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.

 

WHY is Iran a threat to the US?

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   


Appeasement never works.


Funny, but that's probably what they're saying in Tehran about us...

There is a whole range of options between "appeasement" and "nuke em till they glow"... "appeasement" is generally regarded as meaning caving in to an agressive party's demands without dispute, IE looking aside at Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland.

No parallel exists in Iran, where we are the ones making the agressive demands.




posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
No parallel exists in Iran, where we are the ones making the agressive demands.


But perhaps it is time to draw a line in the sand when you have a repressive regime that on one hand demands the right to possess nuclear weapons, and on theother talks about wiping out other countries. Interesting that you mention Hitler. Hitler did take the Sudetenland directly, while iran is using hezbollah (created by iran) to take over lebanon. To the conquered, I'm sure the differences in methods would seem like splitting hairs.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
But can you see how Iran could give their newly developed nuclear weapon to a country that does have missiles that can serve as ICBMs? Can you also see how they might give WMD's to terrorists that could find other ways to smuggle them into the U.S. that doesn't require a missile?


Actually, I've been looking into it. Iran does have missiles. But the same thing applies to them as to everyone else: deterrence. And if they take ten years to develop nukes, then that's ten years to develop a sensible relationship with them.


...are they sneaking terrorists into the U.S. through the porous mexican border? Some say they are.


So this is your chance to show that this accusation has some foundation. Do you have a link? How accurate do you think the source is? Is there any chance that it's linked to the same people who lied when they said Ahmedinajad wants Israel "wiped off the map"?



So what is it that poses such a threat? Who can tell me?


Asked and answered (see above).


Not really. A vague assertion that "some say they are sneaking people in across the Mexican border" wouldn't stand up for a nanosecond in a court of law. This is not, of course, a court of law, but if people want to make accusations in a sensible debate forum, they should have some sort of supporting evidence. At the moment you offer none.


Hiding your head in the sand might buy you few more years of assumed peace and security, but what then?

Appeasement never works.


Actually, I think you're right. I think that there is a real threat to peace in the world. I think there is a power that is dangerous to pretty much everyone world wide: I think there is a power that not only has nukes, but has a track record of using nukes; that has contaminated vast parts of the world with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; and shows no compunction in invading smaller, weaker countries and using propaganda Goebbels would be proud of. And it's not Iran.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by rich23]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
But perhaps it is time to draw a line in the sand when you have a repressive regime that on one hand demands the right to possess nuclear weapons, and on theother talks about wiping out other countries. Interesting that you mention Hitler. Hitler did take the Sudetenland directly, while iran is using hezbollah (created by iran) to take over lebanon. To the conquered, I'm sure the differences in methods would seem like splitting hairs.


Factual inaccuracy (1): Iran is not demanding the right to possess nuclear weapons. It is demanding the right to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Please try to keep an eye on that, there is a difference.

Factual inaccuracy (2): as has been shown earlier in the thread, the quotation about "wiping Israel off the map" is a mistranslation by an Israeli think-tank. Ahmedinajad actually was talking about regime change, and therefore is no worse than George Bush - except George Bush is actually prepared to invade countries at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives to do so.

Factual inaccuracy (3): Iran is not using hizballah to take over Lebanon. They are among the people who finance hizballah, true, but remember that the people who did take over Lebanon, and who had soldiers there until relatively recently, was Syria. Hizballah were there during the Syrian occupation and are not new arrivals, nor have they "taken over the country". Hizballah have not "conquered" Lebanon at all.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   


when you have a repressive regime that on one hand demands the right to possess nuclear weapons, and on theother talks about wiping out other countries


I thought you were talking about the US...
In a sense, that argument could be made, so we must be careful while in our glass house, hehe.....

Reasons Iran is a perceived threat...
1. They openly finance and support terrorism.
2. Some of that terrorism is directed against US citizens, both currently, and in the past.
3. They are sitting on a power surplus, yet show a desire for developing nuclear capability.
4. As the nuclear development doesn't seem to make fiscal sense, the assumption is for weapons development.
5. Public threats by members of state.
6. Public displays of longer and longer range missiles.
7. Number 4 coupled with number 6.
8. Number 1 coupled with number 4.

