Iran

growler

Deleted User wrote:

Oh come on, of course Iran are going to deny that they werent involved in supplying arms to the insurgents. The evidence is completely against their statements. How do you explain the captured weapons cache's arriving from Iran or Iranian technology being used in IED's?

.

IIRC the insurgents are largely sunni, Iran is largely shia, it doesn't make much sense for them to be arming groups to kill their co-religionists.

growler

Gurgle wrote:

Iran does not call for the destruction of Israel. Iran objects to the creation of Israel in the middle east, by displacing millions of Arabs, and the subsequent decades of oppression of those people.

As they point out over and over again, the Jews were not victimised by the Arabs, but by the Europeans. If they were to be 'given' a homeland, to prevent any future holocost, it should have been in europe.

I pretty much agree with that sentiment.

Germany was divided into 2 parts after WW2, why not 3 parts with one of them being New Israel?
.

Well its done now, for all the problems it caused it sure ain't going to be undone again, so they might as well get used to the fact and get on with something more constructive than a revisionist wish to rewrite history.

growler

growler wrote:

IIRC the insurgents are largely sunni, Iran is largely shia, it doesn't make much sense for them to be arming groups to kill their co-religionists.

Well I am not Iranian and do not knnow their grand plan. I know that the insurgency in Iraq is made up of different terrorist groups united under one goal but with different agendas. Even some Iraqi shi'ite parties like SCIRI and al'dawa have strong links to Iran.

As for the insurgents the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is a puppet to Iran and on a tv interview Muayed al-Nasseri, commander of Saddam's "Army of Muhhammad," said his group received weapons and cash form both Iran and Syria.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

The Jewish homeland (Israel) was always historically in the middle east.

Yeah, right up until the 7th century.

Deleted User wrote:

So are you telling me that the should just set up their home in a chunk of eastern Germany?

No, I'm saying they should have done so in 1945.

Deleted User wrote:

That would go against their Religion.

So somewhere in the old testament it says 'thou shalst not live in germany' ?

Deleted User wrote:

As for Iran as I have already said, they have backed the militant organisation Hezbollah. Hezbollah has caused many deaths in Israel. There is no love lost between them.

1. Whats your point?
2. Wheres your proof?

growler

growler wrote:

the invasion of kuwait, the iran war.

Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. The Iran-Iraq War, 1980–88.

The intervening 13 years of peace (from 1990) hadn't provided any indication that Iraq wasn't going to invade/attack another nation, since the US aggressively showed any such act would be met with force. Saddam wished to remain in power, so why would Saddam have risked giving US forces a valid reason t invade and topple him from power....?

In the interests of non proliferation I don't think any more nations should be allowed to develop nukes, if they were I would rather those nations were stable democracies than unstable, undemocratic, **god** fearing, theocracies.

Non proliferation is a joke, with the US able to provide training and research information to any of its allies.

As for being unstable, undemocratic, **god** fearing, theocracies, I wonder how many non-western peoples feel the same about the countries that currently have nukes.... And even then, Iran doesn't qualify for all of those points as shown in previous posts on this thread.

Most countries develop weapons for destruction. Whats your point?

:rolleyes: You know what I meant.. The US is still researching weapons like the MOAB's, massive Bunker Busters and other weapons that have a such a high yield, that they could be classified as wmd's.

Who do you think would be in a position to force the US to do such a thing? Even if it were possible, I'd answer no, as I've stated before..broadly speaking I agree with the US ideals I may not agree with all their actions, but in the current geo-political situation they are the only power capable of policing the planet.

A Coalition of the Willing? I don't know. But you're basically saying that because the US is the most powerful, its perfectly ok for them to adopt whatever rules they wish. They can have nukes, but nobody apart from their allies can (nevermind that Iraq was an ally once). Nevermind the differences between Iran and the US. The US has been more warlike that Iran has. But hey they're too powerful to confront, so we must support them.

You agree with their goals but not how they go about it. So if they felt that they were justified in nuking or carpet bombing Iranian cities(regardless of civilian casualties), while you didn't support their actions, you'd still approve of the goals?

Don't you mean extremely selective policing? Since there are constant wars around the world that the US doesn't involve itself in, I wonder how much is really policing..... Iraq was a danger to nobody except itself. And even then, the reports I've seen online show more civilians dying since the invasion than if Saddam would have remained in power.

Do you really believe they're actually policing the world, by actually causu=ing more tensions than before?

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

Yeah, right up until the 7th century.


No, I'm saying they should have done so in 1945.


So somewhere in the old testament it says 'thou shalst not live in germany' ?


