The Iran Thread

[The Senator]

I also love the way that some seem to sympathize more with a brutal, terrorizing, destructive, evil regime simply because they don't like Bush.

Well, Norman, all it takes is a nice long chat between the president and Ahmadinejad, where they can share tea and scones, maybe a few laughs, perhaps share some funny tales about how the presidency has treated both of them... and suddenly Iran will become an ally just like Great Britain. Why, they'll immediately abandon their nuclear program, Ahmadinejad will hold hands with Ehud Olmert while acknowledging that the Holocaust was a real event, and everything will be super-peachy until the sun explodes.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

It's pretty sad that I trust Iran more than I trust our government.

It's sad how much things have fallen for someone to say this,but it does take courage to admit it. Many still pretend it's not this serious,when it is.

 

[Superman4ever]

Are my eyes failing me or does it say BRITISH soldiers...not American?

In your zeal to defend the administration you've missed the point that it doesn't have anything to do with British/American troops (at least not for me anyway), but rather the fact that the Bush Administration, and the media, are SELLING this story among a myriad of other stories as a case for going to war with Iran. They did it for Iraq...it's proven - period! I'm NOT going to get into a silly ass debate with you about whether or not Al-Qaeda was in Iraq. That WAS NEVER the Bush administration's story...it was actually much, much more sinister and deceptive. They stated that SADDAM and AL-aqeda WERE WORKING TOGETHER! The Pentagon confirmed that that was a LIE.

Also what were you linking that proved that Al-Qeada was in Iraq?

The link that I provided is a news story about a PENTAGON investigation (a report that the Bush administration tried to cover up, BTW) that states there was NO "smoking gun" that linked Al-qeada and Iraq. In fact the report stated that there was NO evidence that Saddam sponsered Al-Qaeda and that the only terrorism that he allowed was state wise against Iraqi civilians and Baath party opposition. ALL of this was known to most of the world prior to the war...there was NEVER a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq prior to the war. Saddam crushed ANY opposition, no matter how tiny it was, and Al-Qaeda would have been a HUGE opposition to Saddam's secular regime.

The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."

I don't understand what is so questionable about that statement. Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration fabricated and falsified information to deceive the American and world public into believing that Al-qaeda and Saddam were in partnership. Hello, "Bulletproof" evidence? Again, what is your defense? The Pentagon, nonetheless, hasn't stated that Al-Qeada was in Iraq prior to the war so what the hell are you holding out?

Oh, I forgot your dad knows a guy who knows a guy who's a senator or some crap so OBVIOUSLY you're in the loop on top secret information, or well informed enough to dispute a Pentagon report that states the [evil - lets be straight fourth here, it's EVIL] Bush Administration lied to get us trapped in a illegal, inhumane war.

 

[The Senator]

Oh, I forgot your dad knows a guy who knows a guy who's a senator or some crap so OBVIOUSLY you're in the loop on top secret information, or well informed enough to dispute a Pentagon report that states the [evil - lets be straight fourth here, it's EVIL] Bush Administration lied to get us trapped in a illegal, inhumane war.

I worked for a Senator and our office never received a report which called the Bush Administration evil or said that the war was illegal or inhumane. And I worked on defense issues...

 

[StorminNorman]

In your zeal to defend the administration you've missed the point that it doesn't have anything to do with British/American troops (at least not for me anyway), but rather the fact that the Bush Administration, and the media, are SELLING this story among a myriad of other stories as a case for going to war with Iran. They did it for Iraq...it's proven - period! I'm NOT going to get into a silly ass debate with you about whether or not Al-Qaeda was in Iraq. That WAS NEVER the Bush administration's story...it was actually much, much more sinister and deceptive. They stated that SADDAM and AL-aqeda WERE WORKING TOGETHER! The Pentagon confirmed that that was a LIE.

This story was never a reason for America to go to war with Iran. The reasons America has targeted Iran are based in fact:

You have a President who wants to eliminate Israel, denies the Holocaust and is vehemently anti-Western. He believes he is meant to do God's work to eliminate a race and is not afraid to use nuclear weapons to do so if he can possess them. He has then taken strides to receive these weapons. Iran has been guilty of helping the Iraqi insurrection AGAINST American troops - a reason enough to go to war.

