🇮🇷 The Iran Thread II

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, I recall when Poland was enriching uranium in hardened, underground facilities, testing long range missiles and threatening to wipe Germany off the map (they've actually used some stronger rhetoric in recent times). Those crazy Poles.

Where's Neville Chamberlain when you need him?

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I keep hearing people say "give them sanctions" and "just bomb nuclear sites"...

I posted this in the facebook group for the program I T.A. for, and I'm posting it here:

Bombing nuclear zones and making sanctions are both terrible ideas. What the government and most importantly the MEDIA should do is provide support for the student protestors. They’ve lacked interest in this area (or at least up until the death of Michael Jackson swept the front page) and since then, the Islamic Republic has come down on them with an iron fist.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Yes, I recall when Poland was enriching uranium in hardened, underground facilities, testing long range missiles and threatening to wipe Germany off the map (they've actually used some stronger rhetoric in recent times). Those crazy Poles.

Where's Neville Chamberlain when you need him?

Enriching uranium
Kinda makes sense if you're being threatened with attack by Israel or the US every single day, doesn't it?

Testing long range missiles
Yes, how dare those monsters prepare to defend themselves if attacked!

Threatening to wipe Country X off the map
Maybe if you read the correct translation of that statement (wanting Israel to "vanish from the page of history"), you wouldn't repeat such idiotic propaganda.

But I'm sure none of these considerations will alter your neocon-derived view of world politics, where it's always 1938, every diplomatic squabble is a new Munich, and every leader the U.S. doesn't like is the new Hitler.

 

[Thundercrack85]

So they are building nuclear weapons, but only for self defense? Okay, well, at least they're only half-lying. And they're building missiles to defend themselves from a country that has a problem with them because of what again? (hint: see above).

Right, mistranslation. I'll take your word for it. But, is, Israel is a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut" also a mistranslation? How many quotes do you want me to dig up from this year alone? Not that the quote "vanish from the pages of history" is much better.

If this was 1938, and Hitler talked like this, even Chamberlain would have trouble selling his brand.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

So they are building nuclear weapons, but only for self defense? Okay, well, at least they're only half-lying. And they're building missiles to defend themselves from a country that has a problem with them because of what again? (hint: see above).

Excuse me - what?

Right, mistranslation. I'll take your word for it. But, is, Israel is a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut" also a mistranslation? How many quotes do you want me to dig up from this year alone? Not that the quote "vanish from the pages of history" is much better.

How about this: Post them here and I'll translate them for you. I hate Western Propaganda as much as the next person, but I hate the Islamic Regime a million times more, so you can be sure I'll give you an unbiased translation.

If this was 1938, and Hitler talked like this, even Chamberlain would have trouble selling his brand.

Out of curiosity, (and I agree with the comparison - I just don't think you know why it's a valid one) but what makes you compare the rulers of Iran to the rulers of Nazi Germany?

 

[Thundercrack85]

He (comrade Axl) said they're enriching uranium because they're being threatened by the US and Israel. Presumably if you're enriching uranium because you feel threatened, you're not doing it so you can build a power plant.

I have read enough quotes. But I appreciate the offer.

Someone compared the US to Nazi Germany on the last page. A rather poor and lazy analogy, and ironic since one is led by an anti-Semtic despot, with a cult of personality, and his sidekick questions whether or not the holocaust happened.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

He (comrade Axl) said they're enriching uranium because they're being threatened by the US and Israel. Presumably if you're enriching uranium because you feel threatened, you're not doing it so you can build a power plant.

I have read enough quotes. But I appreciate the offer.

Someone compared the US to Nazi Germany on the last page. A rather poor and lazy analogy, and ironic since one is led by an anti-Semtic despot, with a cult of personality, and his sidekick questions whether or not the holocaust happened.

Let me give an analogy for what you're saying.

There are two world leaders. One is anti-Semitic, and the other attacked nations that did not threaten his country. According to you, I can't compare the second politician to Hitler for launching wars of aggression, but you can compare the first politician to Hitler for being an anti-Semite. Is that correct?



Believe me, that will be my last Nazi analogy on this forum (even though I just posted a link).



And I never said Iran wasn't trying to build nuclear weapons - that was the head of U.S. intelligence. I just said if they were, I probably wouldn't blame them. Why isn't anybody talking about the hundreds of nuclear weapons Israel already has?

 

[8wid]

How long would an occupation of Iran take? Iraq lasted about nine years and once the war in Afghanistan ends, it will be thirteen years. Combined, the landmass of both those countries would be half the size of Iran, and not even a third of the population in that more urban environment. Can you say at least a twenty year occupation of US and NATO forces? Imagine how much this will add to the US defecit without including the economic affects such as hyperinflation and rising gas prices. Can you imagine thinking another thought like in Iraq that Iran would be a cake walk and also only an aerial war. That is until a 9/11 size attack we always feared Osama Bin Laden would have planned comes to Washington D.C., London, or New York City as a direct result of our attack on Iran.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Let me give an analogy for what you're saying.

