Iran Super Thread- Merged

[TimBit]

Innocent? Just what are you trying to say here pal?

Being direct, what do YOU know?

I was there, and the a$$holes (JAM) carrying weapons and setting IED/EFPs were not innocent. Plenty of Iranian $$$, smuggled kit, and Iranian insurgents among them.


OWDU

There is no solid proof that it's government related. The US showed Iranian gear used by insurgents, but could never really prove that they are there because the Iranian govt sold them or gave them. Lots of smugglers in Iran and stuff... I'm just saying, should we bomb Russia because the Taliban are using Kalashnikovs? Besides Taliban+Iran= :evil: They do not have a history of friendship.

 

[George Wallace]

Just a point.  Smugglers don't manufacture Iranian Arms.  The Iranian Government does.  If they don't keep strick accountability of what they produce, allowing graft and corruption to make deals under the table with smugglers; does that mean that they are innocent?

 

[TimBit]

Just a point.  Smugglers don't manufacture Iranian Arms.  The Iranian Government does.  If they don't keep strick accountability of what they produce, allowing graft and corruption to make deals under the table with smugglers; does that mean that they are innocent?

True. But if the troops steal the weapons and sell them, we can only, in my view, accuse the manufacturing state of lax controls on its exports and on its military, not of malicious intent. Otherwise, as I said, we would have to finger Russia for the AK's in Afghanistan.

Similarly, here are some of the countries the US sells weapons to:

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, East Timor, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan (taken from U.S.Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Historical Facts Book as of September 30,2006; and U.S. Department of State, CongressionalBudget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2009 ed., PM Annex, “TitleIV Supporting Information.” )

Not all of these are your tipically friendly neighbours. Yet these are government approved sales, not smuggling. Should we turn to the US and condemn them for any use of weapons that occur in these countries?

I'm not saying that Iran is innocent, so I agree with you. Hell they might even be happy to have smugglers do the work. I'm just saying, there is currently not enough proof of viscious intent to add this to the list of reasons to go to war with Iran. In fact as far as Iran is concerned, the US sales of arms to Saddam during the 80's (oh you ironic history) is probably better a reason for Iran to fight the US than Iran's presumed sale of weapons to Afghanistan.

 

[George Wallace]

True. But if the troops steal the weapons and sell them, we can only, in my view, accuse the manufacturing state of lax controls on its exports and on its military, not of malicious intent. Otherwise, as I said, we would have to finger Russia for the AK's in Afghanistan.

Actually, there are very few Russian AK's in Afghanistan.  There are a heck of a lot more Chinese, and other nations' knock offs than Russian. 

 

[Xiang]

How many innocents have died because of Iran's policies? Its a two way street.

Very true.  What are your views towards Iranian policy that has killed innocent people compared to your view on US policy tagged as "protecting your interests"?  The same I will assume?

There is no solid proof that it's government related. The US showed Iranian gear used by insurgents, but could never really prove that they are there because the Iranian govt sold them or gave them. 

Correct, however, should the Iranian government prove to have a hand in where these weapons ended up and what they were used for, should Iran face repercussions? 

Should the US not have faced the same repercussions for arming and training the Mujahideen against the Soviets?

 

[George Wallace]

Quite a "circular argument" we have going on here.  "They are not justified but someone else is."  I suppose one has to decide who is on the side of "Right" and who is on the side of "Evil" (or whatever one wants to call it).  Politics is a dirty game, especially international politics with opposing political agendas.

Would you much prefer that the US, as the sole remaining "Super Power", had not stepped up to the plate to be this millennium's "World Policeman", leaving the world prey to nondemocratic warmongering nations?  Who or what would you prefer?

 

[Xiang]

No, I'm quite happy the US has done what they had to do in order to remain where they are today, however, my main point was related more towards the fear mongering going on towards Iran for things other nations are also quite guilty of but suffered no consequence what so ever.

If you're going to lead, at least lead consistently. But as you said, it all depends on which side you're on, and if the past tells us anything, it's the victor that writes the history books.

 

[George Wallace]

I suppose you could take a look at it from a medical point of view.  Do you want to treat a full blown Cancer, or have had some preventative medicine done for early detection?  Choose your poison.

 

[Xiang]

Also, I would like to point to something spun out of control in the world media today regarding Iran.  The supposed remark made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  He was mis-interpreted when he said he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Many Persian linguists tried to correct the media but were ignored.  What was ACTUALLY said was, he wants to wipe Zionism off the map, not Israel.

I really don't believe Iran is pursuing nuclear capabilities.  Iran is basically in a state now where there are constant brown outs (sometimes outages that last hours) because they cannot properly generate enough energy for the countries needs.

This has lead to many issues, some more seriously being hospitals inside Iran that are not equipped with long lasting (or any at all) generators.

Iran cannot generate sufficient power through means of hydro electricity or wind power.  Coal is out of the question since it would take enormous amounts, and since Iran is not a producer of coal it would need to be shipped in.  The amount of pollution it would create for a smaller nation would be horrible as well.

Currently Iran is using its natural gas for a lot of it's power, but as we all know, Oil and natural gas is the backbone of the Iranian economy, so every day they are burning away their profits.