The British capture didn't hurt the cause, but it didn't make it.

Yes, the Pentagon was wrong in saying Saddam and Al-Qaeda were working together - but there was contact between Saddam and Usama - Saddam even offered Usama refuge. Not the amount of cooperation implied by the Pentagon, but still there.

Also what were you linking that proved that Al-Qeada was in Iraq?

In outskirts of Iraq where Saddam had little control - there were Al Qeada training bases. I have this from a friend who was involved in the begining invasion in Iraq.

The link that I provided is a news story about a PENTAGON investigation (a report that the Bush administration tried to cover up, BTW) that states there was NO "smoking gun" that linked Al-qeada and Iraq. In fact the report stated that there was NO evidence that Saddam sponsered Al-Qaeda and that the only terrorism that he allowed was state wise against Iraqi civilians and Baath party opposition. ALL of this was known to most of the world prior to the war...there was NEVER a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq prior to the war. Saddam crushed ANY opposition, no matter how tiny it was, and Al-Qaeda would have been a HUGE opposition to Saddam's secular regime.

The Pentagon quote used in the story - however - was that this statement contradicted a Pentagon statement that said there was Al Qeada in Iraq before our invasion. It does not. Simply because Al Qeada was not working with Saddam does not mean they were present.

I don't understand what is so questionable about that statement. Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration fabricated and falsified information to deceive the American and world public into believing that Al-qaeda and Saddam were in partnership. Hello, "Bulletproof" evidence? Again, what is your defense? The Pentagon, nonetheless, hasn't stated that Al-Qeada was in Iraq prior to the war so what the hell are you holding out?

Oh, I forgot your dad knows a guy who knows a guy who's a senator or some crap so OBVIOUSLY you're in the loop on top secret information, or well informed enough to dispute a Pentagon report that states the [evil - lets be straight fourth here, it's EVIL] Bush Administration lied to get us trapped in a illegal, inhumane war.

For anyone to call this war "illegal" is simply wrong. Saddam broke the cease fire agreements set in place at the end of the Gulf War - that is fact. That alone made the war legal. Period. Bush's problem was by giving us more reasons to go to war. While I believe that Bush's intelligence did state that Saddam had WMD's, he was wrong when he said that Saddam was working with Al Qeada - simply put.

However that does not make the war illegal and it certainly does not make the war inhumane. I guess in your mind the HUMANE thing to do would be to allow Saddam to continue to rape and murder and torture and mutilate innocent men, women in children? To let his sons have freedom to do whatever horrible, evil acts they want to others? Yes - thats REAL humane.

How dare we deliver Iraq from tyranny! How dare we take out a ruthless butcher! Evil America! Praise Iran!

Get in touch with reality, sir.

 

[Superman4ever]

However that does not make the war illegal and it certainly does not make the war inhumane. I guess in your mind the HUMANE thing to do would be to allow Saddam to continue to rape and murder and torture and mutilate innocent men, women in children? To let his sons have freedom to do whatever horrible, evil acts they want to others? Yes - thats REAL humane.

How dare we deliver Iraq from tyranny! How dare we take out a ruthless butcher! Evil America! Praise Iran!

Get in touch with reality, sir.

We delivered Iraq from tyranny, but in doing so killed a MILLION innocent Iraqis because of our unwarranted actions. That's why it's illegal, that's why it's INHUMANE. Because of our being there we've killed 10 times MORE people than Saddam ever did. We drove 3 MILLION people out of their country into refugee camps.

Iraq is number one in the world for the MOST widows in the world. This is what we delivered to Iraq. It now has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world...10 years ago Iraq LEAD the Mid-East. This it the liberation that my people have been so generously been bestowed.

Have you ever spoken to an Iraqi...besides my "out of touch" self? Cause I can get you in touch with a thousand if you're so bold and we can ask them whether or not they'd ask for your type of "liberation" or Saddam. Seriously, you're interested in politics. You know a guy who knows a guy with close ties to a senator. Get to know some Iraqi-Americans, and get their views on this war.