There are two world leaders. One is anti-Semitic, and the other attacked nations that did not threaten his country. According to you, I can't compare the second politician to Hitler for launching wars of aggression, but you can compare the first politician to Hitler for being an anti-Semite. Is that correct?



Believe me, that will be my last Nazi analogy on this forum (even though I just posted a link).



And I never said Iran wasn't trying to build nuclear weapons - that was the head of U.S. intelligence. I just said if they were, I probably wouldn't blame them. Why isn't anybody talking about the hundreds of nuclear weapons Israel already has?

Nazis are the go to villain. I don't deny that I've beaten that dead horse a few times. But my point is simply that Iran is not some helpless country that's facing imperialistic aggression. It's actively provoking. And being an anti-semitic dictator obsessed with wiping out Jews does generally bring up a certain name.

I was referring to that specific "what if".

Israel has had them for half a century. It's not news. Now maybe if they started to threaten to wipe out other countries...

 

[Asteroid-Man]

He (comrade Axl) said they're enriching uranium because they're being threatened by the US and Israel. Presumably if you're enriching uranium because you feel threatened, you're not doing it so you can build a power plant.

Again, he was talking about enriching uranium, you're talking about them ACTUALLY fashioning nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will NOT be made in Iran - the students will make sure of that. They've already hacked the government computers multiple times (with the world media thinking it was the Israeli and American governments).

I have read enough quotes. But I appreciate the offer.

The point was that you had already made mention of a mistranslation and that there is a very high likelihood that your source of "quotes" could be one of propaganda.

Someone compared the US to Nazi Germany on the last page. A rather poor and lazy analogy, and ironic since one is led by an anti-Semtic despot, with a cult of personality, and his sidekick questions whether or not the holocaust happened.

Ah, the anti-semetic card. No, that's not why it's like the Nazi regime. The Islamic Republic's problems with Israel are more political than anything else, where as Nazi Germany's was ethnic. The Islamic Republic is well aware that ethnically speaking, they come from the same origins as their own Prophet, Muhammad.

So then, wherein lies the similarities?

Lets start from the ground up, shall we? First of all the persecutions of the gays - the gay community in Iran is persecuted in a similar fashion to that of the Nazi regime; this is brought up in American media because of the gay-rights issues apparent in the west as well. Sort of like "You think we're bad? At least we're not as bad as Iran!!"

Then we come to women - again, the West has yet to achieve equality of Men and Women, especially in the area of work opportunities and equal pay, but again "You think we're bad? At least we're not as bad as Iran!!"


Drawing attention to problems with the enemy regime also apparent in their own countries is something that the United States, England and Canada all did during the second World War. They take a look at the issues citizens of their country are most passionate about and apply it to their enemy. Granted Nazi Germany was worse than Canada, USA and UK, but not once did either of those three countries make it an official reason that they had entered the world war to save the Jews. Simply put, they didn't care and neither did most citizens of their own countries.

Now fast forward to 1978 - Prior to the revolution in 1979, a religious minority in Iran had been persecuted since its inception in 1863. Although persecutions of this minority was no longer an official platform of Iran into the 20th century, they continued unofficially. The Baha'is of Iran had been under attack.

Iranian Revolution, 1979 - After the revolution, it became official government policy to have all Baha'is removed from work and school. Their marriage licenses will null, as were any of their diplomas and degrees which they might have obtained before the Islamic Regime. They were then rounded up, placed under surveillance, house arrest, were subject to public humiliation, imprisonment, torture and even death - all of this continues TO THIS DAY.

THAT is why the Islamic Republic of Iran is comparable to the Nazi Regime in Germany - not it's relationship with Israel.

Does the media cover it? Have you heard of this before? Shall I recount the endless atrocities inflicted upon the Baha'is of Iran for you, or do your little "quotes" give you that too?


The fact is, all Governments and Media have agenda's. The current agenda with Iran, believe it or not, is one of oil - strings are pulled all in better business. If war is declared, there's generally a huge insurance check to be collected by the political party in power.

To take either side of this argument is just foolish. There is no "side" to this issue. It's as simple as looking into all of the facts and understanding why people (politicians, news stations, religious elitists etc) say and do what they do.



It saddens me - no it disgusts me to see people's opinions predisposed by those pulling the strings.