Nuclear energy is the only other solution in this case.  It would allow them to create huge amounts of energy with very little pollution. 

I am weary of "intelligence reports" on supposed Iranian nuclear weapons production.  Remember, this is the same "intelligence" that said Saddam had WMD, and knew where they were.

Nuclear power is really the only solution for long term energy needs and the West needs to back off with the rhetoric a little bit and put down the drums of war.

 

[tomahawk6]

I think you have to admit that the public comments by Iranian leaders to destroy Israel,their support for terror groups in the region and their push for nuclear weapons, causes many responsible leaders in the west to worry about Iran's intentions.

 

[Xiang]

I suppose you could take a look at it from a medical point of view.  Do you want to treat a full blown Cancer, or have had some preventative medicine done for early detection?  Choose your poison.

In an ideal world, you would want to take pre-preemptive action obviously, but I think the West may be jumping the gun a little bit this time. 

Read my comment above about the need for nuclear energy in Iran.

Any problems Iran has internally should be dealt with internally.  It's true the moderate majority are controlled by the radical minority, but that is for Iran to take care of themselves.

Bombs dropping won't fix Iran.  If anything, it will simply turn a pro Western population into an anti-Western one.  Anyone who has ever visited Iran knows the people there are more Westernized than any Middle Eastern country in the whole region.  The people go to their night clubs, their bars, watch The Simpsons, you name it.

If the leaders suddenly turn into suicidal madmen and start threatening to nuke innocent countries, the people won't stand for it.  Even the Iranian military is made up of moderates.

If there is any action that I would support against Iran, it would be to help jump start any possible revolution and give the people the support they need to instill their own moderate form of government.

Pushing democracy at the end of a JDAM is not going to do it.

 

[Xiang]

I think you have to admit that the public comments by Iranian leaders to destroy Israel,their support for terror groups in the region and their push for nuclear weapons, causes many responsible leaders in the west to worry about Iran's intentions.

This is a perfect example of the rhetoric and misinformation I am talking about.

 

[TimBit]

This is a perfect example of the rhetoric and misinformation I am talking about.

As exemplified by the fact that not one credible, un-biased and non-partisan person has come up with any solid proof of any Iranian nuclear weapons program. I believe that in a court of law the case against Iran would not pass the "beyond reasonnable doubt" case. Anyway we all saw how that went down last time that case was made...

 

[1feral1]

So simply because I am willing to call a spade a spade, and you "don't know who I am", I am suddenly a troll trying to bait someone?

Well look, I don't know you either, but I will refrain from passing judgment, how ever poor that first impression was. 

Yes you are a troll.

You'll cut your own throat on here, all by yourself.

You only get ONE chance at a first impression.

 

[1feral1]

There is no solid proof that it's government related. The US showed Iranian gear used by insurgents, but could never really prove that they are there because the Iranian govt sold them or gave them. Lots of smugglers in Iran and stuff... I'm just saying, should we bomb Russia because the Taliban are using Kalashnikovs? Besides Taliban+Iran= :evil: They do not have a history of friendship.

Whatever you want to believe Timbit.

 

[Xiang]

Yes you are a troll.

You'll cut your own throat on here, all by yourself.

You only get ONE chance at a first impression.

Look, we're trying to have a conversation here. There have already been some rather constructive comments added by other forum members.   If your sole purpose responding to me is going to be to try to paint be something I am not, then I would appreciate you simply not respond at all, and leave this "troll" be.

If you have something constructive to add, I am all ears.  I enjoy a good debate.

Thank you and have a good day.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yes you are a troll.

You'll cut your own throat on here, all by yourself.

You only get ONE chance at a first impression.

Overwatch Downunder,

Welcome to a Verbal, this is the last step before banishment.

 

[George Wallace]

I find your statement very interesting.

......  What was ACTUALLY said was, he wants to wipe Zionism off the map, not Israel.

So he isn't talking about Israel, but of all Jews, no matter where they may be.  Isn't this talk of global "Genocide", much along the same lines as Hitler espoused in the 1930's?  Which is worse; a country or a religion?  I am sure that the MSM really aren't going to nitpick.

 

[Xiang]

So he isn't talking about Israel, but of all Jews, no matter where they may be.  Isn't this talk of global "Genocide", much along the same lines as Hitler espoused in the 1930's?  Which is worse; a country or a religion?  I am sure that the MSM really aren't going to nitpick.

It's a common misconception that Zionism means the Jewish people or their faith.  Zionism is a self belief some Jewish people hold concerning what they believe their mission in life should be (to put it in layman terms)

Not all Jewish people are Zionists.  There are more moderate Torah Jews, who don't believe in a lot of the extremism Zionist Jews do.  One such movement being Neturei Karta

It may seem a little extreme, but I am posting it simply to solidify my point that eliminating Zionism does not mean the elimination of the Jewish people or their faith, but rather eliminating this extreme way of thinking which is only causing problems.

Either way, one way or another I do not agree with what he said, but I also do not agree with the way the media distorted his message.

 

[wannabe SF member]

Xiang, Zinonism was originally a secular movement. It's simply hebrew nationalism.