The Iran Thread

[StorminNorman]

Should America give back California?

 

[Kelly]

yes....

 

[Arc-Light]

yes....

To who, not Spain or Mexico the natives who lived in the California territory in the past are few or long gone sadly.

 

[The Overlord]

Should America give back California?

Was it ok for the USSR to take Poland after WWII? Its completely arbitrary whether a war justify a land claim or not. Do you want to continue to ask these pointless questions, I don't, I would prefer coming up with a realistic solution that does away with this same status quo which has made no one happy.

 

[Kelly]

To who, not Spain or Mexico the natives who lived in the California territory in the past are few or long gone sadly.

um, i wasn't actually being serious....

 

[Kelly]

Was it ok for the USSR to take Poland after WWII? Its completely arbitrary whether a war justify a land claim or not. Do you want to continue to ask these pointless questions, I don't, I would prefer coming up with a realistic solution that does away with this same status quo which has made no one happy.

You are asking questions of us, that would actually need to be taken care of by a world court, the United Nations, or some other global organization.

The law is the law....if you want to change it, debate those organizations.


Also, you keep using Poland as your example. Those are apples and oranges.

Poland was a soverign nation taken over by another nation, NOT under any written treaty or international law. Poland was a satellite country of the iron curtain. This is not the same as our acquisition of California or Israel's acquistion of some of their land.

 

[The Overlord]

You are asking questions of us, that would actually need to be taken care of by a world court, the United Nations, or some other global organization.

The law is the law....if you want to change it, debate those organizations.


Also, you keep using Poland as your example. Those are apples and oranges.

Poland was a soverign nation taken over by another nation, NOT under any written treaty or international law. Poland was a satellite country of the iron curtain. This is not the same as our acquisition of California or Israel's acquistion of some of their land.

I just don't buy the justification that winning a war instantly makes a land acquisition legal.

Does anyone think the treaty the UK made China sign after Optimum wars was legit? Just because a treaty is signed doesn't mean the acquisition is legit.

The UN also has resolutions that state the settlements in Gaza and the West bank are illegal, so one cannot invoke the UN at one point and ignore them at another. If Israel is breaking the law say was used to create the Jewish state in the first place, shouldn't it apply to them regarding the settlements?

Frankly treaty that doesn't deal with the fact there are tons of pissed off people in refugee camps, many of whom are willing to use violence to deal with this situation, is worthless treaty, it doesn't address the problems or change the bad status quo.

So the treaties signed by Egypt or Jordan seem worthless to me.

 

[The Overlord]

Should America give back California?

Was it ok for the USSR to take Poland after WWII? Its completely arbitrary whether a war justify a land claim or not. Do want to continue to ask these pointless questions, I don't, I would prefer coming up with a realistic solution that does away with this ame status quo which has made no one happy.

 

[Kelly]

Ok, is there a gremlin on the site, or do you keep posting the same thing?


And my point was, it doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with how the land was acquired. If it is considered by law....then it's theres. The Soviet Unions "influence" over Poland is not the same thing. Poland was not considered Soviet acquired land, by anyone other than the Soviets. WHY? because there was nothing legal about it, so it cannot be used as an example.

Waiting for the echo....

 

[bell110]

You are asking questions of us, that would actually need to be taken care of by a world court, the United Nations, or some other global organization.

The law is the law....if you want to change it, debate those organizations.


Also, you keep using Poland as your example. Those are apples and oranges.

Poland was a soverign nation taken over by another nation, NOT under any written treaty or international law. Poland was a satellite country of the iron curtain. This is not the same as our acquisition of California or Israel's acquistion of some of their land.

I don't see how Palestine not being a soverign nation makes any difference. Taking over someone elses land is never justified, no matter how many treaties or laws are made. And while I agree that using Poland as an example is comparing apples to oranges, so is comparing the US and California to Israel and Palestine.

Personally, I'd love to see Israel pre-emptively strike Iran. Maybe it would get Americans to get off Israel's nuts. But, that's probably wishful thinking.

 

[The Overlord]

Ok, is there a gremlin on the site, or do you keep posting the same thing?


And my point was, it doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with how the land was acquired. If it is considered by law....then it's theres. The Soviet Unions "influence" over Poland is not the same thing. Poland was not considered Soviet acquired land, by anyone other than the Soviets. WHY? because there was nothing legal about it, so it cannot be used as an example.

Waiting for the echo....

I think there is a problem with the site. Also I posted a different post responding to this, just above, respond to that. Respond this, not a double post: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=17033238&postcount=80

 

[StorminNorman]

Was it ok for the USSR to take Poland after WWII? Its completely arbitrary whether a war justify a land claim or not. Do want to continue to ask these pointless questions, I don't, I would prefer coming up with a realistic solution that does away with this ame status quo which has made no one happy.