While none of this can LEGALLY justify a US invasion, it certainly does demonstrate why many Americans feel Iran poses a genuine perceived threat to national security. While this threat is largely exaggerated, one must remember that public opinion can often shape foreign policy, so this perception cannot be ignored. Sadly, you'd likely see MORE American public support FOR an Iranian invasion than you did for the Iraqi invasion. Saddam only had loose ties to terrorism. Iran is nearly synonymous with it.....



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Gazrok... I am a little disappointed, because although I'd expect to go round in circles with some posters on this board, you're not one of them.

One of the thngs I'm trying to do with this thread is draw attention to the propaganda drive currently in action against Iran, and compare it with the similar campaign conducted against Iraq in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.


Originally posted by Gazrok
Reasons Iran is a perceived threat...
1. They openly finance and support terrorism... (Saddam only had loose ties to terrorism. Iran is nearly synonymous with it)


Now it's really interesting that you should say that. One of the things I remember about the Iraq propaganda campaign is the repetition of the fact that Saddam gave "blood money" to the families of suicide bombers. When it's Syria's turn in the cross-hairs, this will be one of the main planks of the campaign against them, don't doubt it.

A LOT of countries finance terrorism, and the US is no exception. They've given finance and shelter to many people who have terrorised civilians throughout central and Latin America. Not only is it hypocritical for the US to focus on this, it, although a bad thing, does not justify an invasion.


2. Some of that terrorism is directed against US citizens, both currently, and in the past.


True, but US foreign policy is the root cause of this. A decent foreign policy would remove this threat. If the US really did stand up for freedom and democracy for all, it would not be hated the way it is. It's as simple as that.


3. They are sitting on a power surplus, yet show a desire for developing nuclear capability.


Glad the word "weapons" is missing from that statement. They do, however, have every right to develop nuclear power. Considering that one of the US' nightmares is a terrorist attack on a nuclear power station, they seem mighty gung-ho about the exact same kind of attack on a power station in another country.


4. As the nuclear development doesn't seem to make fiscal sense, the assumption is for weapons development.


Even if they were developing nuclear weapons, there's no reason to assume they'd be willing to risk annihilation for their whole country to deliver an attack on the US. The lesson of people having nuclear weapons, it seems, is that it keeps them safe from attack even by superpowers.

Why is the US so cautious about attacking North Korea? I'm sure the Iranian leaders would like their country left alone in the same way. North Korea is an appalling, repressive regime run by someone who's a nutcase... but they're not looking aggressive. They're basically contained, but if you push them into a corner, there's no knowing what will happen. Hence the kid glove treatment.


5. Public threats by members of state.


Here is where I express my disappointment with the circularity of the debate. I thought we'd established to your satisfaction that the statements about "wiping Israel off the map" were mistranslations from an Israeli think tank that has a real interest in painting Iranian leaders in the worst possible light.

The effect of propaganda is insidious and it comes about through repetition. Over and over again, we are being told (well, you're in the US: the propaganda drive here in the UK seems to have been put on hold for the time being) that Iran is a threat. How about counting how many stories you see every day on the news that suggest that Iran is the next big enemy? It would be asking way too much of anyone to check rigorously each and every "fact" reported by the mainstream news, but perhaps a slightly cautious approach might be useful.


6. Public displays of longer and longer range missiles.


I think this might be quite legitimately characterised as a defensive rather than offensive posture.


7. Number 4 coupled with number 6.
8. Number 1 coupled with number 4.


My previous points about Iran being obliterated in the reply to offensive actions still obtain.

However, here's something else to think about. Let's assume - and I think we can - that there's a psychological propaganda campaign being waged by people who think it's a really, really good idea for the US to attack Iran. The message they're quite successfully getting across is, "if we don't do it now, they'll be able to attack us with nukes".

Well, the problem with that statement is that according to these same people suitcase nukes have been available on the black market ever since the breakup of the USSR. And the current Iranian administration is, mistranslations notwithstanding, actually the most moderate since the 1979 revolution. So why haven't they done it already?

The USG has set a deadline for Iran to stop enrichment. It has also, of course, turned down Iran's offer for a TV debate about the subject, which is pretty revealing IMO. I think that in view of the undoubted fact that the Iranians could, if the propaganda about suitcase nukes is true, have caused mayhem any time over the last five to ten years, a really useful question to ask is, What are they waiting for? If they're that nuts, why haven't they done it already?

