It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Bad Intelligence" - "Americans, it would seem, are the ideal audience for propagandists..."

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Siroos,

Please do not allow yourself to be sucked into this game of trading tough-guy BS with the armchair warriors in here. Your posts up to this point have been articulate and informative. Do not allow yourself to be provoked.

Any war between Iran and the US is likely to have tragic consequences for both sides. We here can play a small part in reducing tensions, or we can participate in aggravating conflict. Each of us has a small part in the choice between war and peace - which will you choose?




posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siroos

Originally posted by C0le
The time it takes those "high tech tanks" to reload, on that pos auto-system..

itll be a pile molten metal..





[edit on 30-4-2005 by C0le]


Iran does not only have T-72 tanks. The U.S. will be afflicted with such heavy damages and casualties that it will loose the war big time, and face economic ruin as well. You have been brianwashed by your propaganda machine with its "High tech weaponry shows" in Iraq. You forget that Iraq's military was devastated by an 8 year long war at the time when the U.S. devastated it even further in 1990-91. (The Persian Gulf war) Then Iraq faced 11 years of sanctions which prevented it to rebuild its military. So when the U.S. attacked Iraq for a second time with its pathetic "Shock and awe" (:@@
Iraq had one of the weakest military powers in the world, and yet it took a whole month for the U.S. to reach Baghdad, and yet the war is continuing til this day! Do you seriously think that the U.S. with such poor performance can dismantle Iran's nearly 8 million man strong military might. Don't forget that Iranians are the fiercest nationalists I've ever seen in this world - Iranians will literally tare apart your American soldiers with their hands if they dare to place even one toe on Iranian territories. You're too arrogant about your "military might" - yet you have so far never faced anything but small and weak nations. I guess you do that to boost your egos.


You do realise just 1 of our subs could fight your intire country and win right?
you do realise iraq and pretty much everything after ww2, has been america "light" as far is war is concerned right? You do realize contrary to popular belief, the american military actualy gives a damn about civilians casualtes, which is why this war is still going on in iraq, you do realise that iran can never face U.S military face to face and win right?


[edit on 30-4-2005 by C0le]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Siroos,

My advice to you is too ignore people like 27 and Ed. They will do nothing but bait you into an argument that will result in warnings and bans. Even bait you in to creating a thread such as this. They are extremists, almost as fanatical in their beliefs as the AQ and the people they hate so much.

I agree with Ed and 27 and you Siroos on one thing, extremists should be gone or silenced or something. However, we are looking in the wrong place. It isn't Iraqis or Iranians or Sirians or North Koreans or Americans or Europeans or Africans, or any of the people we have been mediawashed into thinking are all trying to kill us. Its the extremists, they are few, but they are everwhere and subscribe to every religion/belief/system you can imagine.

If you do not want to see propaganda, do not visit this site. This site is about extreme headlines and news. People present news here in an off the wall slightly extreme way. Its funny most of the time, but very disturbing at other times.

I personally think you should have not made this thread Siroos, it is reactionary. I have enjoyed your previous posts, but I have not enjoyed this one.



Kriz, What is it about the article that you find is reactionary? I think it simply states the truth about U.S. propaganda and misinformation campaigns. I really don't see anything reactionary in it.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siroos
First of all, I repeat again - The Iranian parliament has not chanted "Death to America" - At least not in the last 15 years.


Once again I ask you to explain this, dated 5/28/2004, please:



TEHRAN -- In a display of anti-U.S. anger not seen in parliament for years, Iran's conservative-dominated legislature chanted "Death to America" and hardliners clashed with reformists yesterday in the first day of the house's new session. The tensions signalled a tough year ahead for President Mohammad Khatami, after fellow reformists lost control of the parliament in contentious February elections. The ballot was boycotted by reformists and largely spurned by voters because the hard-line Guardian Council disqualified thousands of reformist candidates.

In a speech to legislators, reformist Interior Minister Abdolvahed Mousavi Lari accused the clerics of the Guardian Council of acting without justification when it barred candidates from running in the election.

A number of conservative legislators shouted in protest, and, in a bid to end the bickering, hardline legislator Mahdi Kouchakzadeh asked parliament to condemn the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"To attract the attention of everybody to what is our main task, I invite you to pray for the devastation of the American belligerent occupiers," he said.

Fellow conservatives responded by chanting "Death to America."

It was a sign of how much the new parliament, in which conservatives hold about 180 of 290 seats, differs from the previous one, dominated by reformists. Before, only a few would have shouted anti-American slogans.
www.canoe.ca...




[edit on 30-4-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siroos
We are a sovereign country and are free to chant death to america and spit on and burn your flag if we wish to - Who the heck are you to deny us that?


We are also a sovereign country, and just as you are free to chant death to America, we are free to take it as the threat it is. You want to chant death to America? Fine. You want us to allow those who chant for our deaths to obtain the weapons to acheive their goals? Sorry. Be prepared for us to take your threats seriously. May god or whomever watches over earth help us all.



And please do not say "anti-Western", because Iran and the Iranian regime does not have an issue with the West, but with the U.S. authorities.