If Poland signed a treaty with Russia, and if apart of that treaty involved Russia owning the land of Poland, then yes - it was ok. Of course that's not what happen.

Again, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were under the control of Egypt and Jordan before the Six Day War. The war happened. The jews kicked ass. They took the land. Jordan and Egypt signed treaties, those treaties did not include Israel returning the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. There for the land was acquired not simply by warfare, but by treaty.

As far as a realistic solution, one has already been laid on the table.

 

[Arc-Light]

um, i wasn't actually being serious....

I know.......

 

[Addendum]

If Poland signed a treaty with Russia, and if apart of that treaty involved Russia owning the land of Poland, then yes - it was ok. Of course that's not what happen.

Again, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were under the control of Egypt and Jordan before the Six Day War. The war happened. The jews kicked ass. They took the land. Jordan and Egypt signed treaties, those treaties did not include Israel returning the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. There for the land was acquired not simply by warfare, but by treaty.

As far as a realistic solution, one has already been laid on the table.

And Israel stopped governing Gaza in 2005. The Palestinian National Authority runs it now. With the West Bank, that's where things get dicey

 

[StorminNorman]

And Israel stopped governing Gaza in 2005. The Palestinian National Authority runs it now. With the West Bank, that's where things get dicey

Correct. But Israel still had a legal right to Gaza, a legal right they exchanged in 2005 in the hopes of reaching a peace.

That's why people who blame Israel first for this mess are talking completely out of their ass.

 

[The Overlord]

If Poland signed a treaty with Russia, and if apart of that treaty involved Russia owning the land of Poland, then yes - it was ok. Of course that's not what happen.

Again, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were under the control of Egypt and Jordan before the Six Day War. The war happened. The jews kicked ass. They took the land. Jordan and Egypt signed treaties, those treaties did not include Israel returning the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. There for the land was acquired not simply by warfare, but by treaty.

As far as a realistic solution, one has already been laid on the table.

What solution is that, because if it doesn't take into account all those pissed off Palestians in refugee camps its not a good one. Where are going to put those people?

Again read my response to Kel, not the double post. Look at all the slimey treaties the European powers signed with countries, the UK forced China to sign a treaty during the opium wars, which allowed the contiuation of the opium trade UK was promoting in China. Would a treaty that forced one country to accept a drug ring created by another, was legit? I can mention another really famous bad treaty that no recongonizes, but that might go into Godwin's law.


Besides does Eygpt or Jordan have the right sign that type of treaty, how is it their land?

 

[Addendum]

Correct. But Israel still had a legal right to Gaza, a legal right they exchanged in 2005 in the hopes of reaching a peace.

That's why people who blame Israel first for this mess are talking completely out of their ass.

I don't consider one side completely devoid of blame, nor do I dump it all on the other side. I don't consider any side worthy of my trust, nor do I consider any side meriting the benefit of doubt

 

[The Overlord]

Also, some people here seem to forget that during the Potsdam conference, the Western allies signed a agreement recongoinizing the Soviet controlled government there, thus legitimizing the USSR's control over Poland.

So if you go by the logic that treaty instantly makes something legit, the USSR' control over Poland was perfectly legit.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't consider one side completely devoid of blame, nor do I dump it all on the other side. I don't consider any side worthy of my trust, nor do I consider any side meriting the benefit of doubt

Neither side is completely devoid of blame, but Israel shares far less of it.

 

[The Overlord]

Neither side is completely devoid of blame, but Israel shares far less of it.

Ultimately it is silly argue who has more or less blame here, that solves nothing.

I will say I think Israel acts in a far less foolish manner then the various regimes that control the Palestinian areas, such as the current Hamas regime in Gaza or even the old PLO.

Hamas engages in pointless actions that do nothing but enrage Israel, which is a foolsh thing to do, never start a war you can't win. If The Palestians used non violent tactics, they would have far more moral authority, but they don't do that and they have started to earn the disgust of the entire Western World. By electing Hamas the Palestians have chosen to be goverened by a group that seems to be spoiling for a war they cannot win, which is very foolish. Also the death cult Hamas fosters amongst the Palestinians really doesn't help them. They are making themselves into a pariah.

Now I think Israel also does foolish and immoral things, but I think would like their internal society better then the Palestinian one.

 

[Kelly]

I think there is a problem with the site. Also I posted a different post responding to this, just above, respond to that. Respond this, not a double post: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=17033238&postcount=80

Ok, sometimes we do get gremlins around here.....

 

[StorminNorman]

Ultimately it is silly argue who has more or less blame here, that solves nothing.

