So now that Iran has clearly violated International Law...

angelica · February 2007

Rue D'Awakening wrote:

so winston churchill in the 1930's was fear-mongering?
there was no shortage of people in the 20's and 30's who reacted to mein kampf the same way people on these boards react to the words of Iran's leaders. they have learned nothing from history.

Wait. You were the one who expressed the point that your quotes were not being addressed. I addressed them and now you are changing the subject? Let's get back to addressing your quotes. Please show me the imminent danger?

Maybe there is possible future threat. Maybe there is reason to keep our eyes open. Maybe there is plenty of reason to keep a level head and to continue assessing what is happening.

If you have evidence of imminent danger I would love to hear it.

NCfan · February 2007

Commy wrote:

Actually something like 50% of americans polled pre invasion thought the terrorist were from Iraq and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, it was that bad. And we had Fox news puting Saddam's face over an image of the towers burning, and every program tying Saddam to Osama (in fact enemies). Its typical in the US, to get the public to march to the war drums, using patriotism and fear to get them behind any atrocity they can think up.

Iraq was no different. And not a threat. Even the countries bordering Iraq did not see them as a military threat, and they should be the ones most concerned, not us, across an ocean, with strongest miltary the world has ever seen... its rediculous when you look at it objectively.

Well then why don't you try looking at it objectively then.

1 - Who cares what percentage of Americans think about anything... I bet most Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map, what does that prove?

2 - Nobody was concerned about Iraq's military, we were concerned about two things. We thought they had WMD's and just like Afghanistan, Iraq had large lawless expanses of land where terrorists could hide and plot against the US - and we had every reason to believe Saddam would be simpathetic to their cause.

slightofjeff · February 2007

Even the countries bordering Iraq did not see them as a military threat, and they should be the ones most concerned, not us, across an ocean, with strongest miltary the world has ever seen... its rediculous when you look at it objectively.

The fear was never that the Iraqi Air Force was going to fly over and drop a bomb on New York.

It was that Saddam was going to covertly slip weapons to a terrorist organization and say, "Have at it."

It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to envision Saddam giving a chemical or biological weapon to a terrorist and then having said terrorist detonate it in the middle of Times Square or what not.

To act like Saddam didn't want to harm the U.S., and wouldn't have jumped at a chance to hurt the US, is disingenuous.

I also realize this is the same debate we've been having for four years now, so I'll shut up now.

onelongsong · February 2007

NCfan wrote:

Well then why don't you try looking at it objectively then.

1 - Who cares what percentage of Americans think about anything... I bet most Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map, what does that prove?

2 - Nobody was concerned about Iraq's military, we were concerned about two things. We thought they had WMD's and just like Afghanistan, Iraq had large lawless expanses of land where terrorists could hide and plot against the US - and we had every reason to believe Saddam would be simpathetic to their cause.

let's not forget saddam paid the families of the hijackers tying him to the incident.

angelica · February 2007

NCfan wrote:

The government there rules according to religion. Don't even try to say that the US or any other western country is comparable - becuase you just make yourself look stupid.

So what? Live and let live. Your not suggesting ethnocentrism, are you--expecting the world live by your values, are you?

Here is one simple, yet revealing aspect of Iranian society. In Iran, if you are gay - you can be punished with death by hanging. Now - can you people seriously, serioulsy think about that for a second?

Are you planning on moving to Iran?

In American, people bitch about religous conservatives who won't allow gays to marry. No imagine if the religous right in our country wanted to lynch gays, because that is what you're dealing with in the Iranian government.

These are the values and morals the Iranian government is trying to impose on its people.

It sounds like you are unable to get your mind around an entirely different way of life.

But now, Iran is playing a hand that will influence and expand these values around the region. That is a big time problem.

What? You don't like them for their lifestyle and you think we need to put a stop to that?

I'm sure we can all agree here on this board that nations that sanction hanging for homosexuals is not a good thing.

I probably disagree with the way most of the people on this board live their lives. And some people I believe think in ways that are potentially dangerous. What do you suggest I do?

The reason Iran wants a bomb is not to destroy Israel. They need it to preserve their regime. Consider it insurance. Nobody attacks a nation that has a nuke...

So basically, if they get a nuke - you can prolong the ammount of time on this earth before the belief that gays should be excecuted is no more.

Trying to get us to rally based on this ethocentric gay thing just does not wash with me.

Abuskedti · February 2007

NCfan wrote:

I think you don't understand a few things. One, I agree that they are just people like us - but only the massses of citizens - not the government.

But we aren't dealing with plain people, we are dealing with the government. We are dealing with a president who denies the holocaust andcalls for Israel to be "wiped off the map". We are dealing with a man who leaves no rooom for interpretation when it comes to his faith.

There is nothing to negotiate with these people... Kind of like Japanese soldiers in WWII who fought to the death instead of surrendering to preserve their beliefs.

We should negotiate in good faith even if what you say is entirely true. Though I believe we can be an ally of absolutely anyone - and by doing so, as times marches on, we will come closer and closer together.

But even if that is impossible - our attempts to negotiate in good faith will bring other nations to our side - and the people of Iran may find a way toward new leadership.