 

[8wid]

FIRST IRAQ AND NOW IRAN---HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Why do you keep comparing Iran to Iraq? Sure the American government is using the same excuses as they did with Iraq (for the most part) but the actual issues are hand are COMPLETELY different.

 

[Dr. Evil]

I do not see a war with Iran happening because I don't see Europe getting involved, mainly because Europe has other issues to worry about than Iran at this point (oh, it's an issue that they have concerns about, but its not at the top of their list).

I say this because Europe has economic matters to worry about, namely trying to stabilize the Euro and trying to ease tensions between The British and the rest of the EU (especially France and Germany) over that issue. Plus, several countries in Europe have recently had new leaders (Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Greece) that may decide that talks are the only way to go in dealing with the Iran issue. Also, France has a major election coming up and the last thing Nicolas Sarkozy needs is to support the US and Israel in military action against Iran, so he will want to go with the diplomacy route if he wants to be re-elected.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Nazis are the go to villain. I don't deny that I've beaten that dead horse a few times. But my point is simply that Iran is not some helpless country that's facing imperialistic aggression. It's actively provoking. And being an anti-semitic dictator obsessed with wiping out Jews does generally bring up a certain name.

Are you aware that Ahmadinejad, as President, doesn't even have that much power? The man with the real decision-making authority is Ali Khamenei. His title kinda gives it away: "Supreme Leader".

But hey, it's so much easier to fit reality into a pre-existing historical archetype. So Ahmadinejad is an "anti-Semitic dictator" instead of what he is, which may be an anti-Semite, but is certainly not a dictator.

Nobody can deny that the Iranian leadership says some incredibly stupid and offensive things. But this is all about domestic politics; there's a parliamentary election this year in Iran. Haven't you noticed that American politicians - Republicans and Obama alike - are threatening Iran more than usual, also in an election year?

Politicians, be they American, Iranian or Israeli, are always happy to win support by demonizing an external enemy.

Israel has had them for half a century. It's not news. Now maybe if they started to threaten to wipe out other countries...

It may not be news (though I think it would be to many North Americans), but it's amazing how it's simply never mentioned in almost any of the stories out there about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon. Don't you think it's a little unusual, not to mention hypocritical, when a country with hundreds of nuclear weapons - or in the case of the U.S., many thousands - is constantly telling us that another country getting one would be some kind of apocalyptic threat?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Are you aware that Ahmadinejad, as President, doesn't even have that much power? The man with the real decision-making authority is Ali Khamenei. His title kinda gives it away: "Supreme Leader".

But hey, it's so much easier to fit reality into a historical archetype.

Nobody can deny that the Iranian leadership says some incredibly stupid and offensive things. But this is all about domestic politics; there's a parliamentary election this year in Iran. Haven't you noticed that American politicians - Republicans and Obama alike - are threatening Iran more than usual, also in an election year?

Politicians, be they American, Iranian or Israeli, are always happy to win support by demonizing an external enemy.



It may not be news, but it's amazing how it's simply never mentioned in almost any of the stories out there about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon. Don't you think it's a little unusual, not to mention hypocritical, when a country with hundreds of nuclear weapons (or in the case of the U.S., many thousands) is constantly telling us that another country getting one would be some kind of apocalyptic threat?

Actually I was quoting his boss in that one post. If you'll read a page back, I actually point out that the president has little power. Yes, I know the routine. They chant death to so-and-so, but that changes when you start enriching uranium. Those idle threats seem a lot less idle. And most Western leaders have the sense to try not to sound like genocidal madmen. Even in an election year. Most, anyway.

Perhaps. But, I figure inventing them must give you some special ownership rights. The US really should have patented that ****. Russia and China both stole the designs. I'm not crazy about anyone having them. But most of the nations who have them today have shown that they will not use them. Not many people are concerned about Western states (let's count Israel as a Western state for the sake of convenience) starting a nuclear war, or giving them to terrorists.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Actually I was quoting his boss in that one post. If you'll read a page back, I actually point out that the president has little power. Yes, I know the routine. They chant death to so-and-so, but that changes when you start enriching uranium. Those idle threats seem a lot less idle. And most Western leaders have the sense to try not to sound like genocidal madmen. Even in an election year. Most, anyway.

Perhaps. But, I figure inventing them must give you some special ownership rights. The US really should have patented that ****. Russia and China both stole the designs. I'm not crazy about anyone having them. But most of the nations who have them today have shown that they will not use them. Not many people are concerned about Western states (let's count Israel as a Western state for the sake of convenience) starting a nuclear war, or giving them to terrorists.

The United States is the only country in human history to have ever actually used nuclear weapons in war. For it to lecture other countries on nukes is pretty rich.

