Killing Americans Is Iran's Policy

Dont get me wrong this is a great country.And would die for it if their was true just cause.and i prase our troops for doing their job.knowing,
I would think we would be better of not interfearing with other gov pollicies ,If we did things would be so mutch better .i think it was put in the constitution for a reson.

Originally posted by jasonhb
America will NEVER stand down in the face of evil.

It's not a question of stand down but a question of making them stand up! The US national security state has in fact sponsored the majority of the last fifty years worth of dictators into power all around the world after the local people picked other men which the CIA and others then had to come and assassinate.

We have become a great country because we are not afraid of going toe to toe with anyone.

Whatever greatness there ever was in the US was due to the actions of the majority of people who seek to free themselves from domestic and foreign oppression. Americans didn't want the civil war, the 'war' against Spain, the first or second world wars and they most certainly didn't want Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf war. Fact is Americans have been doing what they can to keep out of foreign wars but since their people like the rest of us they tend to fail when it comes to keeping their government from using all it's toys meant for defense in offensive roles. The American public wants to be PROTECTED and that's why they do allow their government to spend money on such issues.

We have defeated Communism,

The USSR could not and were not defeated by something the US did. Maybe you should actually check if Stansfield Turner, or anyone else who were in a position to know, if they 'defeated' the USSR.

Facism,

US and European bankers CREATED fascism as response to the rise of state socialism that got a bit out of control. Nazi Germany were funded into being largely from Wall street banks but it's a open question if that it was European or American money.

Socialism,

I think the fact that Europe exists proves that you don't even know what your pretending to be fighting.

Nazism

The Russians and British largely pulled that one off. Sure much of the money was American but would US citizens have accepted the millions of dead young men the absence of the Red army would have led to?

and a Monarchy to bring freedom to hundreds of millions of people from every race, creed, religion and nationality.

Freedom? Is that why the US have bombed in invaded more dozens of countries in the last half century? Why are the countries where the US were most active now the poorest in that region or no better off than they were fifty years ago? Do you think it's just a coincidence that things these countries end up with brutal freedom destroying dictators when the US national security state gets involved?

And we WILL defeat Islamo-Facism! 'We may love life like they love death'..............

Where did this idea come from that Islamic terrorist 'like' death any more than the rest of us? Did the US soldiers who died in the Revolutionary( civil) war of 1775-83 love death? DId the hundreds of thousands that died in the civil war love death? Did the millions of Soviet soldiers that died fighting in defense of Russia 'love' death or were they just so badly outmatched that their deaths seemed so fruitless as to look like a 'love' of death? What are lightly armed militia SUPPOSED to do against modern armored forces ( and armored soldiers) that won't look somewhat suicidal? Wouldn't a true freedom fighter rather accept certain death if he believed that he would stand a much greater chance of killing his perceived enemies? Isn't that what we call bravery in the west and why so many of those hero's don't actually survive their heroic exploits? Is charging a machine gun nest over open terrain heroism or a display of the person's 'love of death'?

Lets at least be consistent when we try to vilify others!

But as Patrick Henry said, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"!

Big words, if they were in fact spoken which is as far as i can tell not all that well established, for a slave owner who didn't put down his rifle to let his slave go or even pick up a rifle to fight those who would set them free. Since i am not his biographer i wont pretend to know the man but i think we know enough to know that he served himself first and foremost.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


Well said Sir!

S.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Hezbollah is a well known fact proxy force by Iran against Israel. What has Israel been doing since then? They never targeted Iran. What has the U.S. been doing against Iran?

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
What about the liberty for other countries and cultures to live by their own chosen political viewpoint? If for instance you like chocolate icecream and I feel that vanilla is the only flavour that should exsist do I have the right to beat you up with my vanilla eating friends until you eat only vanilla?
Its a very basic analogy I know but it makes my point

Ya, your childishly simplistic analogy makes the point that, well, you're probably still a child yourself. One who tries to dabble in geo-politics one minute and then needs to run to the freezer to make sure mom has stocked your favorite after-school dessert the next. Same goes for the anti-US guy posting on this thread.

Please read some history before venturing into discussions like this again. Most of your views seem far too naive to even warrant further discussion IMHO.

[edit on 5/1/2008 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by ppskylight
Shown what people? Who are you to see that kind of evidence? There isn't really room for civilian level involvment in these types of deals (so why should they release it to the public before they deem its safe) and they arent publicized until finalized because of security reasons (counter intelligence operations getting a head start). We're already at war with Iran, Iraq is just the proxy battlefront at the moment. It might shift into Iran itself if Iran keeps sticking its nose in Iraq's business.