If we continue to act as though our only plan is to eliminate Iran - we will get a war - and we will suffer badly from it.

onelongsong · February 2007

Abuskedti wrote:

We should negotiate in good faith even if what you say is entirely true. Though I believe we can be an ally of absolutely anyone - and by doing so, as times marches on, we will come closer and closer together.

But even if that is impossible - our attempts to negotiate in good faith will bring other nations to our side - and the people of Iran may find a way toward new leadership.

If we continue to act as though our only plan is to eliminate Iran - we will get a war - and we will suffer badly from it.

ever hear the phrase:
you can't reason with an unreasonable person.
read the article. he said he wouldn't negotiate. not one iota. so now we start no fly zones and blockades. then see if he wants to negotiate. if we wait until they have full nuclear availability; what do we have to negotiate with?

Pearl Jam and toast · February 2007

reborncareerist wrote:

The Iranians are pushing limits precisely because they can ... The U.S. cannot afford to use military force at this time, so they are basically seeing what they can get away with. I personally find the country's politics and approach to religion absolutely loathesome, but I am willing to concede that Iran may very well be all bark and no bite. They'd be a pile of molten sand if they attacked Israel, even if they do manage to develop more chemical weapons, or nukes. We have to pay some attention to Iran, but maybe we shouldn't pay more attention than they deserve ... That president of theirs' seems to thrive on media attention.

i agree.

Abuskedti · February 2007

onelongsong wrote:

ever hear the phrase:
you can't reason with an unreasonable person.
read the article. he said he wouldn't negotiate. not one iota. so now we start no fly zones and blockades. then see if he wants to negotiate. if we wait until they have full nuclear availability; what do we have to negotiate with?

He hasn't said he won't negotiate.. In fact he has repeatedly invited us to talk. He has only said that he won't halt his nuclear plans.

There is much to talk about - much ground to break... there are many solutions to this problem that fall short of their not enriching uranium.

and even if we can not prevent their production of nuclear weapons - there are things we can work out to prevent their use -

We need to sit at the table and talk.. it makes no sence not to - expecially when all we do is assume the worst about them when we don't.

onelongsong · February 2007

Abuskedti wrote:

He hasn't said he won't negotiate.. In fact he has repeatedly invited us to talk. He has only said that he won't halt his nuclear plans.

There is much to talk about - much ground to break... there are many solutions to this problem that fall short of their not enriching uranium.

and even if we can not prevent their production of nuclear weapons - there are things we can work out to prevent their use -

We need to sit at the table and talk.. it makes no sence not to - expecially when all we do is assume the worst about them when we don't.

they've proven to be a hostile country. if they don't follow the rules they must be punished. or do we pick and choose who's allowed to break the rules?

Abuskedti · February 2007

onelongsong wrote:

they've proven to be a hostile country. if they don't follow the rules they must be punished. or do we pick and choose who's allowed to break the rules?

sorry but that sounds ridiculous to me. First because We are definately a hostile country - and second because you suggest that somehow it is up to us to set the rules and enforce the rules for other soverign nations...

We don't .. No.

We merely exist with this country - our only excuse for talking about military action should be for our own security - and Iran poses no threat to our security.. and as was said before - they are well aware of the consequences they will face if they use nuclear force against us or israel or anyone else.

Last Exodus · February 2007

Rue D'Awakening wrote:

it doesn't make sense for it to just be for civilian energy consumption. iran has the world's largest reserve of natural gas. they could get by on natural gas for several centuries before running out. nuclear power is more expensive, worse for the environment, and more dangerous, given the risk of a meltdown. they want the bomb.

Well its simple. Networks of underground centrifuges are naturally meant to produce electricity only. how naive of me..

Last Exodus · February 2007

Commy wrote:

the gov't of Iran, as bad as it is, is about as much a threat to the world as Iraq was, which is to say almost none. The US on the other hand....

but you are right in way. they are trying to protect themselves, if indeed they are pursuing WMD's. But they are only doing so to protect themselves from a very powerful and dangerous superpower that has been involved in the region's affairs for over 60 years.

And there isn't much we can do about Iran, being Americans. The US gov't is something we can affect, and also much more dangerous to the world, and so we should be focussing our attention it anyway.

thats bullshit. weve never threatned Iran or any other middle eastern country with nuclear weapons. they are doing the same thing the north koreans are doing, building nukes to blackmail the west. they have no viable reason to all of a sudden need nuclear weapons to defend against Israel either. Iran and Israel have never engaged in war. Israel has only had conflict with the Sunni muslim states.

Abuskedti · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

thats bullshit. weve never threatned Iran or any other middle eastern country with nuclear weapons. they are doing the same thing the north koreans are doing, building nukes to blackmail the west. they have no viable reason to all of a sudden need nuclear weapons to defend against Israel either. Iran and Israel have never engaged in war. Israel has only had conflict with the Sunni muslim states.