Also, ALL these facts of this war are ignoring the fact that we decimated the country prior to this INHUMANE war with horrifically brutal US-lead sanctions that from 91-98 killed 500,000 CHILDREN.

To simply ignore these number is cruel, irresponsible and sadistic. In America we lost LESS than 3000 people on 9/11. 3000, that's it! Yes, it's a tragedy. Yes, it was a cowardly act of indefensible proportion - see as a Muslim I can admit that. You on the other hand refuse, over and over, to acknowledging the fact that ONE MILLION people have died in 5 years (that's 9/11 EVERY MONTH!). THREE MILLION are out of country refugees because of a war built on LIES, deception and fabricated material.

What MORE do you need than a report from the PENTAGON investigating 600,000 documents that showed NO credible link between AL-Qaeda and Iraq, which was the very foundation, given by the Bush administration, for this war as it was a part of, supposedly, the "war on terror."

So, stay with me here, if the reasons we went to war were groundless and based on lies (the PENTAGON says this NOT me) what would that war be called other than illegal and inhumane given the astronomical HUMAN (remember these are people...I know many of you consider Muslims and Arabs scum, but these are PEOPLE NOT beneath your value) loss.

So who needs the check on reality here?

 

[Superman4ever]

Start beating those war drums.

The rhetoric, by the administration, is EXACTLY the same (blueprint) as it was for Iraq.

[YT]PelbwUn2pzY&feature=email[/YT]

They're even using the cowboy ultimatum.

Watch the commentary, by RealNews, at the end of the CBS broadcast for the real reason for attacking Iran.

 

[rdh007]

He got a resolution authorizing the use of force, did he not?

You used the word "war". I'm splitting hairs, to be certain.

 

[StorminNorman]

We delivered Iraq from tyranny, but in doing so killed a MILLION innocent Iraqis because of our unwarranted actions. That's why it's illegal, that's why it's INHUMANE. Because of our being there we've killed 10 times MORE people than Saddam ever did. We drove 3 MILLION people out of their country into refugee camps.

WE didn't kill a million innocent Iraqi's - Al Qaeda did, the insurgence did, the terrorists did. You point the finger at the wrong party here. You could blame America for Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq - and you would be correct, however Al Qaeda's success can be attributed to the Iraqi's themselves. If the Iraqi people rose up against the terrorists killing their brothers and sisters (which they are doing more and more of late) then Al Qaeda wouldn't have the effectiveness they have now.

But collateral damage does not make a war "illegal" - especially when that damage comes from the opposition and not the American military.

Iraq is number one in the world for the MOST widows in the world. This is what we delivered to Iraq. It now has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world...10 years ago Iraq LEAD the Mid-East. This it the liberation that my people have been so generously been bestowed.

The illiteracy in Iraq was rising in the 90's due to sanctions against Saddam, sanctions put in place because of SADDAM's actions. I also find no internet support for your claim that Iraq is number one in the world for widows. But yes, in the short term Iraq has and is going through hell (a hell that has been prolonged, to an extent, by the Iraqi's and their government's own failings after the war) but the Iraq that will emerge will be a beacon in the middle east if America is allowed to ensure that Iraq is not overcome by Islamic extremists - the reason we MUST stay in Iraq until Iraq. If we leave and allow Iraq to come under siege by the likes of Al Qeada - all the suffering and death has been for nothing.

Have you ever spoken to an Iraqi...besides my "out of touch" self? Cause I can get you in touch with a thousand if you're so bold and we can ask them whether or not they'd ask for your type of "liberation" or Saddam. Seriously, you're interested in politics. You know a guy who knows a guy with close ties to a senator. Get to know some Iraqi-Americans, and get their views on this war.

I have not personally talked to an Iraqi American - but I do know that it was Iraqi refugees in America that fully supported the war against Saddam. They wanted us to come in and take away Saddam. They wanted Iraq liberated - it was well documented. They were in the streets in this country celebrating when Saddam fell.

Also, ALL these facts of this war are ignoring the fact that we decimated the country prior to this INHUMANE war with horrifically brutal US-lead sanctions that from 91-98 killed 500,000 CHILDREN.

