'No force' can stop uranium enrichment: Iran

1736-1744 Persian occupation of Oman
1738-1739 Invasion of Afghanistan, Punjab and sacking of Delhi
1740 Expedition against the Uzbecks
1766 Persian forces conquer Fort Mosselstein on Karhg Island
1776-1779 Temporary occupation of Basra
1856-1857 Occupation of Herrat
1971 Occupation of UAE Islands in Persian Gulf

Interesting, but considering that the US has attacked more countries since 1971 than Iran has since 1736, I'm not so sure we should be comparing records if we want to make ourselves look good

Originally posted by xmotex
Interesting, but considering that the US has attacked more countries since 1971 than Iran has since 1736, I'm not so sure we should be comparing records if we want to make ourselves look good

I'd take that comparison any day of the week, xmotex.
Looking bad is relative and subjective anyhow.

Sep asserted the US short history, 200+ years, versus Iran's 3000.
As such, he is incorrect in his assertion, based upon comparing numerical records of acts of aggression.

Sep?
I am counting more that 12 names on this simplified map, you?


THE PERSIAN WARS






seekerof

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Your list is sorely in need of being updated/corrected, for it is incorrect, as I originally mentioned.

These are the only wars I could find after a quick search regarding the Sassanids and Achaemenid Empires. If you could please find me some more. Thanks a lot for the help.

Originally posted by Seekerof
It is historical fact, especially in the case of Iran: aka: the Persian Empire, etc. As for India's acts of aggression being "neglegable." That is when compared to Iran's? China? Egypt? Greece? Rome? The US?

When compared to all the empires mentioned above. They were attacked quite a few times and they rarely retaliated. Hence your theory is not a historical fact.

India is older than Roman Empire but from what I have read the Roman Empire committed more acts of aggression than India.

Originally posted by Seekerof
How about this:
The US total acts of aggression over its short history are "neglegable" when compared to Iran's long 3000 year history?

I have to disagree. As I mentioned in my first post, from the sources I quickly checked, Iran acted as an aggressor on 12 occasions during the Sassanids and Achaemenid Empires. I may be, and probably am wrong, please feel free to prove me wrong. The US during the past 15 years, bombed Sudan, bombed Iraq, invaded Iraq, invaded Afghanistan and bombed Serbia. That’s five off the top of my head during the last 15 years. If we go back I am sure I could find more.


[edit on 30-11-2005 by Sep]

Originally posted by Seekerof
I am counting more that 12 names on this simplified map, you?

THE PERSIAN WARS

I am counting many names as well. Its like looking at a map of Iraq, you will see many providences but the process of invading it needed one war. Most of the names you see around the current Iran belonged to either Media or Persia. As I mentioned earlier Persia invaded Media. Further west are many more names, but I think (please prove me wrong) that these areas belonged either to Babylon, Lydia and Egypt all of which I mentioned




[edit on 30-11-2005 by Sep]

Iran does not require nukes for its protection. Nuclear weapons are plain and simply WMD and terror.

If Iran is building long range missiles you can only ask why. Which countries are they trying to hit. If they are worried about Israel then they still don't need long range their current missiles have the range. The two things added together can only make the US nervous 1 - Material for making Nukes 2 - Developing long range missiles.

The US or any advanced nuclear capable country could sit off the coast and launch an nuclear attack from the sea. Limiting Irans response time to launch missiles. Effectively sending the country back to the middle ages. They know this so in my tactical opinion if they are determined to build these missiles for long range attack they are being built as first strike weapons as I would imagine certain assets are deployed to keep an eye on Iran.

They should do themselves a favour and stay their hand as this course just gives fuel to military advisors to certain governments who would like to end the problem before it starts. But i believe that the top men in Iran and please note not the people of Iran have an agenda with the US which i believe they will carry through at any cost. Just look into the new presidents history with the US in the past for an insight.

To put it bluntly and debunk deny all you want Iran is building these missiles to hit the US end of.

as posted by Sep
I think (please prove me wrong) that these areas belonged either to Babylon, Lydia and Egypt all of which I mentioned .

The link I provided with the map explained this.