I think looking at things in terms of a US propaganda campaign is a more useful, predictive, and accurate model than looking at things as if Iran were hell-bent on world domination.


While none of this can LEGALLY justify a US invasion,


WHEW!


it certainly does demonstrate why many Americans feel Iran poses a genuine perceived threat to national security.


Can I just point out that "a genuine perceived threat" is not the same thing as a "genuine, real threat"?



While this threat is largely exaggerated, one must remember that public opinion can often shape foreign policy, so this perception cannot be ignored.


I actually think that here, you put the cart before the horse. Administrations understand that the public must be brought around to the idea of military actions by a sustained propaganda campaign. That's why Iran is now the biggest menace on the block, or so it seems. You understand that "this threat is largely exaggerated", but don't actually go the extra mile... I'm going to really spell this out, not to patronise, but because I think that propaganda is so insidious that I really do need to spell it out:

1) a propaganda campaign is waged to change public opinion.
2) this campaign consistently exaggerates a threat from another country
3) after months of "drip, drip, drip", public opinion accepts the reality of the threat
4) the administration breathes a huge sigh of relief knowing that even moderate opponents accept the reality of the threat.


Sadly, you'd likely see MORE American public support FOR an Iranian invasion than you did for the Iraqi invasion......


I was around in the US (or, at least, Texas, which some people would argue isn't quite the same thing) for the Iraq invasion and its precursor campaign... and almost everyone I met seemed about as gung-ho as it's possible to be for the idea of going and kicking some eye-rakki ass. It is, to me, incredibly sad that this campaign seems to be going even better, because it means that no-one has learned anything about how the government and media operate even with the appalling example of Iraq staring them in the face.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by rich23]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Factual inaccuracy (1): Iran is not demanding the right to possess nuclear weapons. It is demanding the right to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Please try to keep an eye on that, there is a difference.




Time to pull your head out of the sand(?)(1). Right. Exactly what would you expect the iranians to say, except "no, not us." However, they've also said they have the right to the same uses of "nuclear energy" as everyone else.



Factual inaccuracy (2): as has been shown earlier in the thread, the quotation about "wiping Israel off the map" is a mistranslation by an Israeli think-tank. Ahmedinajad actually was talking about regime change, and therefore is no worse than George Bush - except George Bush is actually prepared to invade countries at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives to do so.


Time to pull your head out of the sand(?)(2). Right. Just like the more recent comments about being willing to lose half of iran if it meant that Israel was destroyed. You don't like the way GWB accomplishes 'regime change', then you're a hypocrite to look the other way on iran's threats.



Factual inaccuracy (3): Iran is not using hizballah to take over Lebanon. They are among the people who finance hizballah, true, but remember that the people who did take over Lebanon, and who had soldiers there until relatively recently, was Syria. Hizballah were there during the Syrian occupation and are not new arrivals, nor have they "taken over the country". Hizballah have not "conquered" Lebanon at all.


Time to pull your head out of the sand(?)(3). Right. hezbollah has taken over the southern portion of lebanon where it borders Israel and syria, and in the eastern areas like the bekaa valley. They are the masters of those areas and control all that happens there. Lebanon's army is afraid to go there. I call that "conquered". hezbollah also now has people in high places in lebanon's central government. Also, what were the iranians found among the dead fighters doing there? Guess they were the iranian "financiers" just there to hand out the money.





[edit on 8/31/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Time to pull your head out of the sand(?)(1). Right. Exactly what would you expect the iranians to say, except "no, not us." However, they've also said they have the right to the same uses of "nuclear energy" as everyone else.


What you mean isn't quite clear. What is clear is that Iran has the same right as any other country to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. That is what is being impeded, as their enrichment process is only good enough for power-plant, not weapons-grade use. They were also willing to stop enrichment completely for over a year. If they were after weapons-grade uranium, why do that?


Time to pull your head out of the sand(?)(2). Right. Just like the more recent comments about being willing to lose half of iran if it meant that Israel was destroyed. You don't like the way GWB accomplishes 'regime change', then you're a hypocrite to look the other way on iran's threats.


Time to stop believing the propaganda (1). Here's a challenge for you: come up with a link to an independent (i.e., non-MEMRI) translation of a speech of Ahmedinejad's that uses that phrase. At the moment, the only authority that we have that Ahmedinejad "is prepared to lose half of Iran" is an interview Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, gave to the Jerusalem Post. Is this really a source that can be believed on this matter? I think not.