1. Whats your point?
2. Wheres your proof?

About Hezbollah... please get informed. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah.htm

The Jews have credited Israel as their land for the last 3000 years. This should answer your questions on its history etc. which is not disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Historical_roots

growler

Deleted User wrote:

Do you really believe they're actually policing the world, by actually causu=ing more tensions than before?

I agree its far from perfect I haven't seen any viable alternative suggested by you though.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

About Hezbollah... please get informed. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah.htm

I am aware and informed about Hezbollah.

They are enemies of Israel, Israel is an 'Ally' of the USA therefore Hezbollah are enemies of the USA.

Does that make them terrorists?
Our country would not exist were it not for the 'terrorists' who we now refer to historically as nationalists.

Funnily enough, the same is true for the good old US of A.

Deleted User wrote:

The Jews have credited Israel as their land for the last 3000 years. This should answer your questions on its history etc. which is not disputed.

Applying the same standards to oppressed peoples - the USA should displace all 300 million of their own citizens of european, african and asian descent, (making no provision for their welfare) and give the entire sub-continent back to the natives.

bonkey

growler wrote:

In the interests of non proliferation I don't think any more nations should be allowed to develop nukes, if they were I would rather those nations were stable democracies than unstable, undemocratic, **god** fearing, theocracies.

growler wrote:

There is no proof that Iran is currently seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

nuff said.

growler

growler wrote:

I agree its far from perfect I haven't seen any viable alternative suggested by you though.

Perhaps let governments govern themselves without western interference?

Throw support behind the UN all the time, rather than when it just suits them?

Personally I prefer the second option.

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

Applying the same standards to oppressed peoples - the USA should displace all 300 million of their own citizens of european, african and asian descent, (making no provision for their welfare) and give the entire sub-continent back to the natives.

Its only since WW2 that the occupation and complete change of ownership of land has become "wrong". Neither Palestine nor Israel existed as nations in modern terms until the UN mandate created their existance. Before that there was Palestine, a British Colony.

The Republic of Ireland was created by a rebellion against British interests. There never was a Nation called Ireland (by modern standards, unless you count the motley collection of lords and vassels) before the British conquered us, and made us subjects of the Empire.

Prior to the USA, it was a patchwork of British & French territories, and Indian peoples.

Going back hundreds of years means squat. For a dynasty you go back to as reference, someone else will go back two hundred years to find the previous occupiers. What counts is what is there now.

Israel and Palestine, as recognised by the UN. Thats all that should matter if people really wanted to solve this issue.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

Israel and Palestine, as recognised by the UN. Thats all that should matter if people really wanted to solve this issue.

I agree, but its not as simple as people wanting to solve the issue.
Each side wants to defeat their enemies and win.

With the Iraq war, the UN lost a lot of its credibility and so Iran cannot rely on the UN to prevent an invasion by the US.

Its only too easy for the US to roll over any country. They have by far the best equipped forces in the world, there has to be more than an army to stop them.

We've seen from Afghanistan and Iraq that they can't control a country once they've taken it, we've seen from N. Korea that they won't take a chance on major damage to themselves or their allies from nukes.

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

I agree, but its not as simple as people wanting to solve the issue.
Each side wants to defeat their enemies and win.

Agreed. But I get tired of people saying that Palestinians or Israeli's have more right to the regions in question, in reference to ancient times.

With the Iraq war, the UN lost a lot of its credibility and so Iran cannot rely on the UN to prevent an invasion by the US.

Again agreed. Once the lead members decided to take matters into their own hands, they relegated the UN into a powerless organisation. Sanctions don't work, which means that military intervention is the only real weapon it has. Unfortunate that the leading members aren't reliable in their committment to the the UN. This isn't solely targeted at the US btw.

Its only too easy for the US to roll over any country. They have by far the best equipped forces in the world, there has to be more than an army to stop them.

And yet the reality of the world is that nations only respect force. And the US will only bow to a nation or a group of nations that have either superior economic or superior militarialistic force. But then the US forces because of the technology they rely on are vulnerable. Remember the US hasn't faced a modern equipped army since WW2. All its opponents were poorly equipped or poorly trained in comparison.

We've seen from Afghanistan and Iraq that they can't control a country once they've taken it, we've seen from N. Korea that they won't take a chance on major damage to themselves or their allies from nukes.

No nation can control another country anymore. Those days are gone. Its taken Iraq for the US military to understand this. The Israeli's have been trying for decades, and they've never managed it. subjectation of another country is a thing of the past, unless you can hide your actions of punishment, or are too powerful for anyone to interfere.