I have a problem with the U.S. authorities too. I want to see my government change as much as you do. But the way you advocate chanting death to America (where I live) and burning my country's flag, makes it just as impossible for me to avoid defending my country as it would be for you to avoid defending yours, regardless of how you dislike the government. We don't chant death to Iran, and I would never advocate anybody doing so. That's a threat in my book, plain and simple. So one problem seems to be, both our countries feel threatened by each other. Maybe there is just a great deal of misunderstanding on both sides, and maybe both our governments wish for it to stay that way. But I don't like being threatened by a regime that you admit at least supports terrorist organizations, who want nuclear weapons, that may end up in the hands of those terrorist organizations.



I repeat again and again - THE U.S.A. IS NOBODY TO TELL IRAN OR ANYONE ELSE THAT IT CAN PURSUE A NUCLEAR PROGRAM OR NOT! THE U.S.A. MUST BE TAUGHT THIS LESSON THE HARD WAY IF NECESSARY SO THAT IT CEASES TO BE SO DAMN COCKY. Iran will pursue its nuclear programme and Iran is prepared to engage in a war against the U.S. and Israel.


If your government shares the same attitude, unfortunately you may be right to be prepared.



If the U.S. does not want people to chant "death to America" then it has to reverse its policies around the world. People do not hate the U.S. without reason. A good start would be for the U.S. to witdraw from the Middle East, Central Asia and Caucasus. The U.S. has troops in nearly all the countries of this region. The U.S. has no business their! The energy resources of the region belongs to the sovereing countries of that region, not to the U.S.


I agree the U.S. should change it's policies, I am one of those who are hopeful we will find an alternate energy source and pull out of those regions entirely. I want pretty much the same changes you do, but I will not support waiting for those who call for my destruction to obtain nuclear weapons and follow through on what they say they are gonna do, before enough Americans get fed up with the neocons crap and vote in a new administration. As long as Iranians are chanting death to America, Bush and his administration have all the more ammo to keep the American people afraid of a nuclear Iran. I'm sure they thank you for that, you're doing just what they want you to do.


[edit on 1-5-2005 by 27jd]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Siroos, my comment about the author of the article is that they founded that project and are clearly biased against America.

I'm not going to go into detail about the Vincennes incident because I don't know how much of it is still classified and I don't feel like losing my clearance, but I personally know people who were in the ship's Combat Information Center fighting the ship at that time and I know people who analyzed the actual recorded computer data and voice recordings from the incident. There is a LOT more to the incident than what is on the Internet.

[edit on 1-5-2005 by PeanutButterJellyTime]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   


The most recent T-72 is the 'S' version. The T-72S MBT weighs 44.5 tonnes and is armed with the latest stabilized 125mm smoothbore 2A46M gun, IA40-1 computerised fire-control system (FCS) with laser rangefinder and day/image intensification night sighting system. As well as firing the normal types of 125mm separate-loading ammunition (projectile and charge), the T-72S can also fire a Svir 9M119 (NATO designation AT-11 'Sniper') laser beam-riding guided projectile to a range of 4,000m. The T-72S is powered by the V-84MS diesel engine, which develops 840hp and, with a combat weight of 44.5 tonnes, a power-to-weight ratio of 18.87hp/tonne is obtained. For greater cross-country mobility, the suspension has also been upgraded and mine protection improved.



Well now I can see that you really don't know what your talking about because you went to google and typed in T-72 and then copied everything that you just wrote. Well again you really don't seem to know what your talking about and it you think that any thing short of a Miracle your tanks are still inferior to our M1's the only other country that has a better tank is Israel and their new anti missile defense shield. That truly is very impressive of Israel to come up with something like that. And for the anti napalm stuff it really doesn't matter any more because the Army and Marine Corps are switching to depleted Uranium rounds on just about anything that will go against a tank. So good luck with that.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I think Iran is the goal. The US public will never be given the real reasons, ie its moving towards freedom without the US and will become regional powerhouse. Here's an outlook that would force the US to act in Iran. As for propandist, they do very well in the US. Most of US history after WWII is spent hiding the thousands of people the US has killed.
Iran: A Bridge Too Far?

by Mark Gaffney - Information Clearing House October 26, 2004

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
Siroos,
If Iran is such a peace loving country, why do they continue to put mines in the Pesian Gulf to destroy oil tankers? Why do they support terrorism against other nations?


That's nonsense! Iran has not planted mines in the Persian Gulf since the Iran-Iraq war which ended in 1989. I don't know where you get your news.... Could it be FOX TV?


Before you go talking about the airliner-USS Vincennes incident again, you need to do some research and learn what really happened in that incident, not just what your government has told you.


Maybe YOU should stop relying only on what YOUR government tells you, since it's obvious that it's telling you lies and more lies. Like the WMD in Iraq, and that the torture in Abu Ghraib prison were some "isolated incidents" committed by some immature and irresponsible U.S. soldiers, and that they were not ordered by higher instances. I have been on both sides of the Atlantic and can judge which side of the Atlantic has a tendency to lie about these incidents. THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CONCLUDED IN NOVEMBER OF 2003 THAT THE U.S. NAVY'S ACTIONS IN THE PERSIAN GULF WERE UNLAWFUL. But I guess that doesn't mean anything to a diehard flagwaving yankee. Only his government, secret service and military are right - everybody else in the world are wrong.

FURTHERMORE: THREE YEARS AFTER THE IRAN AIR INCIDENT, ADMIRAL CROWE OF THE U.S. VINCENNES ADMITTED THAT VINCENNES WAS INSIDE OF IRAN'S TERRITORIAL WATERS AT THE TIME OF THE MISSILE ATTACKS AGAINST THE CIVILIAN IRANIAN PLANE!