As for being a hypocrite over "looking the other way over Iran's threats" - first, I'm not convinced that Iran actually made any threats, given that Ahmedinejad didn't actually say anything about wiping Israel off the map. He expressed disdain for the regime and said it wouldn't last forever. The rest is invention and propaganda from the Israeli think-tank MEMRI, as has been demonstrated time and again in this thread.

Second, if you like the way Georgie accomplished "regime change" then you're a hypocrite to deny Iran the right to demand regime change in a country that operates racist, apartheid policies, uses collective punishment and extra-judicial executions, and which kills peace protesters and journalists with impunity - and then lies about how and why they did it. Here's a programme broadcast on British TV that backs up these claims.

Just before the invasion of Iraq, a British journalist spent some time in Gaza living with the locals, and her report makes quite harrowing viewing. If more of this kind of reporting found its way into mainstream US news, it's possible there wouldn't be quite the kind of unqualified support for Israel that is so prevalent there.

Israel and the US are desperate to provide propaganda talking points to justify upcoming military action against Iran. The US has provided a spurious "deadline" for the Iranians to meet, and the propaganda machine is gearing up to support this.


Time to pull your head out of the sand(?)(3). Right. hezbollah has taken over the southern portion of lebanon where it borders Israel and syria, and in the eastern areas like the bekaa valley. They are the masters of those areas and control all that happens there. Lebanon's army is afraid to go there. I call that "conquered". hezbollah also now has people in high places in lebanon's central government. Also, what were the iranians found among the dead fighters doing there? Guess they were the iranian "financiers" just there to hand out the money.


Well for conquerors, they're behaving rather more generously than the US in Iraq, for example: rather than creaming money out of the reconstruction, they're actually using it to replace buildings destroyed by the Israelis as this story, reprinted from the London Independent, demonstrates:


Hizballah has trumped both the UN army and the Lebanese government by pouring hundreds of millions of dollars - most of it almost certainly from Iran - into the wreckage of southern Lebanon and Beirut's destroyed southern suburbs. Its massive new reconstruction effort - free of charge to all those Lebanese whose homes were destroyed or damaged in Israel's ferocious five-week assault on the country - has won the loyalty of even the most disaffected members of the Shia community in Lebanon.


Unlike the US, whose policy was always to use Iraqi oil revenues to pay US firms to overcharge to rebuild Iraq, Hizballah is using Iranian money to pay for damage they might legitimately be held responsible for.

The fact is that Lebanon's government has been very weak - divided along sectarian lines - for years now, and in fact could be said never to have recovered from the last Israeli invasion. They were starting to get back on their feet when someone assassinated their PM. The Syrians got the blame for this (I'm not convinced; I think there's a good case to be made that the Israelis benefited and that they too should be suspects in that matter) and had to move out: and Hizballa filled the power vacuum that opened up. Hizballah were not conquerors: they came in and actually helped the locals, who share their attitude to the oppression of the Palestinians, even if they differ over the policy Hizballah adopts towards Israel itself.

Can you point to any concrete evidence that shows that they were in Lebanon against the will of the people, or that they have had to repress them to maintain their presence? Unless you can, they are not conquerors.

On the other hand, I can go to the relevant Wikipedia page and pull up a chart that shows Hizballah as a political party with 14 seats in the Lebanese National Assembly. Within the rather peculiar structure of that assembly (seats are allocated by religious and ethnic criteria and only then can political parties come into play) is taken into account, they are shown to be rather popular.

THAT is how

hezbollah also now has people in high places in lebanon's central government.
They got VOTED IN.

And - it's funny what you turn up when you type words like "Lebanese Army Hizballah" into Google - here's an article that seems to give the lie to your line about the Lebanese army "being afraid to go there". Evidently there was an implicit agreement that they should stay out of Hizballah areas - which is not the same thing as "being afraid to go in" - and they have now been invited back.

August 22, 2006 · In Lebanon, troops from the country's army are taking up positions in towns and villages they haven't seen in decades.

It's been almost a week since Lebanese troops began deploying in the south of their country, where Hezbollah has been in control for years.

To help maintain the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese army has entered an area that was once ruled by an implicit agreement that they would not confront Hezbollah fighters or attempt to seize weapons.