The whole area in blue is the extent of the Persian Empire, and those who Persia conquered [acts of aggression] to obtain/acquire that empire, Sep.

Persia [ie: Persepolis] is on the map and is the starting point. Every other name, other than Persia, on that map are the regional or national tribal, sects, etc beaten by Persia in creating that vast Persian Empire.







seekerof

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
The link I provided with the map explained this.

The whole area in blue is the extent of the Persian Empire, and those who Persia conquered [acts of aggression] to obtain/acquire that empire, Sep.

Persia [ie: Persepolis] is on the map and is the starting point. Every other name, other than Persia, on that map are the regional or national tribal, sects, etc beaten by Persia in creating that vast Persian Empire.

Here is another map that may help clarify what I am trying to say:

www.heartlight.org...

The map you provided shows the area which Iran conquered. However defeating each tribe did not constitute a war. A war constitutes taking down an area, which is controlled by another government. The governments or empires at the time in the area Persia conquered include, Lydia, Babylon, Media and Egypt.

For example, the invasion of Iraq was one war. However if we look at the map of Iraq it shows many cities and tribal areas such as Baghdad, Tikrit, Basra and Kirkuk. However the invasion of Iraq was one war and one act of agression. Taking each city does not constitue a war or an act of agression. I will not be able to respond for a while now because I am headed to a meeting. I will be back in a while.

Which scenario do you think is really more likely?:

A) The Iranians are scrambling to launch a inevitably suicidal nuclear attack on the West.

or

B) The Iranians are scrambling to build a credible deterrent against what they see as a nearly inevitable Western attack on them?

The answer is fairly obvious to anyone who is not completely blinded by the desire, no the psychological need, for another war, and as soon as possible. I don't frankly think the people constantly clamoring for "preemptive" war with Iran, or China, or whoever their favorite boogeyman is, are totally unaware of this. But I do think they're perfectly happy to lie to the rest of us, even to themselves, to get the bloodbath they want.

The Iranian government is not anyone's model of angelic innocence to be sure. But to claim they plan to launch a nuclear first strike at the US, or Europe, or even Israel is preposterous. They simply haven't got the means to do so, and a few Shahabs and fission bombs aren't going to change that anytime soon.

[edit on 11/30/05 by xmotex]

Name Yer Radioactive Poison

With all due respect to Darius, Xerxes, Cyrus the Great and the benefits of studying history in general, it's not clear to me how all that will shed light on Iran's nuclear policies.

As for those, the hand-waving about Iran not pursuing nuclear weapons is rather transparent at this point. They are pursuing them, and obviously want them badly.

War will come to Iran, one way or another. With war already raging throughout the region, darker clouds foreshadowing much greater and more terrible wars are gathering thickly.

The question is whether these wars will involve the use of nuclear weapons or not.

Those offended by the concept of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are about to get what they apparently want: a world in which many more nations are armed with nuclear weapons.

The desirability of this state of affairs will come into sharper focus when the nukes begin to fly, and fly they most certainly will.

Those left alive in the aftermath will probably not have many kind words for the policies which made it possible nor those who promoted them.

I hear ya there majic. I see it plain as day as you do, they are obviously pursuing them. I wonder if the people know what kind of danger they are being put in by their government. As for the US conflicts in its history, you can not compare the Ancient world, with the world we know today. The landscapes have completeley changed as well as methods of dealing with your enemies. Wars such as Vietnam and Korea can hardly be compared to the old wars of conquest that were conducted by the empires of Greece, Rome, and the Persian empires. They were out to conquer, wars today are much more complicated than that, with all of the treaties, alliances, and the general politics of the modern world. So in my opinion the 'agression' records cant even be compared. And I dont want to hear any BS about the US being imperialists like the countries of old, because it just isnt true. So lets not have any of that.

Originally posted by Sep The US during the past 15 years, bombed Sudan, bombed Iraq, invaded Iraq, invaded Afghanistan and bombed Serbia. That’s five off the top of my head during the last 15 years. If we go back I am sure I could find more.