I love how people come up with the idea that we the people have no say in what is important to the country. We the people have ALL the say in this country, and people that believe as you do only further legitimize the degradation of our right to know what our government is doing. Otherwise, who is held accountable? What the hell are checks and balances for if we don't exercise them, and enforce them to the letter?

The government that the US installed in Iraq is PRO IRAN. Many of the Iraqi militias are, in fact, IRAQI and are being funded by Iran with the blessing of many Iraqi officials. We have no business complaining here either. Iran was brutally attacked by Iraq for the bigger part of the eighties, they have more at stake in Iraq than America ever will. And the "Insurgents" and "terrorists" over there are Iraqi people. You kill one man, and you have pissed off his brothers and sisters, his sons and daughters, his friends and neighbors. And then you have an uprising...But we're not calling it that, we call it an "Insurgency" and drive people like you to believe that we're fighting an enemy that hides in the shadows and behind civilians(They said the same about the VC in Nam, turns out the VC was the majority of the peasant population, which is why most of the fighting took place in the south of the 17th parallel). This is no different. And here we are, as Americans, falling for the same lie again, and arguing for it despite all the evidence to the fact that it's just bad policy, if not evil.

reply to post by projectvxn


Read more history of the Vietnam war before you decide that the military was fighting a bunch of peasants. Never guessed that the VC had MIGs and tanks as well as artillery. I wonder where that came from.......

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Read more history of the Vietnam war before you decide that the military was fighting a bunch of peasants. Never guessed that the VC had MIGs and tanks as well as artillery. I wonder where that came from.......

The VC is not the same as the North Vietnamese Army. Or NVA. The VC was according to historical records in both the US and in Vietnam as a peasant fighting force.

Why, if we were just fighting the NVA, does the entirety of the country call it The American War today? The TRUTH is that Vietnam never wanted to be separated, between French colonialism, and American occupation(with documented war crimes to boot) the people of Vietnam were tired of foreign troops on their soil. So after the CIA assassinated it's own puppet president of South Vietnam, the people saw that they we're being occupied by another foreign power-for-profit entity. The US. Ho Chi Min, before the start of OUR war with Vietnam was an ally of the US. And was a nationalist. Most of the NVA weapons were left over from ww2 and were American made, it was only when Ho Chi Min asked the world community to stop the US occupation, and the international agreement to split Vietnam in two that the Communist elements in the region as well as in Russia began to supply the NVA with more sophisticated weapons. However the bulk of the fighting was done by the VC which were, in fact, Vietnamese peasantry.

As far as the VC were concerned they were fighting for independence. Like they had for nearly 100 years under French rule.

reply to post by projectvxn


The NVA has tried and failed to conquer South Vietnam many times. They used the VC as a fighting force to sabotage and inflict casualties until they can get the American forces to pull out. Which by the way they finally succeeded in taking over after American forces pulled out. They call it the American War because they had other wars fought in Vietnam.

Remember that its parallel to North Korea invading South Korean in the name of fighting imperialism as they said. North Vietnam wanted South Vietnam united under communist rule.

Let me ask you this....who took over Saigon and name it Ho Chi Minh? The VC? Doubt it.

evidence is roadside bombs found that were made in iran even up to a few weeks ago. there is your evidence. i have a strong hate for the iranian govt and hope they get put in their place very soon

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Swatman]

Originally posted by anti us gov
reply to post by ppskylight

 

I do agree that Iran's human rights are terrible.

The US doesn't exactly have a great record in that area - they execute more people every year than any other western country.

In fact most western nations have abandoned the DP.

Then there's gitmo and abu ghraib.

Then there's civil rights, which are still far behind other western nations, along with human rights, and actually following conventions they signed up to.

And that's before we even start to discuss misuse of the patriot act, homeland security act etc.

I would say that the US hardly has the moral high ground in this regard.

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by projectvxn

 

The NVA has tried and failed to conquer South Vietnam many times. They used the VC as a fighting force to sabotage and inflict casualties until they can get the American forces to pull out. Which by the way they finally succeeded in taking over after American forces pulled out. They call it the American War because they had other wars fought in Vietnam.

Remember that its parallel to North Korea invading South Korean in the name of fighting imperialism as they said. North Vietnam wanted South Vietnam united under communist rule.

