Originally posted by arbiture
Very, very simple. Iran can't be trusted. They are a bunch of religous idiots, who want the whole world to march arm in arm back to the dark ages. What you are missing is a lack of understanding of history. Give them the deal, that vile bunch of bastards? Please, get an understanding of what these sob's have done over the last 31 years. The mullahs and revolutionary guards are the embodiment of evil. They have no place in the 21'st century. None. They torture and murder their own people by the thousands. They want to spread their filthy revolution accross the world. In the end one side will win. Us or them. Which will you want?

This myth is belied by the last ten years of experience with Iran. Iran's sense of grievance runs deep -- it holds the United States responsible for toppling Mossadegh, installing the tyrannical Shah, supporting Iraq in a bloody 8-year war against Iran, shooting down an Iranian airliner, and trying repeatedly to topple the regime, among other things. Clearly, Iran will not accept preconditions for dialogue with the United States, any more than the United States would accept preconditions for talking to Iran.

But Iran has made multiple peace overtures which the United States has rebuffed. Right after 9/11, Iran worked with the United States to get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, including paying for the Afghan troops serving under U.S. command. Iran helped establish the U.S.-backed government and then contributed more than $750 million to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Iran expressed interest in a broader dialogue in 2002 and 2003. Instead, it was labeled part of an “axis of evil.”

In 2005, reform-minded President Khatami was replaced by the hardliner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But the same Supreme Leader who authorized earlier overtures is still in office today and he has vowed that “the day that relations with America prove beneficial for the Iranian nation, I will be the first one to approve of that.”

This history does not prove that Iran will bargain in good faith with us. But it does disprove the claim that we know for sure they will not.

Your apocalyptic scenario is based on no behavioral evidence whatsoever. The recent history of Iran makes crystal clear that national self-preservation and regional influence - not some quest for martyrdom in the service of Islam - is Iran's main foreign policy goal. For example:

* In the 1990s, Iran chose a closer relationship with Russia over support for rebellious Chechen Muslims.
* Iran actively supported and helped to finance the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
* Iran has ceased its efforts to export the Islamic revolution to other Persian Gulf states, in favor of developing good relations with the governments of those states.
* During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran took the pragmatic step of developing secret ties and trading arms with Israel, even as Iran and Israel denounced each other in public.

I worked in the intelligence community for over 20 years.

It's funny you worked in "intelligence community" for 20 years as you claim but don't know the above facts I listed. I hope you were not part of "intelligence" before 9/11 or behind Iraq war, were you?

Originally posted by arbiture

The sad truth is most Americans have a sh*** concept of history, if they have any concept at all. I teach 20'th century history, with an emphasis on military history in the 20'th century. You don't seem to have any concept of what was going on in the latter part of WW-2. Allow me to enlighten you.

I think you have your time line confused. It's teaching like this in our schools that perpetuates myths like the nuclear attacks on Japan ending the war. Allow me to enlighten you with a very brief time line....

January 1945 - President Truman receives Japanese offer to surrender (which was exactly what we accepted 7 months later). This is BEFORE Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Fire Bombings, or Nukes (also before Russian invasion of Manchuria).

11 July 1945 - Japanese offer again to surrender unconditionally, the only exception was the keeping of their Monarchy (which they kept as a part of the
Aug 14 treaty anyway).

Aug 6, 9 - Nukes.

Aug 14 - Potsdamn Declaration

Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

I can give you 20 more quotes from military and political leaders from that time if you want. You might want to brush up on history considering your profession.

As soon as Iran uses nuclear weapons, we can deal with Iran harshly and swiftly. Until then, they have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want.

Originally posted by December_Rain

Originally posted by arbiture
Very, very simple. Iran can't be trusted. They are a bunch of religous idiots, who want the whole world to march arm in arm back to the dark ages. What you are missing is a lack of understanding of history. Give them the deal, that vile bunch of bastards? Please, get an understanding of what these sob's have done over the last 31 years. The mullahs and revolutionary guards are the embodiment of evil. They have no place in the 21'st century. None. They torture and murder their own people by the thousands. They want to spread their filthy revolution accross the world. In the end one side will win. Us or them. Which will you want?

This myth is belied by the last ten years of experience with Iran. Iran's sense of grievance runs deep -- it holds the United States responsible for toppling Mossadegh, installing the tyrannical Shah, supporting Iraq in a bloody 8-year war against Iran, shooting down an Iranian airliner, and trying repeatedly to topple the regime, among other things. Clearly, Iran will not accept preconditions for dialogue with the United States, any more than the United States would accept preconditions for talking to Iran.

