes I agree.
The Jews are occupying too much land.
Right, size does matter ...
Then again I never said 'occupying too much land', they are however currently occupying land that isn't really theirs for taking. 'Promised land' or not, you can't kick out local people just because World War II would 'justify' such an action. That's ridiculous, especially since Muslims in Israel had nothing to do with World War II whatsoever. You can't give land if it's not yours to give either (allied forces/US), just like you can't 'receive' land that's not yours to receive(Jewish people/Israelites).
The reason why the whole conflict over there exists is quite ridiculous. You wouldn't like it either if a group of people invade your land or home and kick you out ran_man.
Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/22/07 23:21
Quote:I dont think Hitler was really that crazy, he was only a product of his environment. Racial eugenics was prevalent in Germany from the turn of the 20th century. Scientists which had already embraced ethnic cleansing from Darwinism had propagated the ideas which led to Auschwitz. The entire German way of thinking needed to be dealt with, not just Hitler, Hitler was only a poster boy for those ideas.
Well, sometimes it's best to deal with crazy people before they do something stupid. I think the world should have learned it's lesson with Hitler.
I wouldnt blame Hitler for the Holocaust, I would blame Darwin, evolutionary ethics, and the culture of death which existed in Germany at that time. It is the same de-valueing of life which has led to the "silent holocaust" we know as abortion today.
Likewise, this Iranian President is just a reflection of Iranian ideology as a whole.
I think the issue in this thread is not IF there will be a conflict with Iran, the question as it stands is WHEN. Because unless some core ideas are changed across the world in Arab, Jewish and American thought, the conflict is absolutely inevitable.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/23/07 04:33
Quote:
I would blame Darwin, evolutionary ethics, and the culture of death
yes right, Darwin killed 6 million jews, not the Nazis under the express order of Hitler. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Quote:That's also retarded. Like giving poeple a chance to have an abortion if they want to is the same as the Holocaust. We have free speech in America, too bad poeple like you use that right to make yourself and your ilk sound like lunatics. You dont belong in America... try Nazi Germany.
"silent holocaust" we know as abortion today.
Posted By: William
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/23/07 06:49
Quote:
I think the issue in this thread is not IF there will be a conflict with Iran, the question as it stands is WHEN. Because unless some core ideas are changed across the world in Arab, Jewish and American thought, the conflict is absolutely inevitable.
That's how I have been looking at it. However, it doesn't take a genius to realize a good deal of people dislike Republicans around here, and will disagree with anything they suggest immediately; including the Iran issues.
Since no one is going to change there minds here, I ask people who believe the Democrats will seize power in the next election what they think the Democrats will do with the Iran issue? What would they do if Iran taunts it's nuclear abilities in the future?
This is of course suggesting Iran continues it's programs and ends up building nukes during the Democrats term.
Posted By: ello
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/23/07 09:51
Quote:
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
actually i had to laugh about that one. was quiet funny. he's got my vote for it!
Posted By: NITRO777
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/23/07 11:50
Quote:Thats because you know nothing whatsoever about history. So anything at all would sound dumb to you. I will explore what and why Hitler did in this thread, if there is enough interest.
yes right, Darwin killed 6 million jews, not the Nazis under the express order of Hitler. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Quote:While my initial reply would have been insulting just like yours, Im not gonna bother with replying to that. As I said, I will show the connection, however, you are quite hypocritical about judging based upon appearences since in your dino thread you were so adverse to the idea. Perhaps you should start practising what you preach. However I think that you generally dont have much of an informed opinion on anything.
That's also retarded. Like giving poeple a chance to have an abortion if they want to is the same as the Holocaust. We have free speech in America, too bad poeple like you use that right to make yourself and your ilk sound like lunatics. You dont belong in America... try Nazi Germany.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide
Re: U.S. versus IRAN - 04/23/07 16:11
Quote:
Thats because you know nothing whatsoever about history.
Quote:
However I think that you generally dont have much of an informed opinion on anything.
Yes, that's right. I dont agree with your lunatic interpretations of history and morality so I am ignorant.
I'm well aware of how eugencists and racialists misused Darwin in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. By your same argument, you could blame Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition.
That thread you started is nonsensical..how does a vague statment by Darwin, without any context, affect anything?