Those deaths are on Saddam's hands - not America's (or more realistically, the UN's). Saddam could not be allowed to hold his country at ransom to prevent his evil acts to go unpunished - which is exactly what you are doing. We are damned if we retaliate to Saddam's actions, WE are held responsible instead of the evil tyrant. Thats not realistic.

To simply ignore these number is cruel, irresponsible and sadistic. In America we lost LESS than 3000 people on 9/11. 3000, that's it! Yes, it's a tragedy. Yes, it was a cowardly act of indefensible proportion - see as a Muslim I can admit that. You on the other hand refuse, over and over, to acknowledging the fact that ONE MILLION people have died in 5 years (that's 9/11 EVERY MONTH!). THREE MILLION are out of country refugees because of a war built on LIES, deception and fabricated material.

I hate the amount of innocents caught up in this war - but it is just that a war. A war where the overwhelming majority of collateral damage has come from the terrorists that have targeted civilian death. I have never denied the loss of innocent life in Iraq, nor the extent of it - I simply do not see America as the evil force that is orchestrating it, because its not.

What MORE do you need than a report from the PENTAGON investigating 600,000 documents that showed NO credible link between AL-Qaeda and Iraq, which was the very foundation, given by the Bush administration, for this war as it was a part of, supposedly, the "war on terror."

I KNOW there is no credible link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam - I have said that.

So, stay with me here, if the reasons we went to war were groundless and based on lies (the PENTAGON says this NOT me) what would that war be called other than illegal and inhumane given the astronomical HUMAN (remember these are people...I know many of you consider Muslims and Arabs scum, but these are PEOPLE NOT beneath your value) loss.

So who needs the check on reality here?

How dare you accuse me of not caring about the death of innocents based on their race or religion? It is my position that the death of American troops is worth freeing an entire nation of Muslims and Arabs.

This war is not illegal and the inhumanity of this war can be attributed to Al Qeada, can be attributed to Iran, can be attributed to Arab and Muslim neighbors - not America.

You seem to rather attack America, a country that spends more in foreign aid, does more humanitarian work, leads the world in goodwill. You try to paint this President as evil, but he's not - he has done more for Africa than any other President, he's trying to create a Palestinian state, he's not the boogie man looking for the remains of burnt Iraqi children to eat.

 

[zenile]

Ask yourselves, would the world be a better place with Ahmadinejad removed from power? I'm not a fan of the wag the dog that's been taking place with this administration, but removing Sadam from power was a good thing, for the people of Iraq, and for democracy in general. I think the same can be said for with Iran.

 

[Addendum]

If there is going to be something done with Iran, there has to be a plan of action for after the leader or leaders of Iran are removed from office. Now what that plan of action might be is pretty simple: look at what the administration has done in Iraq and do the opposite

 

[bell110]

Well, Norman, all it takes is a nice long chat between the president and Ahmadinejad, where they can share tea and scones, maybe a few laughs, perhaps share some funny tales about how the presidency has treated both of them... and suddenly Iran will become an ally just like Great Britain. Why, they'll immediately abandon their nuclear program, Ahmadinejad will hold hands with Ehud Olmert while acknowledging that the Holocaust was a real event, and everything will be super-peachy until the sun explodes.

You're starting to sound like Memphis Slim.

Ask yourselves, would the world be a better place with Ahmadinejad removed from power? I'm not a fan of the wag the dog that's been taking place with this administration, but removing Sadam from power was a good thing, for the people of Iraq, and for democracy in general. I think the same can be said for with Iran.

Would it be better? How? How is having him in power negatively affecting China? Switzerland? Brazil? The US? What would happen if someone WORSE took Ahmedinejad's place? Would we invade again and again and again until they have someone we approve of? How has the WORLD benefited from Saddam being gone? How has "democracy" benefited? What if one of these countries democratically elected someone who was anti-west or anti-Israel? Is that a triumph for democracy? Would we welcome this person with open-arms because he was democratically elected or would we take them out of power again and tell their people "try again".

We have NO moral authority to tell ANY country what crappy person can lead their crappy country until we stop electing crappy people into our government.

 

[The Senator]

You're starting to sound like Memphis Slim.