Yup. If the enemy has the weapons to strike back at their home soil, the US won't intervene. Which is why I can understand the supposed rush by Iran to get Nuclear weapons since Bush has spoken on mnay occasions on how the Axis of Evil must be defeated. One down, Iraq. Having nuclear weapons may be the only deterent to US aggression.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

Sanctions don't work, which means that military intervention is the only real weapon it has. Unfortunate that the leading members aren't reliable in their committment to the the UN. This isn't solely targeted at the US btw.

Sanctions do have an effect though - on the poorest people in the country.

They are the ones left short of everything from education to electricity, and they are told day after day that the cause of all their problems is the interference from the west.

Whats that going to lead to... hmmm... terrorists?

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

Does that make them terrorists?

What makes them terrorists is the acts of terrorism they have under taken. Like the firing of Katyusha rockets into Israeli territories or the kidnapping of civilians. They believe in the destruction of Israel aswell.

In 2004 a Dutch internal security AIVD (like their CIA) declared that Hezbollah’s political and terrorist wings are controlled by one coordinating council. Now the Dutch make no distinction between the terrorist and political branches of Hezbollah.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

What makes them terrorists is the acts of terrorism they have under taken. Like the firing of Katyusha rockets into Israeli territories or the kidnapping of civilians.

Dont get me wrong, I am not justifying violence on either side, and never against non-combatants.

My objection is to Israel/USA taking the holy high ground against the muslim terrorist lunatics. Israel fires rockets into civilian areas too. The US drops big bombs on areas populated by non-combatants. The US drags people off to concentration camps and holds them there for years without charge or trial.

InFront

Deleted User wrote:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did call for Israel to be wiped off the map.

The link you posted is out of date, later it was clarified by Tehran that the statement referred to removing occupied Palestine territory (Israel) from the page of history by returning it to the Palestinians. Im not a fan of his as I already said, but Ahmedinejad has already cleared that up, and said that wiping israel of the map is not what he meant, it was bad translation.

And lets not forget that Queenstown, King County and Sackville Street were also 'wiped of the map'... it doesnt mean nuking the place.

Oh come on, of course Iran are going to deny that they werent involved in supplying arms to the insurgents

.

And I say to you that of course the opposers of Islamic states are going to claim such unproven stories. I dont know if its true, I suspect some very senior people are involved, yes, but it is just that - suspicion - I cant prove it and neither can you so stop acting like the dogs in the strret 'know' it. It , again is not fact.

InFront

InFront wrote:

The link you posted is out of date, later it was clarified by Tehran that the statement referred to removing occupied Palestine territory (Israel) from the page of history by returning it to the Palestinians. Im not a fan of his as I already said, but Ahmedinejad has already cleared that up, and said that wiping israel of the map is not what he meant, it was bad translation.

That is still a widely debated issue. I am aware of some of the translations but they are ambigous. I should have posted both meanings.

About Iran's suposed involvement in Iraq...the evidence is growing and in my opinion is undeniable. Jack Straw would certainly diagree with you. On a BBC radio broadcast he said and I quote
"What we have presented to the Iranians is evidence which, in our judgment, clearly links the improvised explosive devices which have been used against British and other troops mainly in the south of Iraq to Hezbollah and Iran,"

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

Sanctions do have an effect though - on the poorest people in the country.

They are the ones left short of everything from education to electricity, and they are told day after day that the cause of all their problems is the interference from the west.

Whats that going to lead to... hmmm... terrorists?

Totally Agree.

Deleted User wrote:

About Iran's suposed involvement in Iraq...the evidence is growing and in my opinion is undeniable. Jack Straw would certainly diagree with you. On a BBC radio broadcast he said and I quote
"What we have presented to the Iranians is evidence which, in our judgment, clearly links the improvised explosive devices which have been used against British and other troops mainly in the south of Iraq to Hezbollah and Iran,"

But it doesn't necessarily suggest that the Iranian government have taken a direct hand in supplying the "insurgents" in Iraq with these explosives. They could have been given/sold from a number of different sources, including the guns trade. But even that aside, how much US weaponry finds its way back to US/British troops from the hands of Iraqi "insurgents"?

It seems too convenient that the Iranians have been supplying the "insurgents" with their own manufactured explosives. I doubt they'd be that foolish, when they could buy & supply weapons from other sources, without leaving any trail to themselves......

Just in regards to Hezbollah, I wouldn't be suprised if they had. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if most Arab states had at some stage supplied them. In spite of my obvious support for Israel, I don't understand why this is such a big deal, considering the US has supplied weapons to Israel themselves....