American politicians attempt to intervene in internal politics of peaceful middle-eastern country.

[213374U]

I agree the US needs to stay out of this, but I'm a bit surprised LoF is against a people's movement like the one that has slowly been building up in Iran over the years.

Where did I say that I was against the "people's movement"? Just curious.

What's all this about a "people's movement"?

 

Mousavi isn't an enemy of the regime as he's being romantically portrayed in the media. He's just the current visible head of the other "wing" of the Islamic Revolution. Just another run of the mill power struggle in a totalitarian state. Nothing to see here, move along.

[Sand]

Resistance organizations primarily go after military targets. Terrorist organizations primarily go after civilian targets. Hezbollah primarily goes after civilian targets, thusly is a terrorist organization.

[Calax]

Resistance organizations primarily go after military targets. Terrorist organizations primarily go after civilian targets. Hezbollah primarily goes after civilian targets, thusly is a terrorist organization.

Eh, not really. Resistance vs terrorism vs freedom fighter is really just a matter of perception.

[Volourn]

"The last war Iran was involved in was a war of self-defense, western imperialist. Their current government has never invaded another country, which is more than you can say for yours."

 

Let's not forget their repeated interverence in Iraq.

 

 

"Resistance vs terrorism vs freedom fighter is really just a matter of perception."

 

Nonsense. That's what terrorist apologists want us to believe. There's a huge difference between a terrorist and freedome fighter. iraq is a good example of this. Some of the people who opposed the US warviolently did so by targeting the Amerikan army occuping the country while otehr purposefully targeted innocent Iraqis and did so on so called holy ground like churches or non occupuation related areas like markets. It's pretty obvious what category these two thinsg falls under.

 

 

"Regardless, he should we tried for the 9/11 attacks on the US or by an impartial party."

 

Since the 9/11 attacks weren't technically a war crime, h should be tried in the US. That said, at this point, there could never be a 'fair'm trial for Bin laden anywhere in the world. Plus, the guy has confessed, anyways. *shrug*

 

 

"Would he? Do you know that? Can you give me evidence that would prove that?"

 

It was all talk anyways. No way would would the Taliban put Bin Laden on trial. Besides, have you seen how the Taliban conduct themselves? They're savages. The fact youd efend them is sad since they are not the ideal representatives of the Muslim faith or any government worth its salt.

 

The Iran gov't is a joke, and everyone knows it - espicially the Iranian people. On top of that, Iranians on the whole don't even hate the US (thoguh, obviously, they don't agree with everything the US does).

 

As for Amerikan politicians attempting to intervene in a 'peaceful' country, ALL countries do that. Every single last one of them. Only difference is that the avst majority of countries ar ejokes and have no power and infleunce in order to do so. Iran, btw, makes a habit fo trying to intervere in Amerikan politics. Where's your outrage?

[Humodour]

Reminder that, much like election fraud in Venezuela, the supposed "Iranian nuclear weapons program" has little-to-no evidence supporting its existence.

 

In other news, the Pope is actually Muslim.

[Calax]

So, we're proposing to attack a country because of it's leader who possibly got put in place via voter fraud, when we're supporting a leader who was put in place via voter fraud (Afganistan)?

[lord of flies]

It was all talk anyways. No way would would the Taliban put Bin Laden on trial. Besides, have you seen how the Taliban conduct themselves? They're savages. The fact youd efend them is sad since they are not the ideal representatives of the Muslim faith or any government worth its salt.

The Taliban is not Al-Qaeda. The Taliban is (was?) a somewhat functional, if extremist, government. Al-Qaeda is a tiny, and far more extremist, terrorist organization. It is not inconceivable to imagine that the Taliban could have been convinced to hand over Al-Qaeda leadership, though whether or not they would succeed is an entirely different question.

As for Amerikan politicians attempting to intervene in a 'peaceful' country, ALL countries do that. Every single last one of them. Only difference is that the avst majority of countries ar ejokes and have no power and infleunce in order to do so. Iran, btw, makes a habit fo trying to intervere in Amerikan politics. Where's your outrage?

Nonexistent, much like the situation you describe. Does Iran give money to the Republicans? To the Democrats? Just saying "we kind of like this candidate more" is a lot different than giving massive amounts of funds to political parties.

In other news, the Pope is actually Muslim.

Okay, why don't you offer up some intelligence agency's analysis of Iranian nuclear capabilities and attempts to produce their weapons? Until then, you're just as dumb as everyone who thought that Iraq actually had nuclear weapons (actually dumber, since the United States had some of its high-ranking military officials lie about that).

[Rostere]

LoF is completely right that there's no hard evidence that Iran is producing a nuclear bomb. However, it is also true that if Iran develops nuclear power it will be a very short step to also make nuclear bombs. And unless you have spies among the people involved in the project, it would be almost impossible to detect. So if you're arguing of however Iran is actually producing a nuclear bomb, the people who say they are not will, except under extraordinary circumstances, always win a comparison of facts.