As for the dead Iranians, could you provide a link about that and I'll get back to you on it?

[edit on 31-8-2006 by rich23]

[edit on 31-8-2006 by rich23]

[edit on 31-8-2006 by rich23]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Well, unlike some that have the time to post volumes (maybe posting a particular agenda is their job)
, I have to post when I have a few minutes away from my job. That's why I don't bother to post a link for every item when a reader can easily do their own searches if interested in checking out a comment. For example, there is an ATS thread running now regarding a Texas sheriff reporting that terrorists are sneaking across the mexican border ...

[edit on 8/31/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Well, unlike some that have the time to post volumes (maybe posting a particular agenda is their job)
, I have to post when I have a few minutes away from my job.


Yeah, right. I get paid to do this. [/sarcasm] I'm currently unemployed (I've been a teacher and I just quit and am looking for something more congenial) so I have time. And denying ignorance is my hobby... so ATS is quite brim-full of opportunities for me to have fun!

But even when I was in full employment, if I wanted to prove a point, I adopted the mores of this board, which is to back your argument up, where needed, with some sourced facts. That way other people in the debate could assess the sources from which I derived my arguments for themselves. If you want to make a point about Iran - especially on this thread, where the idea is to winnow fact from propaganda - the burden of proof is on you.


That's why I don't bother to post a link for every item when a reader can easily do their own searches if interested in checking out a comment. For example, there is an ATS thread running now regarding a Texas sheriff reporting that terrorists are sneaking across the mexican border ...


If you want to have a proper debate, let's go. If you just want to imply that I'm lazy, anyone looking at this thread will laugh at that notion. I responded in detail to each of your points except the last: there I asked for clarification. You've ignored all of the evidence I presented and then implied I'm both being paid for what I'm doing and too lazy to do your work for you too. This kind of behaviour is unfortunately all too prevalent on this board and is one of the reasons I got rather tired of posting.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   


For example, there is an ATS thread running now regarding a Texas sheriff reporting that terrorists are sneaking across the mexican border ...


If that's your best argument...

Look, if you're an Iranian military infiltrator, why are you wearing a uniform (in a foreign country) right up until you reach the border? Why leave a bunch of evidence behind? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Look, you want a war with Iran.
You don't really give a hoot if the Iranians are building nukes or not.
So why not just come out and say it?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23 My use of the word impunity was meant to imply that Israel had suffered no punishment - not quite the same thing as loss - for its disproportionate use of force. That


Since when is war supposed to be proportionate?

The idea of war is to overwhelm and obliterate your enemy (which Israel miserably failed at).

Why should they be punished?



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Since when is war supposed to be proportionate?

The idea of war is to overwhelm and obliterate your enemy (which Israel miserably failed at).

Why should they be punished?


Since the Geneva Conventions, of which you may have heard, it's been generally accepted that causing civilian deaths is not a Good Thing. In flagrant disregard for the safety of the innocent, Israel has killed over ten Lebanese civilians for each of its own casualties, it has shot missiles at ambulances, and it has called in airstrikes on civilians fleeing areas due to be bombed, These are war crimes.

Considering this all arose because you were patronising enough to post a dictionary definition of "temerity", I thought you'd have dropped it by now. Please, try to remain on topic. This will be my last word on the matter.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Considering this all arose because you were patronising enough to post a dictionary definition of "temerity", I thought you'd have dropped it by now. Please, try to remain on topic. This will be my last word on the matter.


lol YOU were the one that brought the topic up!

And the Geneva Convention is a joke. Is there a difference between killing soldiers and killing civilians? Killing is wrong no matter who is being killed.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
lol YOU were the one that brought the topic up!


I used the word "temerity". You were the one who presumed to lecture me on its meaning. I trust I have made my point.

I wasn't going to respond to this, but... I can't help myself, I'm afraid.


And the Geneva Convention is a joke.


Of the many stupidities promoted by the Bush Administration and parroted by its faithful adherents, this has got to be one of the stupidest. The Geneva Conventions aren't perfect but they're all we've got and we abandon them at our moral peril. The distinguishing mark of the Bushies is how they hide behind them when it suits them - to complain about the treatment of "our" boys - but then to dismiss them as "outdated" or "irrelevant" or - as here - "a joke" - when they would enforce behaviour on "our side" that might be inconvenient. Hence they're irrelevant to us when we want to torture prisoners or parade Saddam in his underpants or whatever.