Speaking of genocide, I guarantee you that if you took half the quotes that right-wing figures in America and Israel always make about Muslims, and changed the word "Muslim" to "Jew", we'd never hear the end of it. But it's perfectly okay to demonize Muslims, because "not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims."

I love how you keep pointing to threatening Iranian rhetoric, but never mention what would happen if they actually got a nuclear weapon. They're not going to use it against Israel, unless they have a death wish (and if you think they do, it just reveals your own prejudice about those barbarous, uncivilized Islamic mullahs). Anyway, there are plenty of hawks in the U.S. and Israel who have used similarly frightening rhetoric, such as pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Iran and other such nonsense.

Remember General Douglas MacArthur advocating a nuclear strike on China during the Korean War? If you were living in China at that time, would you have described the United States as a danger to world peace led by trigger-happy madmen?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, the US used nuclear weapons. And it hasn't since. Not in nearly 70 years. Despite the many wars it fought, despite the many times it was on the brink of total war with the Soviet Union. That should tell you something.

I tell you what. If you find me a modern sitting US President (not a Fox News idiot, or a fringe candidate) that calls another country (or a people) a cancer, that needs to be cut, I'll embrace Marxism.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

What about JFK? He often spoke in such tongue about Russia... but. Also, I find it convenient how you completely ignored the post I made in response to you.

 

[8wid]

Why do you keep comparing Iran to Iraq? Sure the American government is using the same excuses as they did with Iraq (for the most part) but the actual issues are hand are COMPLETELY different.

What issues are COMPLETELY different?

 

[Thundercrack85]

What about JFK? He often spoke in such tongue about Russia... but. Also, I find it convenient how you completely ignored the post I made in response to you.

My apologies, I didn't mean to ignore it.

While I am sure that the moderates in the country don't want nuclear weapons, there's not much they can do to stop it. There's not much anyone can do. They can sabotage the regime's efforts, and low it down, but they can't stop it. Not unless there is a popular uprising that overthrows the theocracy.

I didn't start the Nazi comparisons. I don't know who did (it started a few pages ago). I just pointed out the irony of saying the US is more Nazi-like than Iran. The wanting to wipe out the Jews was just the most "topical" similarity. Obviously there are many more and your points are well made.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, except on the nuclear issue.

JFK may have been pissed off with the Soviet Union, but he never used such language. At least, I'm not aware of any such language. He was the guy who wanted a detente.

 

[8wid]

^JFK is the one who wanted the Russians to accompany the US on a joint space mission to the Moon to plant their flags equally in order to start detante. Nixon, Ford, and Carter continued on this policy until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 showing that the idea was a waste of time with expansionist Russia.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

What issues are COMPLETELY different?

It comes down to the history of Iran vs that of Iraq. Just look into Iraq's personal history and its relationship with the USA and that of Iran too.

While I am sure that the moderates in the country don't want nuclear weapons, there's not much they can do to stop it. There's not much anyone can do. They can sabotage the regime's efforts, and low it down, but they can't stop it. Not unless there is a popular uprising that overthrows the theocracy.

They can and they were, up until the world media and governments stopped covering it. Honestly, all it takes is that exposure, that support, but a revolution in Iran isn't financially beneficial to countries like the USA or the UK because if a revolution occurs by the people of Iran themselves, they would probably nationalise the oil and that would just **** up the international oil market.

 

[8wid]

It comes down to the history of Iran vs that of Iraq. Just look into Iraq's personal history and its relationship with the USA and that of Iran too.

Iraq used to be an ally of the United States and was the buffer state against Iran in case they allied with the Soviets or became a free radical against the West. This is why the Reagan administration sold weapons to Saddam Hussein, including the gas he used on the Kurds and any nuclear technology he had. He turned it against the US by invading Kuwait. Iran's democratic government was overthrown by the CIA with the Shah installed until he was overthrown. In retaliation for this Iraq invaded Iran with support from the West. The US puts up puppets and knocks them down when they want revenge for something that did not going according to their interests. They can be a punching bag for the media to spread war propaganda about and to demonize, or if they don't like the regime, one they are bitter at. Both are played against when the West finds it in their best interest.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well depending who you ask, the Iraq War was started either because Bush intentionally misled the country into war for profit and / or imperialism. Or because he got faulty intelligence, and jumped the gun like a moron.

Obviously no one wants to make that mistake again.

I'm actually surprised that Iran has been fairly peaceful with Arab Spring happening next door.

 

[8wid]

Bush's motive is the fact that he is either a paranoid conservative or a greedy corporatist, chances are its both. Either way he was a puppet for big business interests.

The only way to prevent such large corporate greed and control over the economy is to limit their size to only a certain percentage of the market such as 10% that they are allowed to be the size of so that oligopolies cannot form.