 

But then, Israel and maybe North Korea have nuclear capability. Pakistan and India, in addition to Israel, have nuclear arms but have declined to sign the NPT treaty. The US has actually used nuclear arms against civilians. So there are already a lot of nations who own nuclear arms under doubtful conditions.

[Humodour]

But then, Israel and maybe North Korea have nuclear capability. Pakistan and India, in addition to Israel, have nuclear arms but have declined to sign the NPT treaty. The US has actually used nuclear arms against civilians. So there are already a lot of nations who own nuclear arms under doubtful conditions.

 

The problem with countries like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea owning nuclear weapons is that they would possibly be willing to sell them to terrorists (Iran and North Korea), or sloppy in their safeguards (all three), or states liable to collapse (mainly Pakistan, but all three) - meaning government leadership (who controls the bombs) could change hands very rapidly.

[Sand]

True enough. I am more worried about Pakistan having nuclear weapons than Iran might be making nuclear weapons. In any case I am expecting Israel to do a preemptive strike on Iran soon. Israel has taken Iran's threats for its destruction very seriously, as it should, and probably attack Iran.

[lord of flies]

The problem with countries like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea owning nuclear weapons is that they would possibly be willing to sell them to terrorists (Iran and North Korea)

This will never happen. It is a ludicrous fantasy, countries don't waste huge parts of their budgets developing nuclear weapons to try to do some terrorism. First of all, it's very, very likely to come back to bite them, and secondly, the size of nuclear weaponry means it's very, very difficult to smuggle them anywhere.

 

Edit: Iran is not a serious threat to Israel, just look at a map to see why. Hint: they'd have to go through several other countries to get there, other countries which are US regional allies.

Edited February 19, 2010 by lord of flies

[Sand]

This will never happen. It is a ludicrous fantasy, countries don't waste huge parts of their budgets developing nuclear weapons to try to do some terrorism. First of all, it's very, very likely to come back to bite them, and secondly, the size of nuclear weaponry means it's very, very difficult to smuggle them anywhere.

 

I can see Iran giving a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah if they intended to use it on a Israeli target.

[Gfted1]

Edit: Iran is not a serious threat to Israel, just look at a map to see why. Hint: they'd have to go through several other countries to get there, other countries which are US regional allies.

 

 

Hint: Iran has no intention of occupying Israel, but of destroying it. The dont need to go through anybody when they can accomplish their goal by going over everyone via ballistic missile.

[Volourn]

"Nonexistent, much like the situation you describe. Does Iran give money to the Republicans? To the Democrats? Just saying "we kind of like this candidate more" is a lot different than giving massive amounts of funds to political parties."

 

Oh, please. It's not just about monney. Iran keeps making threats to the US over the US being allies with Isreal. They've made it clear that one of the reasons they oppose the US is their friendship with Isreal. Demanding one country breaks ties with another coutnries before you play ball with them is intervering with another country's politics. Like I said, all coutnry's iintervere with other countries. That's a part of being partn of the world. Suck it up.

 

 

"The Taliban is not Al-Qaeda. "

 

Why repeat soemthing you already said in the thread when I claimed no such thing. They were closely allied with AQ. No way no how would they give up AQ. And, they most certainly would not have handed Bin Laden over.

 

 

" It is not inconceivable to imagine that the Taliban could have been convinced to "

 

Doubtful. Not even a threat of losing power got them to agree with that. Any attempt at flat out bribery would ahve led to theb same sort of situation that the world is stuck in with NK. Constant bribery with no real results. *shrug*

[lord of flies]

Hint: Iran has no intention of occupying Israel, but of destroying it. The dont need to go through anybody when they can accomplish their goal by going over everyone via ballistic missile.

Hint: this situation will never happen. Firstly, because Israel has the bomb. I don't really need to give other reasons because that one's plenty.

 

Israel whinges about every third country in the middle east because they don't automatically submit to the Israelis. Does that mean Israel is going to nuke Palestine or Syria? A question for the ages.

Oh, please. It's not just about monney. Iran keeps making threats to the US over the US being allies with Isreal. They've made it clear that one of the reasons they oppose the US is their friendship with Isreal. Demanding one country breaks ties with another coutnries before you play ball with them is intervering with another country's politics. Like I said, all coutnry's iintervere with other countries. That's a part of being partn of the world. Suck it up.

That's called diplomacy. It's very different from pledging material support to opposition groups.

I can see Iran giving a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah if they intended to use it on a Israeli target.

That's because you are an idiot. "I can see the Soviet Union giving a nuclear weapon to the CPUSA if they intended to use it on a government target." "I can see the United States giving a nuclear weapon to the mujahideen if they intended to use it on the People's Republic of Afghanistan."

 

Aiding resistance groups in other countries is a cheap way of forcing your opponent to waste more resources than you; for every gun you hand Hezbollah, Israel needs to spend money to pay for warm bodies, firearms, transport, food, etc. On the other hand, a nuclear weapon is really, really expensive and an equivalent response to it can only be aimed at other states (e.g. yours).

