Originally posted by mybigunit
So with that lets go down the line....
Question have these Jews that are no longer in Iran have they been killed or have they left on their own free will? Also what about the Jews that
represent in the Iranian government? My point to you is where as you say that Iran wants to eliminate all the Jews I say that is not true it is
propaganda. Listen even if they dont like Jews that does not mean they want to eliminate them and frankly if they dont want Jews or gays or whatever
in their country then isnt that their choice or is it American law is to be the law of the world?
You're welcome to believe whatever you want about Iran. Just because someone doesn't believe the official version of the German extermination of
Jews during WII ( as per Achedinejad ) doesn't automatically make them an anti-semite. But when you couple that one fact with another (his letter to
Angela Merkel remarking on the way germany has been 'falsely accused' of genocide) and another (calling for the end of israel) it doesn't make him
antisemitic per se.
But he spends a lot of energy on ill will toward people for various reasons, who coincidentally happen to be Jewish. I ask, how would his behavior be
different if he were anti-semitic????
The fact is he feels that force should NOT be used that in fact their should be elections that ALL the Palestinians should be able to vote on.
How about a vote in Iran, Iraq and Turkey to see if the Kurds could secede from those states and set up an independent Kurdistan? Maybe some of the
other groups in Iran (who collectively are close to a majority in all measures except political representation) would like votes of their own......or
we could proceed with the idea that many nations contain unhappy minorities.
Or maybe not. But there's a case to be made on both sides.
That vote is to be should Israel be allowed to take their land. Keep in mind that was Palestinian land until Israel claimed it as their own in the
50s.
Not entirely true. Some cities, like
Haifa were not majority-occupied or ruled by palestinians before
1948. Some cities like
Safed, have been majority or entirely jewish since the 1500's.
Actually, when you get down to it, the Palestinians have never tuled that land.... there has NEVER been a palestinian state there in the past 1000
years. Before the British, it was ruled by the Ottoman TURKS. So the Palestinians didn't own it in any kind of a national sense.
On a private level, many of them were deprived of their land illegally. Almost like the jews had been in Europe. Hypocritical and Cynical,
certainly; personally I feel like the current violence is a natural consequence of founding a state on bloodshed. But does this justify a whole new
wave of blood, this time jewish flowing through the streets? And if Hamas isn't interested in a state like Lebanon was, with a vibrant blend of
minorities, why would Jews ever willingly put their own future to an Islamist vote. Not picking sides here, just pointing out how things are on the
ground.
Maybe we should give it back to the Ottomans..... Then Russia back to the Romanoffs, Austria back to the Hapsburgs, etc., ad nauseum. would that end
the bloodshed---or guarantee it?
Now in Israels defense they have won a few wars since then to solidify their place in the middle east so in a sense that land is now theirs. However
that doesnt mean it still doesnt tick people off and that people may have opinions in regards to it. My point is is that it is not the job of America
to ensure that Israel keeps their land.
Any more than it is the job of IRAN to ensure that palestinians get
theirs?
But to go fight a country because they pose a threat to Israel is not right at all.
Would it be right, from my previous example, to fight Venezuela (or offer to), if they were on the verge of seizing dutch territory? If not, why not?
If it would be justified, why not for Israel? Is israel less worthy of our defense than Korea or Vietnam?
Frankly I dont think Iran is a threat and even if they were it is still not out job to be fighting all their wars. Just to let you know I feel this
way about any country including the likes of Georgia or any other that does not have direct implications on America itself.
I can understand your viewpoint; I disagree with it. I think that the fate of many nations around the world have implications for America. I
mentioned the way Czechoslovakia was swallowed by Germany in 1938; I think that was a failure on many levels. A failure of foresight, courage, and
even morals on the part of her allies.
Iran was invaded by Iraq in the early 80s with the backing of the US government.
And Lebanon was invaded by Syria with Iranian assistance and backing, to the point of training troops and buying them weapons.
As far as funding insurgents let me ask you a hypothetical question. If Russia invaded Mexico we would probably fund some insurgents in Mexico now
wouldnt we.
But Iran had insurgents fighting in Iraq BEFORE we invaded. In fact saddam's daughters told BBC that Saddam was more worried about Iranian
insurgents than he was about the possibility that Bush would really invade.
..... Which, if true, brings up the possibility that the US-led coalition invaded Iraq to forestall its collapse into Iran's sphere of control....and
interesting idea, but for another thread, another day.
In fact if I remember right we funded insurgents in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded didnt we?
Yes, just like
the Soviets did in Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, Cuba, Egypt, Angola, Niger, Somalia, Columbia, Peru, Argentina, Chile,
China, Bangladesh, Nepal, and a few others.
We have funded all sorts of insurgents in South America to overthrow elected governments to install puppet governments havent we? Once again I
recommend you read up on history and not the talking points that our government both Democrats and Republicans feed us.
Some people consider me fairly well-read; perhaps as well read as you. I just reach different conclusions from yours.
all wars...to make someone money, period.
Just because WII was fought
by the japanese to make them richer, does that mean we shouldn't have fought them?
Is it possible for america to be involved in a war, anytime, anywhere, without us being the bad guy?
Hmm in a time when our government is nationalizing banks which in turn is nationalizing housing and a time when our government is nationalizing our
auto industry, our airline industry, our insurance industry, and many others in the form of "bailouts" I dont think your or I should be dogging on
the way any country does business.
Hmmm. So we are not entitled to have an opinion on "the way any country does business." Does that apply to Ahmedinejad as well? Or is that just a
rule for Americans????
You're pretty sure that Iran is none of our business; but Israel IS Iran's.
I'm just trying to figure out which rules the US should be playing by, and why they don't apply to anyone else.
Isn't that what the neo-cons are always accused of, wanting america to play by a separate set of rules??
.
[edit on 8-11-2008 by dr_strangecraft]