Are you telling me that the U.S. navy is so incapable that they can not distinguish between a large civilian plane and a hostile target? Come on! THey can't be THAT lousy!




The Vincennes was attacked by several Iranian patrol boats.


That's not the U.S. version. This is the U.S. version:

"According to US government accounts, Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian airplane as an attacking military fighter. The officers identified the flight profile being flown by the A300B2 as being similar to that of an Iranian Air Force F-14A Tomcat during an attack run. According to the same reports Vincennes tried more than once to contact Flight 655, but there was no acknowledgement. The official ICAO report stated that these attempts to contact Iran Air 655 were sent on the wrong frequency and addressed to a non-existent "Iranian F-14". At 9:54am, with the civilian jet about 10 miles away, Vincennes fired a volley of two SM-2ER antiaircraft missiles. The first missile broke the aircraft in two and damaged the tailplane and right wing. After the engagement Vincennes' crew realised that the plane had been a civilian airliner. This version was finalised in a report [1] (homepage.ntlworld.com...) by Admiral William Fogarty, entitled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988. This report is so far only partially released (part I in 1988, part II in 1993), a fact criticised by many observers.

Independent investigations into the events have presented a different picture. John Barry and Roger Charles, of Newsweek, wrote that Commander Rogers acted recklessly and without due care. Their report further accused the U.S. government of a cover-up.[2] (www.geocities.com...) An analysis[3] (128.121.186.47...) of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association (www.strategicstudies.org...) described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire. On November 6 2003 the International Court of Justice concluded that the U.S. Navy's actions in the Persian Gulf at the time had been unlawful.

Three years after the incident, Admiral William Crowe admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot down (homepage.ntlworld.com...). This directly contradicted the official Navy claims of the previous years."




As it was in the middle of the engagement, a plane from Iran suddenly left the civillian air lanes and flew toward the Vincennes. It's IFF was turned off and the pilot would not answer any attempts at radio contact. It started to decend directly at the Vincennes so the ship fired. The crew did the right thing.


Lies and nothing more than filthy lies! USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters - The Admiral of Vincennes has admitted this, and yet you keep going on telling the lies of your government. And the part that the Iranian plane started to decend directly at the Vincennes must be something you either made up, or something you have learnt from a non-U.S: governmental source, because not even the U.S. version claims such a ridiculous thing!


Answer me this... Is it a custom in Iran for every passenger aboard an airliner to travel completely naked? That's what happened on that airliner. Every single body pulled from the water was completely naked. Did the SM-2 blow the clothes off everybody when it struck the aircraft, or were the passengers dead BEFORE the plane took off?



Answer me this.... Are you suggesting that the Iran Air flight was loaded with naked dead bodies of 290 Iranian and other nationalities, in a plan by the Iranians to crash the plane into Vinceenes? Do you know how ridiculous that is? First of all: Many of the passengers had relatives waiting for them in Dubai so the Iranians would have to have killed real passengers, and this would be very difficult for them to achieve, since there are several hundred relatives of the victims who came to the airport in Bandar Abbas to bid farewell of their relatives and friends who boarded that plane - That means that they would have killed the passengers AFTER they boarded the plane - And then they would undress them??? Yes, perhaps if they were some perverted sex-maniacs of some sort, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense at all. It would be very hard to cover up something like that. And it's far too farfetched for the Iranians to do something of the sort when they had F-14's who could have done a much better job than a big and clupsy civilian plane.

Second of all, I guess I have to inform you, since you do not seem to have such basic knowledge, that when two missiles hit a plane like that, it EXPLODES and the people in it will not only have their clothes ripped off in an instance, but also their entire skins!

Thirdly, your own lying government has not reported the Iranian plane was attempting to attack the Vincennes or that it decended towards it. The plane was on a very high altitude. It has been proven that the U.S. government tried to cover up what really happened, and the U.S. version was that the Vincennes mistakenly "confused" the Iranian Airliner with an Iranian F-14.

I seriously suggest that you do some reading and find out a little more about this incident since you will not hear much of what really happened through your EXTREMELY and INCREDIBLY BIASED MEDIA.



www.answers.com...

What is even more disgusting is that the U.S. has not only acknowledged its guilt although it has been proven in an international court, and admitted by admiral William Crowe - And neither has it accepted to pay for damages to the Iranian survivors (It has only paid non-Iranian survivors) BUT THE WORST AND MOST DISGUSTING OF ALL IS THAT THE U.S. HAS EVEN AWARDED THE COMMANDERS AND THE CREW WITH MEDALS AND HONOR RIBBONS FOR THEIR "HEROIC ACTIONS" IN THIS CRIMINAL INCIDENT!

"Medals of Honor
While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life, the U.S. government has to date not admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, nor apologized, but continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire," enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure."[4] (www.geocities.com...) According to The Washington Post, 30 April 1990, the Legion of Merit, the U.S. armed forces second highest award, was presented to Captain Rogers and Lieutenant Commander Lustig on July 3, 1988. The citations did not mention the downing of the Iran Air flight at all. [5] (www.pupress.princeton.edu...)"
For more information:
www.answers.com...