[Hurlshort]

I'm actually a lot more concerned that Pakistan has nukes than I am over Iran getting them.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Hurlshot

[Morgoth]

I'm actually a lot more concerned that Pakistan has nukes than I am over Iran getting them.

Don't worry, when Pakistan tries to launch a missile, it will probably crap out inside the silo and blow up right in their faces.

[Gfted1]

Hint: Iran has no intention of occupying Israel, but of destroying it. The dont need to go through anybody when they can accomplish their goal by going over everyone via ballistic missile.

Hint: this situation will never happen. Firstly, because Israel has the bomb. I don't really need to give other reasons because that one's plenty.

 

 

Oh ok, since you said so....

 

Israel whinges about every third country in the middle east because they don't automatically submit to the Israelis. Does that mean Israel is going to nuke Palestine or Syria? A question for the ages.

 

Yes, truley baffling. Oh wait, Iran constantly proclaims to the world that they want to "wipe Israel from the map" while Isreal has never threatens anyone. Obviously thats exactly the same.

[Sand]

I'm actually a lot more concerned that Pakistan has nukes than I am over Iran getting them.

Don't worry, when Pakistan tries to launch a missile, it will probably crap out inside the silo and blow up right in their faces.

I thought that was North Korea's routine.

[lord of flies]

 

Oh ok, since you said so....

It's called MAD. Perhaps you've heard of it? Contrary to popular belief, the leaders of Iran still have their brains screwed on straight.

Yes, truley baffling. Oh wait, Iran constantly proclaims to the world that they want to "wipe Israel from the map" while Isreal has never threatens anyone. Obviously thats exactly the same.

lol yeah, Israel never threatens everyone. Oh wait, they threaten lots of people, such as Iran, Syria, and Palestine. Israel's military doesn't exist for fun; it's a silent threat to all its neighbors.

 

I want to wipe Israel off the map. Does that mean if you gave me a nuclear bomb, I'd blow up Jerusalem (or any other Israeli city)? No. There is a huge difference between wanting a country or state gone, and being willing to use nuclear force. For example, the United States wants the Democratic People's Republic of Korea gone, yet is unwilling to use nuclear force (of course, this is partly MAD, since the largest mass of artillery in the world is aimed at Seoul). Despite being the only nation which has shown a willingness to use nuclear weapons in offensive strikes, the United States has invaded countries across the world without ever using the Bomb, many of whom could not defend themselves from it.

[Hurlshort]

 

Oh ok, since you said so....

It's called MAD. Perhaps you've heard of it? Contrary to popular belief, the leaders of Iran still have their brains screwed on straight.

Yes, truley baffling. Oh wait, Iran constantly proclaims to the world that they want to "wipe Israel from the map" while Isreal has never threatens anyone. Obviously thats exactly the same.

lol yeah, Israel never threatens everyone. Oh wait, they threaten lots of people, such as Iran, Syria, and Palestine. Israel's military doesn't exist for fun; it's a silent threat to all its neighbors.

 

I want to wipe Israel off the map. Does that mean if you gave me a nuclear bomb, I'd blow up Jerusalem (or any other Israeli city)? No. There is a huge difference between wanting a country or state gone, and being willing to use nuclear force. For example, the United States wants the Democratic People's Republic of Korea gone, yet is unwilling to use nuclear force (of course, this is partly MAD, since the largest mass of artillery in the world is aimed at Seoul). Despite being the only nation which has shown a willingness to use nuclear weapons in offensive strikes, the United States has invaded countries across the world without ever using the Bomb, many of whom could not defend themselves from it.

 

That comes off as extreme LoF. You want to wipe an entire country off the map? It's really pushing into anti-Semitic territory.

[lord of flies]

That comes off as extreme LoF. You want to wipe an entire country off the map? It's really pushing into anti-Semitic territory.

The land is rightly Palestinian, and Israel is a brutal, racist apartheid regime which engages in regular attempts at depopulation of Palestine. My opposition to Israel has nothing to do with the ethnicity of its population; if the situations were reversed, I'd be opposed to Palestine. Attempting to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is an obvious attempt to deflect any criticism of the indefensible Israeli state.

[Sand]

I still say the Palestinians got what they deserve when they chose to go to war with Israel back in the 60's. They were given a chance for peace then but chose war. Iran is alao part of a culture that believes martyrdom will get you 72 virgins in heaven. I don't think that the leaders of Iran are worried about MAD.

[Hurlshort]

Have you looked at the history of the region? That land has changed leadership an incredible amount of times. It has been Israel for over 60 years.

 

The Palestinians have a long line to get in when it comes to people who have been pushed off their land.

[lord of flies]

Have you looked at the history of the region? That land has changed leadership an incredible amount of times. It has been Israel for over 60 years.

 

The Palestinians have a long line to get in when it comes to people who have been pushed off their land.

Did you even look at my post? Israel is a brutal apartheid state which engages in regular terror attacks on civilian targets.