We haven't threatened them with nukes - true. But we certainly threaten them - with some very serious weapons capable of virtually making Iraneans extinct. They can see it by looking just across their border.

trappedinmyradio · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

Is the United States going to continue to be the bad guy here? All diplomatic means are being used, and the Iranians continue to be belligerent. When Saddaam flouted the UN at least we gave him no fly zones and sanctions that really hurt. Well see what the UN does this time...My guess...NADA.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/21/iran.nuclear/index.html

if you want to start waving the violation of international law flag, you might want to see who is looking back at you in the mirror.

fuck · February 2007

Lol, wow I just read the entire topic, and this is what I have to say...

First of all, the US has been trying to piss Iran off. This is seen several times, like when they keep kidnapping Iranian diplomats in Iraq, claiming they "supply terrorists" when there's no proof of that because in reality they just wanna find an excuse to prolong their stay in the Middle East. Iran has called for diplomatic talks with the US several times, which the US has denied, thus proving the US doesn't even want to talk to them and that they are completely against them. Also, Iran never threatened Israel, just said that it "should" be wiped off the map. It may still be bad, but look up the definition of a threat, and that is not it.

Also, there are many, many reasons Iran wants to search for nuclear energy. They definitely do NOT have enough oil for "centuries" as it's been significantly decreasing for a while, and they are a major exporter in oil. Nuclear energy is going to be needed in the future, what's wrong with them looking at the big picture?

Iran would never attack Israel or the US. Trust me, they'd wait for an attack first, though we all know the US would also rather them attack first. The US is trying to bait them towards an attack on them, or even Israel. Also, I don't know what you guys are talking about because if Iran and Israel went to war, Iran would win. But then the US jumps in and all hell breaks loose. We have Russia and China and all these other countries on the side, as well.

In the end though, the US has broken international law for so long, that it's quite hypocritical for anything to be said. and the US HAS threatened Iran several times and military tactics have been revealed, proving that US may be planning an invasion in Iran that would lead to World War III, but the US is fucking stupid.

Rue D'Awakening · February 2007

angelica wrote:

Wait. You were the one who expressed the point that your quotes were not being addressed. I addressed them and now you are changing the subject? Let's get back to addressing your quotes. Please show me the imminent danger?

Maybe there is possible future threat. Maybe there is reason to keep our eyes open. Maybe there is plenty of reason to keep a level head and to continue assessing what is happening.

If you have evidence of imminent danger I would love to hear it.

i'm sorry, but i really don't think you addressed those quotes at all. what i read was very convoluted and (in my opinion) pretentious. i didn't mean to change the subject by citing the example of the rise of the nazis and how nobody seemed to take them at their word until it was too late. the lessons we all should have learned from the rise of hitler are these:

-never assume that someone is simply given to verbal hyperbole. when they talk about wiping you out, you take them seriously.
-just because someone expresses a will or desire that you find morally repulsive, that doesn't mean that they are being irrational.
-there is always someone else who is willing to do something that you are not.

i provided the quotes of iranian leaders because i'm arguing that they can't be trusted to behave as the communist states did with their nuclear weapons. the quotes serve as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of this.

i am sick and tired of everyone who disagrees with me on this simply repeating themselves like a broken record. if you think it doesn't matter that Rafsanjani said that it is acceptable for Iran to suffer a nuclear strike in order to annihilate israel, you're going to have to provide your own EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that shows how your reached that conclusion. For fuck's sake, don't just say "iran won't nuke israel cause they'll get nuked too" for the one billionth time, we all know this. It obviously doesn't end there.

Rue D'Awakening · February 2007

Commy wrote:

the gov't of Iran, as bad as it is, is about as much a threat to the world as Iraq was, which is to say almost none.

Iran has been behind bombings and assassinations in Europe. It was responsible for the largest terrorist attack in South American history, the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed almost 100 people. Hezbollah launched its war with Israel last summer at Iran's behest to deflect attention from the un security council considering sanctions on Iran. Iran was also behind the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in the 90's.
Iran is already such a destabilizing force in the region and the world, it will only get worse if they have nuclear deterrence, even if they don't use the bomb preemptively.

Last Exodus · February 2007

Rue D'Awakening wrote:

Iran has been behind bombings and assassinations in Europe. It was responsible for the largest terrorist attack in South American history, the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed almost 100 people. Hezbollah launched its war with Israel last summer at Iran's behest to deflect attention from the un security council considering sanctions on Iran. Iran was also behind the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in the 90's.
Iran is already such a destabilizing force in the region and the world, it will only get worse if they have nuclear deterrence, even if they don't use the bomb preemptively.

All this is true, but alas, some things will never change in this world. Since the threats are being made to wipe a Jewish state off the map, no one cares. Im sure if Ahmadinijad threatened to wipe the US, or Canada, or Britain, or France off the map, Iran would already be a parking lot. The world has come so far since 1939...

catefrances · February 2007

Last Exodus wrote:

All this is true, but alas, some things will never change in this world. Since the threats are being made to wipe a Jewish state off the map, no one cares. Im sure if Ahmadinijad threatened to wipe the US, or Canada, or Britain, or France off the map, Iran would already be a parking lot. The world has come so far since 1939...

if ahmadinijad threatened to wipe the US or canada or france or britain off the map, the respective governments of those countries would laugh at him. and rightfully so.

So now that Iran has clearly violated International Law...

Comments

Categories