Do you think it is without reason that the U.S. is the only country that refused to sign the agreement of establishing an international war crimes tribunal? The U.S. said that it would only sign it if the U.S. would recieve immunity!!! Meanwhile, many Americans are still walking around like zombies asking "Why do they hate us so much...?" Duh....

And this is what the disgusting, criminal, murderer, thief and lier father of your present president tragic clown (Bush Sr.) said about the evidence and proof which was presented to him about the unlawful actions of the USS Vincennes: "I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS - I WON'T APOLOGIZE ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. FOR ANYTHING!"

And yet his son DEMANDED that the Chinese apologize for the shooting down of an American spy-plane which had violated the integral air space of the Peoples' Republic of China! It's absolutely amazing, in a very, very tragic way! Fortunately, our good friends the Chinese are not to be played around with, and they forced your clown to give up and to apologize instead.




[edit on 1-5-2005 by Siroos]

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Siroos]

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Siroos]

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Siroos]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Siroos,

Please do not allow yourself to be sucked into this game of trading tough-guy BS with the armchair warriors in here. Your posts up to this point have been articulate and informative. Do not allow yourself to be provoked.

Any war between Iran and the US is likely to have tragic consequences for both sides. We here can play a small part in reducing tensions, or we can participate in aggravating conflict. Each of us has a small part in the choice between war and peace - which will you choose?


Ofcourse I choose peace. But when your country is threatened by a bully, an agressor and an invader, what are you suppose to do? Just sit and watch? Iranians will not just sit and watch. We lost more than a million men in the war with Iraq because Iraq attacked us right after the revolution when our military had been reduced by an estimated 65%. Nobody supported the Iranians. The Iraqis were on the other hand supported and armed by both the Soviet Union, the U.S., all the Arab countries except Syria, and several European countries. Iranian civilians signed up as volounteers in the millions and our "human waves" pushed the Iraqis out of Iran and continued to push far into Iraqi territories until Basra was surrounded. At that time chemical weapons were used against the Iranians in order to stop their advances. Nobody protested. Iran today is a country of martyrs. Every Iranian has at least one relative who got killed in the war, and many more who were maimed for life. Iranians detest war more than ever because of the hell we went through. But we are also more determined than ever to never allow another agression against our homeland. Israel and the U.S. should be aware that even a limited attack against our nuclear and military sites will trigger a fullscale war. It will not be like the Israeli attack against Iraq's nuclear site. It is our right to pursue nuclear technology, and it certainly does not make any sense that a handful of countries which all have nuclear weapons themselves are harassing Iran and trying to prevent her from pursuing enrichment of uranium. What the U.S. and Israel has accomplished with their harrassment is that the Iranian nation has rallied behind their government, even those who were opposed to it. For Iran and Iranians, this is not a battle about thier nuclear programme - It's a battle about very important principles, and about our right to exist as a sovereign and independent country. We want peace more than anyone else since we know the horrors of war from first hand experience, but if we are attacked, we want war.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
Siroos, my comment about the author of the article is that they founded that project and are clearly biased against America.


They're not at all biased against America. They're stating facts which the CIA has released after 50 years. And which all Iranians who lived back then and experienced what happened first hand, like my parents, know about. Nobody can argue today that the CIA staged a coup against the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, and installed a repressive puppet regime and dictatorship in place of it. This is something that the U.S. admits to today. So how can someone who repeats that which the U.S. government has admitted and even apologized for during the Clinto administration, be biased based on that he has simply reported what the U.S. was guilty of?


I'm not going to go into detail about the Vincennes incident because I don't know how much of it is still classified and I don't feel like losing my clearance, but I personally know people who were in the ship's Combat Information Center fighting the ship at that time and I know people who analyzed the actual recorded computer data and voice recordings from the incident. There is a LOT more to the incident than what is on the Internet.


I think that you need to update your information on this incident. 1)The International court of Law has concluded in 2003 the guilt of the Vincennes n this regard and called the U.S. navy's actions in the Persian Gulf "Unlawful". 2) Admiral William Crowe has admitted that the USS Vincennes was violating Iranian territorial waters at the time of the missile attacks against the Iranian civilian plane. 3) Proof and evidence have been presented that show the U.S. version as false and accuses the U.S. government of the time for covering up the truth.

]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Still no comment on the fact that your parliament does chant death to America, huh? I figured as much, just as in the last thread. Anyways, hopefully Iranians aren't as ideal an audience for yours and your leaders own propaganda, which runs just as rampant in Iran as in the U.S. Here's an interesting article I found which shows the youth of Iran may not be buying it.



In the controversy surrounding Iran's recent parliamentary elections, the country's young people largely stood on the sidelines. There were no student protests, as Islamic conservatives prevented thousands of reformist candidates from running for election, and conservatives took control of the parliament. It is late Thursday in northern Tehran - party night for the city's young people. Dozens of boys and a few girls in their teens and 20s are talking, flirting and just hanging out in front of a shopping mall.

About a dozen young people, men and women alike, have taken over two tables in a nearby coffee shop. For their protection, they only give their first names. Among them are 21-year-old Hamid and his 17-year-old girlfriend. To Hamid, living in Iran is about living with restrictions. Hamid says, if he goes out with his girlfriend in public, they might be stopped by the police. If they get in trouble they will not be able to go out again, he says.