Why? Because I think its outlandish and downright naive to think that all of our problems with Iran will be magically solved if we sit down and talk with their nutjob president? Sitting down with Ahmadinejad isn't going to convince him to stop enriching the most utilized element needed to make atomic weapons. Sitting down with him and discussing our policy in the Middle East isn't going to change his views about the Jewish people. And sitting down and talking with him won't protect the United States or other countries from what could become a full-blown conflict between Iran and Israel.

The problem here is not whether we think war with Iran is bad... I am opposed to going to war with them at this point... but the problem is thinking that someone with such extreme views will be magically convinced to abandon those views simply because our president sat down to discuss "policy."

That's one of the flaws with Obama's campaign and his supporters... they think "policy" is the only thing people care about, and the only thing which drives politics... when character and personal ideology is just as important... I can say I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage all I want, but if I publicly deny that slavery ever happened and said that I wanted to see Africa wiped off the map, people would think I'm a bit nuts... this isn't simply an argument over a nuclear program, it's an argument over the man's person views towards other human beings and countries...

 

[StorminNorman]

Would it be better? How? How is having him in power negatively affecting China? Switzerland? Brazil? The US? What would happen if someone WORSE took Ahmedinejad's place? Would we invade again and again and again until they have someone we approve of? How has the WORLD benefited from Saddam being gone? How has "democracy" benefited?

So a madman seeking nuclear weapons doesn't threaten worldwide security? The removal of a tyrant always betters the world - even it doesn't impact other countries. Democracy has benefited because the people of Iraq actually have a say in their government - they now hold the power to decide there future, that is a good thing. How dare you diminish it? Especially when they risk being targeted by terrorists by executing this power?

What if one of these countries democratically elected someone who was anti-west or anti-Israel? Is that a triumph for democracy? Would we welcome this person with open-arms because he was democratically elected or would we take them out of power again and tell their people "try again".

We have NO moral authority to tell ANY country what crappy person can lead their crappy country until we stop electing crappy people into our government.

Here is where you lose your credibility, because this has already happened. The Palestinian people elected members of a known terrorist organization called Hammas. Did we do anything? No. We condemned the actions because the people knowingly elected...terrorists - but we took no military actions.

 

[bell110]

Why? Because I think its outlandish and downright naive to think that all of our problems with Iran will be magically solved if we sit down and talk with their nutjob president?

Yes.

Sitting down with Ahmadinejad isn't going to convince him to stop enriching the most utilized element needed to make atomic weapons. Sitting down with him and discussing our policy in the Middle East isn't going to change his views about the Jewish people. And sitting down and talking with him won't protect the United States or other countries from what could become a full-blown conflict between Iran and Israel.

Who are we to say they can't have uranium? Are they not allowed to have nuclear power? Just because we were the first to have atomic weapons doesn't make us the sole authority of it. He's allowed to have any views on the Jewish people he wants. It's his God given right. He's not a threat to America, and a full-blown conflict between Iran and Israel is just that; between Iran and Israel.

The problem here is not whether we think war with Iran is bad... I am opposed to going to war with them at this point... but the problem is thinking that someone with such extreme views will be magically convinced to abandon those views simply because our president sat down to discuss "policy."

You're the only one thinking in terms of magic. I never brought up policy, I just said if it's Bush's word vs. Iran, Bush has the burden of proof.

That's one of the flaws with Obama's campaign and his supporters... they think "policy" is the only thing people care about, and the only thing which drives politics... when character and personal ideology is just as important... I can say I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage all I want, but if I publicly deny that slavery ever happened and said that I wanted to see Africa wiped off the map, people would think I'm a bit nuts... this isn't simply an argument over a nuclear program, it's an argument over the man's person views towards other human beings and countries...

Policy may not be the only thing that drives politic, but it's a good foundation to start on.

So a madman seeking nuclear weapons doesn't threaten worldwide security? The removal of a tyrant always betters the world - even it doesn't impact other countries. Democracy has benefited because the people of Iraq actually have a say in their government - they now hold the power to decide there future, that is a good thing. How dare you diminish it? Especially when they risk being targeted by terrorists by executing this power?