Let me ask you this....who took over Saigon and name it Ho Chi Minh? The VC? Doubt it.

That's not true. The country didn't start separated. The French ruled over Vietnam, it was only after the French cried for help because Ho Chi Min was kicking their asses, did the UN step in at the Geneva Conference and divided the country by the 17th parallel, and the US was the biggest supporter of of French colonialism at the time. That said, the Geneva Conference on Vietnam stated that it was only to be be for a brief period before the country was rebuilt and reintegrated into one country again. This is not what happened. In an attempt to isolate Ho Chi Min, the US began funneling troops into Vietnam from the south where the US had chosen Ngo Dinh Diem to rule.

Diem scheduled a referendum on October 23 to determine the future of the country. He contested the poll, advocating a republican model, whereas Emperor Bao Dai advocated a monarchy. The poll was supervised and rigged by his younger brother Ngo Dinh Nhu, and the Diem ended with 98% of the vote. In many districts, he polled more votes than the number of registered voters, and in Saigon, he recorded 133% of the registered population. On the October 26, Diem declared himself as the President of the newly proclaimed Republic of Vietnam.

en.wikipedia.org...


It was after this point that the VC started to organize. This total disregard for international law, and the reunification of the country(which the entire country wanted) was the last straw in a struggle for independence for over 100 years of Vietnamese existence. Eventually the VC and NVA molded together in common cause. The result of which is an estimated 4,000,000, that's million, that died on the Vietnamese side during the Vietnam War.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by projectvxn]

Why is it that aid coming from Iran to militias we say "killing Americans is Iran's policy", yet when we see Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States funding and supporting Sunni militias (who have killed far more US troops than the Shia groups BTW), our .gov prefers to ignore it?

And if the Iranians are such a "threat" to stability of Iraq, why does Ahmadinejad get the red carpet treatment when he comes for a visit?

If anything the current Iraqi .gov is more closely aligned with Iran than with the US. Why exactly would Iran want to destabilize an ally?

I can't believe people are falling for this BS

reply to post by ppskylight


If they want public support, then yes, they have to present the evidence forward supporting this accusation. If not, then they shouldn't bother. This seems to me more like a scare tactic to get the people supporting US action against Iran.

If the reason why they can't present the evidence is due to security reasons as you've stated, then they shouldn't have bothered saying ANYTHING in the first place due to exactly that, security reasons. I'm sorry, this is just too fishy to begin with.

As to who do we think we are? We are Americans d*** it! the government may have stripped away our rights as sovereigns. But we haven't forgotten who we are and what our rights are.

i dont trust any middle eastern country. they are all shady and the only reason anyone deals with them is because they have the oil. the middle east is the start of life, it will definitely be the site of the end of life

reply to post by projectvxn


The Vietnamese struggled for many years. But it depends on what kind of rule in Vietnam.
Similar to North Korea and South Korea. Even the South Korean govt. was unpopular. But we succeeded in preventing a takeover and South Korea is one of the wealthiest countries in Asia. The Korean peninsula has been under foreign control before until it was divided between the communist Soviet Union and the democratic United States. The Koreans wanted a unification but have disagreement as to how that can work. Remember the Sunshine policy? This is no different.

The failure to unify the country in 1956, along with Diem's persecution of communists, led in 1959 to the foundation of the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (abbrievated NLF but also known as the Viet Cong), which initiated an organised and widespread guerrilla insurgency against the South Vietnamese government. Although initially cautious, Hanoi backed the insurgency, which grew in support and intensity. The United States, under President Eisenhower, initially sent military advisers to train the South Vietnamese army. President John F. Kennedy increased the size of the advisory force fourfold and allowed the advisors to participate in combat operations, and later acquiesced in the removal of President Diem in a military coup. After promising not to do so during the 1964 election campaign, in 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to send in much larger numbers of combat troops, and conflict steadily escalated to become what is commonly known as the Vietnam War. In 1968, the NLF ceased to be an effective fighting organization after the Tet Offensive and the war was largely taken over by regular army units of North Vietnam. Following American withdrawal from the war in 1973, the South Vietnamese government continued fighting the North Vietnamese, until, overwhelmed by a conventional invasion by the North, it finally unconditionally surrendered on April 30, 1975, the day of the surrender of Saigon. North Vietnam controlled South Vietnam under military occupation, while the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, which had been proclaimed in June 1969 by the NLF, established the Republic of South Vietnam but the republic never really had any of the authority of a government. The North Vietnamese quickly moved to marginalise non-communist members of the PRG and integrate South Vietnam into the communist north. The unified Socialist Republic of Vietnam was inaugurated on July 2, 1976.