One of the young women, 17-year-old Shohreh, agrees. She says young people are constantly being watched. Even sitting in a group in the coffee shop, she said, they are afraid that someone will come around to check on them, and that they will get in trouble when they leave to go home.

Asked where they think young people can live more freely, the group lists the city of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, as well as Europe and the United States. Shohreh said women in America have more rights. And, she added, she feels that women in Iran have no value.

That is far different from the generation of these young people's parents. Many of them took to the streets in 1979 to topple the government of the Shah of Iran and bring on the Islamic Revolution. The new government in Iran demonized the United States, and dozens of U.S. diplomats were held hostage for a year and a half.

Now, 22-year-old Mohammed says, Iran's young people simply do not accept what their government tells them about the United States. He said the most recent evidence of the difference between what the Iranian government says about America and what the young people see was the aftermath of the huge earthquake in southern Iran in late December.

After the earthquake, said Mohammed, Americans helped Iran, even though the Iranian government does not like the United States. He says that exposes what he calls the Iranian government's propaganda, which tells young people that everything in America is bad.
www.payvand.com...


As more and more hardliners hopefully die off due to old age, something I hope happens here in the U.S. as well, maybe the youth of Iran and America, as well as the rest of the world, will come together despite the wishes of the hardline conservatives who spread propaganda on BOTH sides.

[edit on 1-5-2005 by 27jd]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
To 27

Maybe you should look into Iran a bite more. Most of Iran is moving towards freedom without us. They will never be inclined to like us and if you cant see why I cant help you on that. The US government will only hide this fact and not help support freedom there. They would like Iran to fall apart so they can just walk in and save the day like Iraq. Im sure I have made this point to simply you can find many cases to show good will on the US's half or that Iran wants nothing more than to destory the US but thats childs play. You should ask the question of what Iran stands to gain and asume that Iran has the right defend its self.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   



You do realise just 1 of our subs could fight your intire country and win right?
you do realise iraq and pretty much everything after ww2, has been america "light" as far is war is concerned right? You do realize contrary to popular belief, the american military actualy gives a damn about civilians casualtes, which is why this war is still going on in iraq, you do realise that iran can never face U.S military face to face and win right?


No, I don't realize that at all. That's nothing more than a bizarre fantasy of yours. Iraq, as I have repeated, had in actuality one of the weakest military powers in the world at the time of the American attacks against it. You just need to look at the facts: Iraq had just ended a devastating 8 year long war against Iran. It's military was shattered. Saddams propaganda that he had the strongest military in the Middle East, and one of the strongest in the world, was used by the U.S. government and pentagon as their propaganda in their efforts to create a favorable public opinion supporting a war against Iraq. But Saddam's propaganda was nothing more than just propaganda. Military parades showing off 20,000 so called elite troops in addition to the incompetent fat and short peasant soldiers was enough to create a favorable public opinion in the U.S. for an attack against Iraq, but it wasn't at all anywhere close to being sufficient to engage in a war with let's say the Belgian, Danish or Dutch military.

The U.S. attacked an Iraqi military which had been exhausted and reduced to 1/10 of what it was just prior to the Iran-Iraq war. This already devastated military was then attacked by the U.S. in "Destert Storm" in 1990. For the following 11 years Iraq was then prevented from recovering and rebuilding its military as a most strict embargo was imposed on it. Then in 2003, the "Shock and awe" took care of what remained of it. And yet it took the powerful U.S. military a whole month to reach Baghdad in such a smalll country! And the fighting is still continuing.

The U.S. has a pattern of always attacking small and weak countries, and Iraq was no exception. Add to that also that the Iraqi military lacked morale as they had been exhausted by two devastating wars within a very short time before the second U.S. and British attack against Iraq. And it also lacked morale because it didn't support the evil tyrant which was ruling Iraq. And then add to that the fact that the U.S. was not attacking Iraq by itself, but had the help of the powerful British military!

Iran is much, much bigger than Iraq (I think it's five times as big) and has a much more harsch terrain as it is mostly made up of very high mountain chains. Iran also has a much larger army than Iraq, (7 million basiij and pasdaran troops in addition to the regular army of 850,000 men)

It's going to be very, very, very tough for the already very strained U.S. military and economy to pull off anything against Iran and be successful! Even some your own military experts admits to this.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirk d
Most of Iran is moving towards freedom without us.


Really? Seems the conservatives there blocked most of the reformers from the recent elections. Either way, I'm not concerned with Iran's freedom, that's up to the people there. I have never advocated the U.S. spreading democracy, it's not up to us to do what the people are fully capable of doing themselves.



They will never be inclined to like us and if you cant see why I cant help you on that.


Good, I don't need your help on that. And I don't care if they like us or not, but if they are going to make threats against us, we have every right to make sure they don't follow through.



The US government will only hide this fact and not help support freedom there. They would like Iran to fall apart so they can just walk in and save the day like Iraq.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying the U.S. wants the mullahs to keep control of Iran? How exactly would it fall apart if the power is in the firm grip of the fundamentalist leaders?



You should ask the question of what Iran stands to gain and asume that Iran has the right defend its self.


So do we, again, these are two rights that will clash.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siroos
It's going to be very, very, very tough for the already very strained U.S. military and economy to pull off anything against Iran and be successful! Even some your own military experts admits to this.