I will say I think Israel acts in a far less foolish manner then the various regimes that control the Palestinian areas, such as the current Hamas regime in Gaza or even the old PLO.

Hamas engages in pointless actions that do nothing but enrage Israel, which is a foolsh thing to do, never start a war you can't win. If The Palestians used non violent tactics, they would have far more moral authority, but they don't do that and they have started to earn the disgust of the entire Western World. By electing Hamas the Palestians have chosen to be goverened by a group that seems to be spoiling for a war they cannot win, which is very foolish. Also the death cult Hamas fosters amongst the Palestinians really doesn't help them. They are making themselves into a pariah.

Now I think Israel also does foolish and immoral things, but I think would like their internal society better then the Palestinian one.

I think it's foolish to pretend we shouldn't take sides here.

One side targets civilians in their attacks, the other drops leaflets warning them before attacks.

One side willingly elects a terrorist group whose aim includes the elmination of the other, the other side has elected both liberal and conservative leadership.

Most importantly, one group is an American ally and vitally important to the war on the terror, the other isn't.

America shouldn't play both sides here.

 

[StorminNorman]

Sources: Iran denies UN nuke agency camera request

VIENNA – Diplomats say Iran has rebuffed a bid from the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency to beef up its monitoring ability at a key atomic site.

The diplomats say the International Atomic Energy Agency had asked to place one or more additional surveillance cameras at the Natanz enrichment site, but that the request was turned down by the Islamic Republic in recent weeks.

The also say the IAEA is concerned that Iran will use its recent denial of access to Natanz to agency inspectors seeking a surprise visit as a precedent to refuse additional such inspections.

The three diplomats demanded anonymity Thursday because their information was confidential.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nuclear_agency_iran_1

 

[Asteroid-Man]

In the past few weeks, there have been many people gathering in the streets, chanting forbidden chants, and yelling out against Ahmadinejad in support of Mousavi. There was a ten kilometer long human chain in Tehran in support of Mousavi and it seemed to already be a win for him. However election night came, text messaging and internet were disabled, the days before only Ahmadinejad was given time on TV, Ahmadinejad openly threatened to expose all those officials and Mullahs who were stealing money and called out Mousavi's wife on unjustly getting her PhD. Last night both Mousavi and Ahmadinejad claimed a win but early this morning, the Ayatollah, Khameneyi came and called Ahmadinejad as the leader. The streets were filled with youth (70% of the Iranian population are between the ages of 18 and 30) and they have been openly yelling and chanting against the Ayatollah! Chants and riots against the supreme leader haven't happened since the Revolution thirty years ago.

They have been changing things like "Death to the Dictator". We have to understand that people don't actually want Mousavi to win, they just wanted a change. Now they are going to take it by force. People have been calling for Reza Pahlavi (exiled Prince of Iran) to come back and help them take back the country as they don't have a leader for their Resitance, finally Pahlavi has answered the call and he said that he will return but the first step is for the citizens to not attend work and school. This was done during the last revolution aswell. The Pastars (the Ayatollah's armed guards and National police force) have begun firing back at the youth protestors. Other chants are saying things like "Political Prisoners must be freed!" and chants in support of the Baha'is too! My mother told me she hasn't seen rallies, chants and opposition like this from the people since the last Revolution.

The people of Iran are requesting for no other contries to intervene as foreign help has hurt the country so many times before. The last generation made a mistake, the new Generation is there to fix it. If a revolution like this happens so many Baha'is and citizens in exile can return to their motherland either just for visit or to move back.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

From USA today:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Supporters of the main election challenger to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clashed with police and set up barricades of burning tires Saturday as authorities declared the hard-line president was re-elected in a landslide. Opponents responded with the most serious unrest in the capital in a decade and charges that the result was the work of a "dictatorship."

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, closed the door on any chance he could use his limitless powers to intervene in the disputes from Friday's election. In a message on state TV, he urged the nation to unite behind Ahmadinejad, calling the result a "divine assessment."

But Ahmadinejad's main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, has rejected the result as rigged and urged his supporters to resist a government of "lies and dictatorship."

ISRAEL RESPONDS: Iran vote shows growing threat
ON DEADLINE: More details about the election
ONLINE: Iranians spread the 'I voted' word on Facebook

The clashes in central Tehran were the more serious disturbances in the capital since student-led protests in 1999 and showed the potential for the showdown over the vote to spill over into further violence and challenges to the Islamic establishment.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Barack Obama | Iran | Mahmoud Ahmadinejad | Gamal Abdel Nasser | Mir-Hossein Mousavi | Ali Khamenei | Mehdi Karroubi

Several hundred demonstrators — many wearing the trademark green colors of Mousavi's campaign — chanted "the government lied to the people" and gathered near the Interior Ministry as the final count was announced. It gave 62.6% of the vote to Ahmadinejad and 33.75 to Mousavi, who served as prime minister in the 1980s and has become the hero of a youth-driven movement seeking greater liberties and a gentler face for Iran abroad.