reply to post by deltaboy


Yes, but what you don't seem to realize is how wide spread the VC movement was. These weren't just small pockets these were large swathes of the poorest of the population. They knew the land, they knew the resources, they knew all the paths, and places of ambush. Of course they did they were local. And it didn't come from the North. It came from mostly South Vietnam. Soldiers in Vietnam would often complain that they'd see their south Vietnamese "Allies" coming at them from the other direction. Meaning, they were nearly everyone. Which cause the typical US soldier to regard EVERYONE despite combat status as an enemy combatant. And a potential threat. This gave way to paranoia, which led to massive war crimes, which led to the fueling of the fires the VC and Ho Chi Min had become previously fueled by the French. All they wanted was independence and we divided their country, they wanted the freedom to choose their own path to a unified Vietnam, we gave them a puppet government, they got sick of it, and started fighting back. It's called a revolution, we did it to the British.

Also, the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie. A big lie. And it was what allowed the US government to go to war with Vietnam. The files here on ATS would tell you that. So just think for a second, how much of Vietnam was a lie. If the media alone were to retract their stories on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident then they would probably have to retract from every story told from Vietnam thereafter.





[edit on 1-5-2008 by projectvxn]

This is all a battle for who gets to set policy and gain influence in the Middle East. Of course is Iranian policy to see the U.S. do bad not only in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and in the Palestine issue. Iran recognize that U.S. influence in the region is diminishing and they want to be recognize as the major player that can stand against Israel.

Looking at the situation in Iraq, I don't know how the U.S. has not realize that if they just keep a decent amount of force in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait, all those other states are just going to oblirate themselves to oblivion. They have been doing that since way back then with no intervention of us. If the U.S. pulls out of Irak expect Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds to blow each other until they is not one ounce of TNT in those territories. Of course this kind of civil war would spread to other neighboring countries and at the end someone would come and ask the U.S. for help, and once we see who's the last man standing after the bloodbath then we can resume relations in the region. Basically we should borrow a page from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and incite this two sides to kill each other to their is none left but Kurds that at least have some common sense.

Anyways I believe Iran is just seizing the opportunity handed to them by the failures of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, do we really think that if the invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan had gone all gravy we should have not invaded Iran and North Korea by now? To think otherwise is just plain naive, they had laid the plan of defeating the axis of evil the day after 9-11. Iraq just stalled that plan partly because of Iranian intervention but mostly do to foolish and wishfull thinking war planning.

In this matter I'm not Pro-US or anti-Iran or viceversa, I realized that this is a chess game for leaders on both sides and we are all pawns in their stupid silly game.


[edit on 1-5-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by jasonhb
America will NEVER stand down in the face of evil. We have become a great country because we are not afraid of going toe to toe with anyone. We have defeated Communism, Facism, Socialism, Nazism and a Monarchy to bring freedom to hundreds of millions of people from every race, creed, religion and nationality. And we WILL defeat Islamo-Facism! 'We may love life like they love death'..............But as Patrick Henry said, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"!

Ah... typical American! Sounds like you should join the army to kill another human being, or be killed by one! What a shame it is that, we consider that OKAY. Your statement reminds me of Bush hanging the sign on the ship saying "Mission Iraq freedom accomplished"... yet still thousands die every month!

First of all since I see you have been completely brain washed by the typical American conditioning, there is NO war with another country (Iran) it is the intention of America to "invade" other countries to profit from their resources (oil) since federal reserve is running out of ink to print money. No one hates your freedom nor is there such thing as Axis of evil, if there is one, America would be right on top of the list for lying/using it's own people to invade other countries for the last fifty years, killing thousands all around the world up to this date illegally invading Iraq and now going after Iran! Wake up people, before we loose everything by another WW!

reply to post by xmotex



Patience. When the house of Saud falls in the not too distant future and one of the radical religious leaders take over Saudi Arabia, we'll get a little dirt on our hands there, too. There will probably be a waiting period to see if the high rolling elite in S.A. can use what monetary power they have to keep the country from falling under the rule of one of the high cheif muckity-mucks like Khameni or az-Zahar. If al Humaid or his ilk ever take governing control of Saudi Arabia, rest assured, America will be there.