Our air force and navy is far from strained, and being as our only goal would be to stop Iran's nuclear weapons pursuit, there would be no need for a ground war. Our pilots would own the skies in a matter of days if not hours, who would your armies fight? Would they attempt to march on our forces in Iraq? They would be sitting ducks slowly moving across the desert. Your army would be destroyed en route from the air. I do not doubt the fighting spirit of your men, but even the most ferocious human fighter cannot match technology, the non-emotional killing machines the U.S. military continues to advance. And no occupation means no insurgency. Some Iranians may be experienced in war, but not the kind of battles you would fight against us. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
27jd,

"I'm not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying the U.S. wants the mullahs to keep control of Iran? How exactly would it fall apart if the power is in the firm grip of the fundamentalist leaders?"


Great question and at the root of the problem. Next question, would the mullahs be there without US support, NO. So whats to gain with them in power? Whats to gain is whats happening as you so well put it, a firm grip on power. Power thats is taken from the people of the region. Its not a new story, we do this in almost every growing nation in the world. Its the US empire thats at play. Now if you read the news media outside the US, you will find a growing grassroots system in Iran. Its not getting any support from us.

We are told a different line here to feed hate and mistrust. A free Iran is the last thing the US wants in the middle east. That would start a fire of local support and a free governments that would, in the end, not let the US run away with all their resources in the region or at least make them pay for them.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
dirk d,

I see what you're saying, the U.S. wants the mullahs in power so they can keep the threat alive, and further justify our military presence in the middle east to the American people while securing all the oil. I guess that's one way of looking at it and I certainly wouldn't put it past our government. But I doubt the mullahs are just playing along, and their open calls for our destruction are not helping to discredit our government. Maybe they should reach out to the American people and assure us they don't want us dead. It would be hard for our government to stifle communications in this age, but as you can see by reading Siroos's posts, they are not trying very hard. He says it's okay for them to call for our deaths, and that if we try to stop them from getting nukes, they want war with us. I don't think it's okay to call for anybody's death, and I think we need to get back on track of non-proliferation, not abandon it completely.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Siroos
We are a sovereign country and are free to chant death to america and spit on and burn your flag if we wish to - Who the heck are you to deny us that?


We are also a sovereign country, and just as you are free to chant death to America, we are free to take it as the threat it is. You want to chant death to America? Fine.


I personally do not promote any chantings of "death to" anyone. What I'm saying is that you cannot use such chants in Iranian streets and squares as a legitimate pretext to attack Iran. If you truly believe in free speech, then why do you want to attack a country because some of its citizens are expressing their opinions?


You want us to allow those who chant for our deaths to obtain the weapons to acheive their goals? Sorry. Be prepared for us to take your threats seriously. May god or whomever watches over earth help us all.


First of all you have no evidence or proof that Iran is trying to obtain any nukes. Iran has the lawful right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. And then, you have to learn to separate between crowds of anti-American radical demonstrators in the streets of Tehran from the parliament and government of Iran. We cannot say that the U.S. should be attacked and forbidden to have nukes because you have KKK followers burning crosses in the U.S., or evangelic preachers who spread anti-Islamic hate propaganda.






And please do not say "anti-Western", because Iran and the Iranian regime does not have an issue with the West, but with the U.S. authorities.


I have a problem with the U.S. authorities too. I want to see my government change as much as you do. But the way you advocate chanting death to America (where I live) and burning my country's flag, makes it just as impossible for me to avoid defending my country as it would be for you to avoid defending yours, regardless of how you dislike the government.


I reapeat, I'm not promoting that kind of behaviour at all. I think it's immature and uncalled for. But those radical Iranians who want to chant "Death to America" and burn American flags have as much right to do so as the Americans in the U.S. who have bumber stickers reading "Nuke Iran!" or whom I in person saw burning Iranian flags on the streets when I was visiting. It's their right. I do not condone such behaviour though since it's offensive. Just as I know that a vey tiny minority of Americans exhibit those anti-Iranian bumber stickers and t-shirts, and burn Iranian flags in their streets, you should also know that it's a tiny minority of Iranians who burn American flags and chant "Death to America" in Tehran. There is ample information available on the internet on American travellers to Iran who describe how amazed they were to find that the Iranian people were so incredibly friendly towards them, including priests and revolutionary corps guards.


We don't chant death to Iran, and I would never advocate anybody doing so. That's a threat in my book, plain and simple. So one problem seems to be, both our countries feel threatened by each other.


As I said, you have instead bumper stickers and T-shirts reading "Nuke Iran!" and I have witnessed in person Americans in the U.S. burning Iranian flags.


Maybe there is just a great deal of misunderstanding on both sides, and maybe both our governments wish for it to stay that way. But I don't like being threatened by a regime that you admit at least supports terrorist organizations, who want nuclear weapons, that may end up in the hands of those terrorist organizations.