[edit on 30-11-2005 by Sep]

only one of these listed are an act of aggression

"Jihad not just a word for war
It often describes quest for integrity

By TIMOTHY APPLEBY, The Globe and Mail
Thursday, September 20, 2001
The Prophet Mohammed would surely be appalled at how the Islamic concept of jihad can be hijacked.

On a wall in downtown Baghdad is a remarkable mural: A giant painting of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein leading his tanks into battle, alongside the horse-riding Kurdish warrior Saladin, who in 1187 led the forces of Islam in an ultimately successful holy war to drive Christendom out of the Holy Land. "

www.theglobeandmail.com...

This article shows why Iran will attack the US and Israel.

The mullahs think it's their destiny.

They must strike regardless.................



[edit on 30-11-2005 by thermopolis]

In does not matter its kind of a self filling scenario either way someone will get jumpy. In my opinion.

Where is the nuclear exchange with North Korea then?

Iran is bad, but North Korea makes Iran look like Sweden by comparison.
Why haven't they brought about armageddon yet?

Even the world's most certifiably nutty regime is subject to the cold, inexorable logic of nuclear conflict. To use a nuclear weapon against a nuclear-armed foe is to embrace one's own anihilation. The leadership clique's of the world's nutty regimes are quite willing to sacrifice the lives of their citizens. They are not quite so eager to sacrifice their own.

All We Are Saying...

Originally posted by xmotex
Where is the nuclear exchange with North Korea then?

Hey, give them a chance. They're working on it.

Just because something has not happened does not mean it won't.

Nations that don't have nuclear weapons can't use nuclear weapons.

As it turns out, however, the question is moot. Iran will get its nukes, as will several other nations which don't currently have them, and yet more will be clamoring for them as international arms merchants sell them the technology at premium prices -- and themselves become major players in global politics.

And of course let's not forget the inevitable acquisition of nukes in this seller's market by terrorist groups.

What I or anyone else thinks about this ultimately doesn't matter, because as best I can tell, it's inevitable.

Ironically, though, once the nuclear smoke clears, I'm rather optimistic about the future beyond that.

So don't worry, be happy.

Iran has a leader who was part of the Iranian US hostage problem. Their whole culture is anti american, how many north korean suicide bombers have you heard of. But its not the what I think that counts. In my opinion and it is only my opinion, Iran as you said is building these weapons to defend against attack from well the US. The US sees Iran building a long range (hit the US) weapon system and with Nuclear capability. You don't think the US might just feel a tad bit nervous enough to do something about it.

Sorry don't mean to dumbtalk about it, thats why i'm saying its a self filling scenario. The people in charge of the US military are not exactly going to believe Iran are they they did not with saddam. Yes North Korea is a problem but i'm thinking Iran is a bigger one or a better target, lol. OIL.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Iran has a leader who was part of the Iranian US hostage problem.

Which leader are you talking about here? The "Supreme Leader" Khamenei, had no role in the hostage taking. The President, Ahmadinejad, also had no part in it according to the CIA.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Their whole culture is anti american, how many north korean suicide bombers have you heard of.

How much do you know about Iranian culture? How many Iranians have you met? And I don’t know of any Iranian suicide bombers outside of Iran. There were quite a few that committed suicide bombings in the face of the Iraqi invasion. Other than that I haven’t heard of any Iranian national committing suicide bombings.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
But its not the what I think that counts. In my opinion and it is only my opinion, Iran as you said is building these weapons to defend against attack from well the US. The US sees Iran building a long range (hit the US) weapon system and with Nuclear capability. You don't think the US might just feel a tad bit nervous enough to do something about it.

There is no proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and as for the missiles it is well known that Iran does not have plans for creating larger military versions and is now working towards launching satellites.

Suicide bombing seems to be a middle east muslim tactic but i won't admit that others don't use it but if this is true

www.iranfocus.com...

And as for Mr Ahmadinejad's involvement in the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.washingtontimes.com...

Loads more if you want to look.

As for Iran being anti American, come on what planet you living on you really need me to argue that point. Ok if it'll make you happy The people apart from the 50,000 suicide martyr volunteers love america its just the leaders that don't. LMAO and oh yeh the fact that Iran possibly might be entertaining leaders of al-Qaida. Whats that old saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' well loads of hits on that one too.

www.iran-press-service.com...
breaking.tcm.ie...
www.iranfocus.com...