But Iran has made multiple peace overtures which the United States has rebuffed. Right after 9/11, Iran worked with the United States to get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, including paying for the Afghan troops serving under U.S. command. Iran helped establish the U.S.-backed government and then contributed more than $750 million to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Iran expressed interest in a broader dialogue in 2002 and 2003. Instead, it was labeled part of an “axis of evil.”

In 2005, reform-minded President Khatami was replaced by the hardliner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But the same Supreme Leader who authorized earlier overtures is still in office today and he has vowed that “the day that relations with America prove beneficial for the Iranian nation, I will be the first one to approve of that.”

This history does not prove that Iran will bargain in good faith with us. But it does disprove the claim that we know for sure they will not.

Your apocalyptic scenario is based on no behavioral evidence whatsoever. The recent history of Iran makes crystal clear that national self-preservation and regional influence - not some quest for martyrdom in the service of Islam - is Iran's main foreign policy goal. For example:

* In the 1990s, Iran chose a closer relationship with Russia over support for rebellious Chechen Muslims.
* Iran actively supported and helped to finance the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
* Iran has ceased its efforts to export the Islamic revolution to other Persian Gulf states, in favor of developing good relations with the governments of those states.
* During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran took the pragmatic step of developing secret ties and trading arms with Israel, even as Iran and Israel denounced each other in public.

I worked in the intelligence community for over 20 years.

It's funny you worked in "intelligence community" for 20 years as you claim but don't know the above facts I listed. I hope you were not part of "intelligence" before 9/11 or behind Iraq war, were you?

To say Iran financed anything the USA did is unmitigated bull #. They have done everything in their power to screw us at every opportunity. This may be rude but I have to ask this question, are you an Iranian agent or are you just full of #?

If you know anything about intelligence, you know its compartmented. You are limeted to certain areas, it just makes life simpler. You remind me of a contact I had a very long time ago by the name of "sword", if your that guy, you know the correct response. Any way, yes I am well aware nations have back channel sources. Those sources are not contacted on open communication chan. To answer your question about what I was doing in the time zones you listed, Iraq, 9/11 etc, lets just say for the record I was fully engaged with Asia at that time, and for a time Russia.

To respond to one of your comments, Russia never had any intrest in an "arragement" with Chechnia and Russia. They wanted to position themselves to overwelm Chechnia

Ugh, thanks for pointing out that erroneous history that stated we needed to nuke hiroshima and nagasaki. I hate when i see people espouse that garbage. Terrorism is defined as "harm or threats of harm to a civilian populace in order to change a governments actions or policy" which clearly applies to hiroshima, and nothing is more hypocritical than the country that nuked 2 civilian cities decrying a "war on terror"

Further, the US is considered by many the largest state sponsor of terrorism. To the poster stating that we dont train terrorists or strap bombs to suicide bombers....maybe you should do some research on the "school of the america's" in Georgia, where that is EXACTLY what we did, and further do some small amount of research into the CIA's training of death squads in south america. Some of the most brutal dictators were trained here in our very own schools!

As to suicide bombers...yeah, they strap bombs on themselves and maybe take a few people with them, and thats horrible. We strap bombs on planes, take out whole blocks, mostly women and children, and thats legitimate. And fallujah, where we locked ALL MALES FROM AGE 12 AND UP in and bombed the whole city....horrifying. Yes, they publicly execute our soldiers they capture, and thats awful. We, according to many sources, waterboard, hook up electrodes to testicles and electrify, and allow gang rapes daily to our prisoners, many of whom are innocent civilians, but thats ok.

Lastly, to the topic, while Iran has not proven itself untrustworthy, the US and other western powers certainly have. We entered into a treaty with them in the 80's where they would cease enrichment and we would provide all their materiel needs. They sent the payments for the material and ceased per their agreement, and we never sent them a single shipment. Also, I think it was russia or germany, offered to build them nuclear reactors around the same time. Iran paid for the reactors, and the offering country never came in and did the job. Neither group ever refunded iran's money either. They have no reason to trust us, and every reason to be resentful, from deposing their leader over oil issues, to continued sanctions and embargo's, to arming Iraq and pushing them to attack iran, many disgusting and inhumane tactics, which are NO way to treat a sovereign nation.

There are motives on both sides. They have legitimate grievances for things we have done directly to them in the past, but we refuse to recognize this and just paint them as religious zealots who are all insane. WE, on the other hand, are motivated by our need to control oil and regions, despite the fact that they have never come here and offered us any harm. They DO recognize this, and are understandably concerned. In reality, i think the ONLY thing our side would really accept is total capitulation from iraq, and the surrender of its sovereignty. Until then we will continue to fabricate excuses to justify whatever actions we want, from financing coups to attempted assassination, to punitive bombing, all of which are very familiar and often exercised items in our repoirtoir.