The turnout was a record 85% of Iran's 46.2 million eligible voters. Two other candidates received only a fraction of the vote.

Protesters set fire to tires outside the Interior Ministry and anti-riot police fought back with clubs and smashed cars. An Associated Press photographer saw a plainclothes security official beating a woman with his truncheon.

In another main street of Tehran, some 300 young people blocked the avenue by forming a human chain and chanted "Ahmadi, shame on you. Leave the government alone."

Mousavi's campaign headquarters urged people to show restraint.

Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli, who supervised the elections and heads the nation's police forces, warned people not to join any "unauthorized gatherings." Earlier, the powerful Revolutionary Guard said it would not tolerate any challenges by Mousavi's "green" movement — the color adopted by Mousavi's campaign.

"I'm warning that I won't surrender to this manipulation," said a statement on Mousavi's website. "The outcome of what we've seen from the performance of officials ... is nothing but shaking the pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran's sacred system and governance of lies and dictatorship."

He warned "people won't respect those who take power through fraud."

The headline on one of Mousavi's websites: "I wont give in to this dangerous manipulation." Mousavi and key aides could not be reached by phone.

It was even unclear how many Iranians were even aware of Mousavi's claims of fraud. Communications disruptions began in the later hours of voting Friday — suggesting an information clampdown. State television and radio only broadcast the Interior Ministry's vote count and not Mousavi's midnight press conference.

Nationwide, the text messaging system remained down Saturday and several pro-Mousavi websites were blocked or difficult to access. Text messaging is frequently used by many Iranians — especially young Mousavi supporters — to spread election news.

At Tehran University — the site of the last major anti-regime unrest in Tehran in 1999 — the academic year was winding down and there was no sign of pro-Mousavi crowds. But university exams, scheduled to begin Saturday, were postponed until next month around the country.

The state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported that Ahmadinejad plans a public address later Saturday in Tehran.

Even before the count began, Mousavi declared himself "definitely the winner" based on "all indications from all over Iran." He accused the government of "manipulating the people's vote" to keep Ahmadinejad in power and suggested the reformist camp would stand up to challenge the results.

"It is our duty to defend people's votes. There is no turning back," Mousavi said, alleging widespread irregularities.

Mousavi's backers were stunned at the Interior Ministry's results after widespread predictions of a close race — or even a slight edge to Mousavi.

"Many Iranians went to the people because they wanted to bring change. Almost everybody I know voted for Mousavi but Ahmadinejad is being declared the winner. The government announcement is nothing but widespread fraud. It is very, very disappointing. I'll never ever again vote in Iran," said Mousavi supporter Nasser Amiri, a hospital clerk in Tehran.

Bringing any showdown into the streets would certainly face a swift backlash from security forces. The political chief of the powerful Revolutionary Guard cautioned Wednesday it would crush any "revolution" against the Islamic regime by Mousavi's "green movement."

The Revolutionary Guard is directly under the control of the ruling clerics and has vast influence in every corner of the country through a network of volunteer militias.

In Tehran, several Ahmadinejad supporters cruised the streets waving Iranian flags out of car windows and shouting "Mousavi is dead!"

Mousavi appealed directly to Iran's supreme leader, Khamenei, to intervene and stop what he said were violations of the law. Khamenei holds ultimate political authority in Iran. "I hope the leader's foresight will bring this to a good end," Mousavi said.

Iran does not allow international election monitors. During the 2005 election, when Ahmadinejad won the presidency, there were some allegations of vote rigging from losers, but the claims were never investigated.

The outcome will not sharply alter Iran's main policies or sway major decisions, such as possible talks with Washington or nuclear policies. Those crucial issues rest with the ruling clerics headed by the unelected Khamenei.

But the election focused on what the office can influence: boosting Iran's sinking economy, pressing for greater media and political freedoms, and being Iran's main envoy to the world.

Before the vote count, President Obama said the "robust debate" during the campaign suggests a possibility of change in Iran, which is under intense international pressure over its nuclear program. There has been no comment from Washington since Ahmadinejad was declared the winner.

In Israel, the deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, said "the re-election of Ahmadinejad demonstrates the increasing Iranian threat."

Former President Jimmy Carter said he expects no major change in Iran's policies.

"I think this election has bought out a lot of opposition to his policies in Iran, and I'm sure he'll listen to those opinions and hopefully moderate his position," said Carter after meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-06-13-iran-vote-saturday_N.htm