Well guess everything I found is western propaganda I guess hit me with a few interesting 'prove me wrong links' Thanks

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Suicide bombing seems to be a middle east muslim tactic but i won't admit that others don't use it but if this is true

Tamil tigers were the first to use that tactic as far as I know dating back in the 1980s, but yeah if you can't match the firepower of your enemy you have no choice but to resort to this.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
And as for Mr Ahmadinejad's involvement in the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Out of your MSNBC link:
"Another former hostage, retired Air Force Col. Thomas E. Schaefer, said he doesn't recognize Ahmadinejad as one of his captors. Several former students among the hostage-takers also said they did not believe that Ahmadinejad had taken part in it."

Both of your links are dated 30/06/05 and they both more or say the officials are still looking into it, 1 or so month later:
CIA finds Iranian president likely not hostage-taker

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Suicide bombing seems to be a middle east muslim tactic but i won't admit that others don't use it but if this is true

www.iranfocus.com...

I asked you to provide a list of Iranian nationals who committed suicide bombings outside Iran. The names and nationalities of most if not all of the people who committed these bombings are available publicly.

As for the site you provided... well a site run by terrorist organization, who are notorious for bombing Iranian civilians, and helping Saddam kill Kurds as well as Shias during their uprising, may not be the most reliable of sources.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
And as for Mr Ahmadinejad's involvement in the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.washingtontimes.com...

Loads more if you want to look.

As mentioned by the previous post your links are outdated. A month or so after those links were published the CIA confirmed that Ahmadinejad had taken no part in the hostage situation. But surprise, surprise, it wasn’t reported by most of western media.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
As for Iran being anti American, come on what planet you living on you really need me to argue that point. Ok if it'll make you happy The people apart from the 50,000 suicide martyr volunteers love america its just the leaders that don't. LMAO

and oh yeh the fact that Iran possibly might be entertaining leaders of al-Qaida. Whats that old saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' well loads of hits on that one too.

www.iran-press-service.com...
breaking.tcm.ie...
www.iranfocus.com...

Well guess everything I found is western propaganda I guess hit me with a few interesting 'prove me wrong links' Thanks

There is a difference between reading the news and being on the ground. Since you are all familiar with Iranian culture, how many times have you visited Tehran? How about Isfahan and Shiraz? If you haven’t visited Iran at all then you are hardly an expert regarding Iranian culture. Regarding the 50,000 people who signed up to commit suicide bombings, as I mentioned earlier the source of the article makes it questionable to say the least. Further more you can’t judge a population of 70,000,000 based on what 50,000 people signed up to do. The people who volunteered constitute less than 1% of the Iranian population.

Regarding al-Qaede and its relationship with Iran, two of the links you provided are of news sources hostile to the current government of Iran.

However I will spend the time to rebut the links, even though you probably have already made up your mind that AQ leaders are in Iran and this is probably just a waste of time. Al-Qaede belongs to the Wahabi sect of Islam. This sect is derived from the Sunni sect. These people believe that all those who are not Muslim are infidels and all those who say they are Muslim, but practice other sects of Islam are even worst infidels as they hurt the name of Islam. Because of this in the mid to late 90s the government of Taliban who are very closely associated with al-Qaede was very hostile towards Iran and in one instance cut off the head of an Iranian diplomat visiting Afghanistan. This almost resulted in a full-scale war and Iran prepared its troops at the boarder to invade Afghanistan. However they were forced to back off, because of threats from (the currently US backed) Pakistan government. So all though as you mentioned 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend', the question is who is the worst enemy? To Iran it is obviously al-Qaede and Taliban, and this was proved by their contributions to the operation "Enduring Freedom".

Furthermore, IF, al-Qaede some how stepped over all its principles and decided to seek the help of Iran, it would still not make sense, because currently al-Qaede is attacking Iranian interests in the neighbouring Iraq. Several Iranian nationals have died as a result of bombings by al-Qaede and Iran's political allies, the Shias, are constantly being attacked by the terrorists.