Originally posted by austra
This is such a crock. Nuking Japan had nothing at all to do with ending World War II.

That's debatable. There are compelling points on either side, and I'll admit that I am still reading and really am just giving counterpoint to yours.

But I see it as no more than another weapon of war. No more or less "evil" than another, and we certainly used many other nasty weapons to kill a great many.

There was nothing altruistic about nuking Japan. It did not "save lives." I'm sure there are plenty of threads/books around for you to find out what really happened....

I never said it was "altruistic", which isn't even the proper use for the word in this context.

Not "saving lives" isn't simply about American or Japanese. The world is bigger than just two nations.

As for Iran, until they use a nuke, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want. Do you really suppose they are stupid enough to nuke Israel? The whole Arabian Peninsula world would vanish overnight. They just want a seat at the big kids table.

I never said they shouldn't have one. Personally I don't care if they want one or not. I've never been the type to think bad leaders are suicidal, which is what they would have to be to use a nuclear weapon, especially at the US or Israel.

Control is what this is about. Nukes have little to do with it.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by KrazyJethro]

No, nukes are more evil than other forms of attack....reason being, and most weapons are judged by this, there is no "aiming" one....it does the most damage to civilian structures and groups, with many centuries of damage to continue through cancer, leukemia, etc. Nuclear weapons affect not only those targeted, but all generations to be born or live in that area for the total forseable future.

And further, as he stated, unequivocally, japan had been begging the US to accept their surrender for many months prior to the dropping of the nukes. For exactly the same terms as the US offered after the bombing. Total difference if we had accepted their surrender prior to the bombing and after the bombing? over 500000 innocent japanese civilian lives, no other difference.

As many have pointed out previously, the nuking of two japanese cities was NOT the finishing move of WWII, rather it was the opening move of the cold war, used for no purpose other than to intimidate the soviet union and any other countries protesting american dominance.

Originally posted by pexx421
No, nukes are more evil than other forms of attack....reason being, and most weapons are judged by this, there is no "aiming" one....it does the most damage to civilian structures and groups, with many centuries of damage to continue through cancer, leukemia, etc. Nuclear weapons affect not only those targeted, but all generations to be born or live in that area for the total forseable future.

Seems to me it's a pretty good deterrent, which is the most effective aspect of a weapon to begin with.

Somewhere along the line we got the idea that we shouldn't kill anyone but members of the military, which really isn't possible and tends to get us bogged down more than anything else.

I suppose it's perspective though, but we have come a long way in terms of technology. The Neutron Bomb is a good example of that.

And further, as he stated, unequivocally, japan had been begging the US to accept their surrender for many months prior to the dropping of the nukes. For exactly the same terms as the US offered after the bombing. Total difference if we had accepted their surrender prior to the bombing and after the bombing? over 500000 innocent japanese civilian lives, no other difference.

Perhaps. WW2 isn't my area of expertise, but as I said before, I was offering a counterpoint only for interesting conversation.

But again, there is more than one reason to drop the bomb.

As many have pointed out previously, the nuking of two japanese cities was NOT the finishing move of WWII, rather it was the opening move of the cold war, used for no purpose other than to intimidate the soviet union and any other countries protesting american dominance.

I'd suggest that is a worthy goal no? Previous to now, we had used a Total War doctrine, which I endorse wholeheartedly. It, perhaps, seems odd now but is certainly different from our current failed war doctrine.

Domination is the goal, and a little side of vengeance.

Well, of course, when looked at without any morality, compassion, or humanity, they are imminently logical.

Because we want to control every other country thats not ours. As I understand it Iran needs nuclear energy bcuz a pipeline that was meant to run thru Iran was diverted and run thru Turkey and Georgia. The US didnt want Iran to benfit from the pipeline until 'it improved relations with the west'.
The University of Tehran is the largest and most highly ranked medical school in Iran. This joint has 13,000+ students, 15 teaching hospitals, 40+ libraries and publishes 26 medical journals.
The University has the largest network of research centers in medical sciences. They boast over 38 research centers which include- Hematology/oncology and stem cell transplant research, cancer research center, dental research center, center for neurological research, brain and spinal injury research, aid/hiv research...etc..etc. They need this 20% for a research reactor for making medical radioisotopes. This isnt some hole in the wall. This is where some of the greatest research and development of medicine and technology come from. We all benefit from this research.
The logic doesnt make sense to me when I hear Irans building nukes for war, especially with Israel??? Why would Iran destroy what is the holiest of holy lands to them?? Why would they destroy the land that they cherrish and want returned? Why would they want to kill the Palestinians who they try to liberate?? It just doesnt make sense to me.

Sorry for any runon sentences, not my strong point.
Peace K*

BTW- Iran was THE 1st to sign the NPT.