And the reductio ad absurdum comes when someone like yourself who's parroting this fashionable new viewpoint asks


Is there a difference between killing soldiers and killing civilians?


Ethically, of course there is. If you can't recognise that there's a difference between killing someone who's volunteered and is being paid to kill others, and killing someone who's just trying to live quietly in their own home, then please don't, for example, consider a career in the law, where distinctions of this kind are made every day quite routinely.

The driving idea of the Geneva Conventions is that war, simply, is a crime, and that it contains the seeds within it of all other crimes. But if war has to be conducted, and it seems to be a rather sad reality that wars erupt now and again, there should be some restrictions on how it is conducted. The idea of minimising civilian casualties was at one stage regarded as a basic tenet of the civilised world. The fact that the US has never been interested in doing this is a matter of historical record, and the obvious Israeli disdain for this principle is one of the things that makes them so unpopular among people of conscience.

Please... try to post something on-topic.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Please... try to post something on-topic.


I will continue to post things that you feel are off topic until a moderator asks me to stop.

The idea of minimalizing civilian casualties in war is as absurd as war itself is.

The point I am driving at is that you cite Israel for all of these "infractions" when these infractions are the essence of war.

Do you not see the irony of putting restrictions on war? War in itself is ridiculuous.

It reminds me of when our lawmakers in the US ban certain types of weapons or bullets because they are more deadly than others. More deadly? The idea of a gun and a bullet is to kill. Period. How can one type of gun or bullet be banned because it is worse than another?

War is the same. The purpose of war is to kill the enemy and destroy his means or retaliation. If war is just to kill each other's soldiers then why now take all the soldiers from each side and put them in a desert somewhere and let them fight to the death?

War doesn't work that way.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
By your logic, therefore, no Nazis should have been indicted for war crimes. This is the obvious conclusion to draw. Can you really mean this?



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
By your logic, therefore, no Nazis should have been indicted for war crimes. This is the obvious conclusion to draw. Can you really mean this?


Yes, that is true, no Nazis should have been charged with war crimes.

They should have been obliterated from the face of the earth by the forces of all the nations they attacked.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
It's not that there a threat to us right this very second.

It's that there government is run by fanatics and Islamic zealots.
And that they could by the middle of the next decade,
have nuclear weapons capabilities.

And they could create a union of all the middle-eastern/Islamic
run countries, which would be a very bad thing.


How strange... I just noticed that you're thoroughly admitting that the reason for a "regime change", or an invasion, in Iran is imperialism and total domination of a foreign country.

Moreover, this totally speculative opinion that Iran could form a "union" of islamic-run countries against the US seems to me like paranoia... while there's already a union of christian-run countries (US/UK/EU/Israel) up against middle-eastern countries and North Korea, Russia and China right now. But hey the Arab League has been there for decades... perhaps "WE" should have twarted them earlier!

My philosophy teacher at college was right after all:



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Iran is as much threat to US as US is to Iran.

They see US as led by a fanatic chrisitian who thinks he is on new crusade, someone who HAS invaded two nations, something which iran has never done, they see someone who threatens pre-emptive strikes on nations that don't have anything to do with 9/11, someone who lies about weapons of mass destruction, someone who decieved his own people about the nuclear threat from Iraq, someone who does not care about authority of united nations, someone who has allowed hundreds of people to be sent to guatanamo bay without any rights or fair trial, someone who sloves things via aggression and violence, someone who supports terrorists states like israel...

just as US can list things against iran, I bet they can write a bigger list against the US.

At least they have not interfered in our government. And yet CIA did in theirs. In 1953 US was responsible for removing their democratically elected prime minister in a military coup.

this finger pointing can co on forever.

i dont think there is any real need for both nations to fear one another.

Iran has already assissted the US in war on terror, in the campaign in Afghanistan and it has said it is willing to help in Iraq.

Iran has called for open dialogue with US. They want to talk and have friendly relation. Why is Bush administration shy about having Ahmedinejad come over and talk it out.

at this moment Iran is probably the safest place for US citizens. even in europe they are harrassed. and in arab world, they will be shot on the streets.




[edit on 5-9-2006 by mr conspiracy]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join