To be honest with you, most of the misunderstanding is on the U.S. side - Not on the U.S. government's side, but on the U.S. public's side. Americans just have an EXTREMELY false and twisted image of Iran and Iranians. That is why so many Americans who come to Iran are so tremendously pleasantly surprised! While there are many, many knowledgable and enlightened Americans, I must say from experience that the vast majority of Americans do not have much knowledge at all about other countries, culture, people, politics, and in particular world affairs. And I'm definitely not alone to have this opinion of the majority of Americans. Most people in Europe and elsewhere who have been to the U.S. share my opinion, and many Americans do as well. Iranians on the other hand, and in particular the young generation, are generally very knowledgable about other cultures, people, countries, politics and world affairs. The political upheaval, the revolution and the Iran-Iraq war has changed the Iranians so that they many are thirsting for knowledge, and thus Iranians have become one of the most avid book-readers in the world. Younger Iranians in the ages between 18-55 are very knowledgable on subjects such as Western and Eastern philosophy of both old and contemporary times, world politics and social issues. So I think that the misunderstanding is definitely on your side - much, much more than on our side. Iranians in general have no hostile feelings towards America as a nation and as a culture, and instead acknowledge the tremendously positive achievements of the U.S.A., and have great admiration for those positive achievements. We just want the U.S. to cease its bullying, interference, and oppressive policies in the world.



I repeat again and again - THE U.S.A. IS NOBODY TO TELL IRAN OR ANYONE ELSE THAT IT CAN PURSUE A NUCLEAR PROGRAM OR NOT! THE U.S.A. MUST BE TAUGHT THIS LESSON THE HARD WAY IF NECESSARY SO THAT IT CEASES TO BE SO DAMN COCKY. Iran will pursue its nuclear programme and Iran is prepared to engage in a war against the U.S. and Israel.



If your government shares the same attitude, unfortunately you may be right to be prepared.


I don't think that people like you realize just how much of a bully the U.S. is percieved as in the world. You have been taught since you were born to believe that your country is the freest, most democratic, and best country in the world. And that you are invincible. This is why you are so sensitive to any criticism of the U.S. by foreigners. It's hard to shatter dreams, no matter how untrue they are. There is also this bullying mentality reflected in the psyche of many Americans - Not a majority, but a sufficient amount of people to make a difference in society. For instance many Europeans complain about American travellers here and accuse them of being arrogant, demanding, and ordering people around, and thinking that they are better than others. That doesn't mean that the majority of American travellers in Europe are that way, but a sufficient amount of American travellers are that way to make it noticable. Take no offense - I'm just saying what I have seen, heard and observed. And it's natural that things should be that way. America has been the powerful super power for quite some time, and power and success unfortunately breeds arrogance, decadence, ignorance, vanity, shallowness and greed. Americans are not the first nation to have fallen victims for this affliction. The Persian Empire of the Sassanid dynasty in the 7th century AD was also described as suffering from exactly the same symptoms at the time when it fell. The mighty and powerful Persians back then also thought that they were invincible and laughed at the prospect of primitive Arab armies invading their empire - Yet this is exactly what happened, and thus Islam was introduced to the Persians and through it the Persians were taught to once again be humble and modest, instead of pompous and arrogant. The same happened to the Romans and many other empire builders.



If the U.S. does not want people to chant "death to America" then it has to reverse its policies around the world. People do not hate the U.S. without reason. A good start would be for the U.S. to witdraw from the Middle East, Central Asia and Caucasus. The U.S. has troops in nearly all the countries of this region. The U.S. has no business their! The energy resources of the region belongs to the sovereing countries of that region, not to the U.S.


I agree the U.S. should change it's policies, I am one of those who are hopeful we will find an alternate energy source and pull out of those regions entirely.

Well, I don't really see the relation between finding alternate energy resources and pulling out of the region entirely. The U.S. does not need to have a military presence in the region in order to take advantage of the energy sources there in a FAIR manner. But I thing it's a good idea that the U.S. tries to find other means of energy sources. As a matter of fact, the late Shah of Iran continiously kept advising the U.S. and the Europeans to try to actively seek other energy sources as he warned that the oil will one day be depleted.



I want pretty much the same changes you do, but I will not support waiting for those who call for my destruction to obtain nuclear weapons and follow through on what they say they are gonna do, before enough Americans get fed up with the neocons crap and vote in a new administration.



Believe me, if you go to Iran you will see that such sentiments as the call for the destruction of the U.S. do not exist there. This is again something the U.S. propaganda machine has created in order to benefit its illegitimate interests against Iran. Those who call for the destruction of the U.S. are the Taliban's, Al Qaida, and their Saudi benefactors. And ironically the U.S. is on "friendly" terms with the Saudis and the Pakistanis, although it knows very well that both countries have supported and support the most radical and reactionary and backwarded extremists whose highest wish is the destruction of the U.S.. I can assure that neither Iranians nor the current regime in Tehran has any such desires or ambitions!



As long as Iranians are chanting death to America, Bush and his administration have all the more ammo to keep the American people afraid of a nuclear Iran. I'm sure they thank you for that, you're doing just what they want you to do.


Yes, I agree, but I repeat that it's a tiny, tiny minority of very radical groups who guilty of such uncalled for behaviour. And the regime in Iran does not condone it. The regime in Tehran knows that the U.S. and Israel will use such behaviour in its propaganda against Iran.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirk d
27jd,

"I'm not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying the U.S. wants the mullahs to keep control of Iran? How exactly would it fall apart if the power is in the firm grip of the fundamentalist leaders?"


Great question and at the root of the problem. Next question, would the mullahs be there without US support, NO. So whats to gain with them in power? Whats to gain is whats happening as you so well put it, a firm grip on power. Power thats is taken from the people of the region. Its not a new story, we do this in almost every growing nation in the world. Its the US empire thats at play. Now if you read the news media outside the US, you will find a growing grassroots system in Iran. Its not getting any support from us.