Here is where you lose your credibility, because this has already happened. The Palestinian people elected members of a known terrorist organization called Hammas. Did we do anything? No. We condemned the actions because the people knowingly elected...terrorists - but we took no military actions.

That's like saying the Hell's Angels elect their own leader. Palestinians don't have a state. They are just people trying to get their land back. And even if they did, we didn't dispose of their leader and install democracy. I would bet that if Iraq or Iran, after we take what's-his-face out, and they elected another Saddam or what's-his-face, we would invade again in the name of "real" democracy.

 

[StorminNorman]

That's like saying the Hell's Angels elect their own leader. Palestinians don't have a state. They are just people trying to get their land back. And even if they did, we didn't dispose of their leader and install democracy. I would bet that if Iraq or Iran, after we take what's-his-face out, and they elected another Saddam or what's-his-face, we would invade again in the name of "real" democracy.

Yassir Arafat was a world leader, you can't simply dismissed the Palestinian National Authority like that.

 

[MetalloX]

Norman's a far-right **** its better to ignore him.

 

[Addendum]

Yassir Arafat was a world leader, you can't simply dismissed the Palestinian National Authority like that.

It's not like Arafat is in a position to take offense to it

 

[StorminNorman]

Norman's a far-right **** its better to ignore him.

You're adorable. I am actually fairly moderate - I simply find defending the country from terrorist attack and foreign dangers to be a fairly important matter. But I love the way you think you should simply ignore anyone that doesn't agree with you - a real testament to your intelligence

 

[StorminNorman]

It's not like Arafat is in a position to take offense to it

TOO SOON!

 

[Handsome Rob]

Norman's a far-right **** its better to ignore him.

Well, at least he brings substantive, thought-provoking discussion to the table. I looked back at all your posts, since you only have a 100 or so. And, it seems to me that the only things you've brought to the table have been childish insults and name-calling.

You can't really build a discussion around such juvenile behavior. So, it seems to me that the wisest choice for people on here would be to ignore you, at least until you make posts that contain even a slight dusting of maturity in them. I suggest you read up on jmanspice or TheMarx . . . they're two examples of leftists who know how to post.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Norman's a far-right **** its better to ignore him.

No he isn't. He may be a Republican, but Norman is by far not a neo-conservative wackjob.

 

[Matt]

Norman's a far-right **** its better to ignore him.

Ease off the insults, pal.

 

[The Senator]

Yes.

So when we sit down to tea and scones with Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs and they still nuke Israel, what will you say then?

Who are we to say they can't have uranium? Are they not allowed to have nuclear power? Just because we were the first to have atomic weapons doesn't make us the sole authority of it. He's allowed to have any views on the Jewish people he wants. It's his God given right. He's not a threat to America, and a full-blown conflict between Iran and Israel is just that; between Iran and Israel.

I don't really care if Iran is a threat to America, I care if it represents an extraordinary threat to any nation. If Iran wanted a peaceful nuclear program, they would have enriched plutonium instead of uranium. Uranium is the primary element used as fissile matter in nuclear bombs. Of course, I can see your argument that Iran should be able to enrich whatever material it wants for energy purposes.

However, if Iran is solely enriching uranium for energy purposes, they wouldn't need to enrich it at 90% capacity. They would only need to do so at 5-10%. So, why then, are they enriching it at that level? Every other nation who practices in 90% enrichment has gone on to develop nuclear weapons-- the United States, Russia, India, China, etc.

We are not the sole authority over atomic weapons and I do not believe we should be the only power responsible for dictating global nuclear policy. But this isn't a case of one nation thinking they're better than the other. This is a case of looking at the evidence and using common ****ing sense.

If you think all Iran needs is a great big hug and a face-to-face meeting with the President, you're simply naive. And while Ahmadinejad can have whatever views he wants to, the fact that he denies the Holocaust ever happened, the fact that he has said that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map, and the fact that he has taken the necessary steps to ensure future nuclear weapon production implies that he needs to be treated like a threat. Every move he makes needs to be watched with utmost scrutiny.

 

[StorminNorman]

I just wish Metallo would actually try to debate - rather than relying on immature, cowardly name calling.