We are told a different line here to feed hate and mistrust. A free Iran is the last thing the US wants in the middle east. That would start a fire of local support and a free governments that would, in the end, not let the US run away with all their resources in the region or at least make them pay for them.


What you say is true as far as that the U.S. supported the theocracy in Iran during the first 15 - 18 years after the Iranian revolution. There is ample evidence that shows that the U.S. actively supported the revolution against the Shah - And it's far too lengthy for me to go into the details here. The U.S. plays these kind of dirty tricks a lot and confuses people with them too. The theocracy in Iran served the U.S. interests for a long time, just as Saddam Hussein and the Talibans did. Then when they don't need them any more, they will USE them as an excuse for military intervention and direct control and often military bases. The Shah was used in the same fashion by the U.S. until he started having his visions for a "The Great Civilization" - His visions of turning Iran into a major industrial, economical and military world power and super power. Then as the U.S. feared the "threat" of an increasingly independent Shah and his visions for a powerful super power Iran, and the threat of the increasing leftist and pro-Moscow communist opposition to the Shah's rule, which was the result of the pro-American and pro-Israeli policies of the Shah and his repression of the opposition in Iran, it decided that the time had come to get rid of the Shah and his 37 years of loyalty to the U.S. and replace him with a theocracy which also would serve to passify and destroy the nationalists who favoured the Shah's visions for a fully independent and powerful Iran on one hand, and crush the pro-moscow communists. The U.S. plan for religious rule in both Iran and later Afghanistan was referred to in political circles as the "Green Belt" against communism and the Soviet Union which shared a long border with Iran in the north. Green is the color associated with Islam.

When things developed into other levels that did not suit the U.S. imperialistic agenda, plans for the dismantling of Saddam Hussein's reign, the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, and now the theocracy of the Islamic Republic of Iran were drawn up. Saddam had to go because he had become an anti-American thorn after the "Desert Storm" war, and also because the U.S. needed Iraq to 1) Gain control over its oil by installing a regime which it would indirectly force to provide beneficial concessons to the U.S., and also land a whole bunch of contracts to rebuild its military, law enforcement and infrastructure, devastated by the U.S. 2) So that the U.S. could use Iraq as a platform from which it could intimidate, threated and eventually attack Iran from.

The Taliban had to go because the U.S. wanted to prevent the construction of pipelines which would deliver the vast natural gas reserves of Central Asia through Iran to the Persian Gulf - The fastest, least costly and most rational route, but which wouls also be very lucrative for Iran, and this the U.S. wanted to prevent at every cost. The second best route was thorugh Afghanistan. The Taliban had now turned Afghanistan into an anti-American and a base for the most radical, reactionary and backwarded Islamic extremists one could find - Supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
And also so that the U.S. would gain a Western platform in its plans to eventually and possibly attack Iran when the time is ripe. And all of these projects are part of a major plan to control the vast energy resources of the Caspian Sea, Central Asia and Persian Gulf. 9/11 happened exactly 2 weeks after Iran had threatened to declare war against teh Azerbaijan Republic if it went ahead and drilled for oil with British help in waters that lawfully according to the agreement signed by Iran and the Soviet Union belinged to Iran. The Iranian navy warned the British ship that it would fire on it if it didn't leave Iran's waters withing half an hour. Iranian fighter jets escorted the ship away from Iranian waters. The next day the British government stated that they would cancel all their drillings in those waters for now, until an agreement could be reached with the Iranians. The situation escalated as Iranian fighter jets violated Azerbaijani air space in what appeared to be a demonstration by Tehran that it meant serious business. And then suddenly, the legendary pro-Iranian leader of the Afghani Northern Alliance against the Talibans, Shah Massoud was assassinated - TWO DAYS BEFORE 9/11! Appearantly the U.S. didn't want to wait anymore with its plans to secure control over the vast energy sources of this region. And where does Islam NOW fit into the picture? Well, the U.S. has no more need for Islam since the communist Soviet Union is gone and done with. Now Islam has instead become a menace, and the biggest force of defiance against the imperialistic expansionist and world hegemony agenda of the U.S.! 9/11 was the best thing that could have happened for the U.S. plans in that region. I'm not saying that the U.S. planned it - But at the very least, SOME people - a very limited number of persons in the U.S. power apparatus knew about what was coming on 9/11, and they not only chose to look the other way, but some of these people also actively worked to prevent any U.S. intelligence agents from interfering. One of these agents - The one who was FBI's number one investigative authority who had gathered some very important data on coming Al Qaida activities on U.S. soil, was ordered to cease his work on Al Qaida and was moved to the secret offices of the FBI in one of the WTC towers that got hit, and he also perished. Only such an incredibly horrible incident such as 9/11 would allow the U.S. to pull off such an extensive project as the "War on terror". No country or international institution could or dared to stand in the way of the U.S. after such a horrific, and almost surreal incident! Not even China and Russia could protest that the U.S. would land troops in their backyard, within the direct sphere of influence of both Russia and China. Now the U.S. has troops in almost every country of Central Asia, Caucasus and the Middle East. This would have been impossible without the defiance of the countries involved and most other countries of the world community.


[edit on 1-5-2005 by Siroos]

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Siroos]

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Siroos]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join