[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, not if you are concerned about eventually not being at war.[/quote]
The war has already started, that’s the point. The question is, do you allow them to continue their proxy war?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Try not to let your hate displace your reason.
[/quote]
My hate? Looking at the reality of Iran’s war against the Iraqis, the Iraq Coalition, the Afghanis, and NATO is hate? So, fighting the enemy who is already fighting you, is hate? I’ve done heard it all.
Try not to let your pompous attitude displace your reason.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I don’t think he is ignoring the past. He is stating Iranian aggression against the US. What I don’t understand about these Iranian sympathizers (and I know from your post Vroom, you ain’t one of 'um) is this:
They blame every crime Iran has committed against the US on the US backing the Shah and it is ok, reasonable, logical ect.
But…when we list the Iranian crimes against us since the fall of the Shah as reasons we try to disrupt their government, it is NOT ok, reasonable, logical, ect.
That is a blatant anti-american arguement.
When you say you would like to see the Iranian government fall, who would you like to see take their place? If the US is backing moderate Iranians and puts them in power in a popular revolution, what harm would that cause?
Couldn’t be any worse than the Ayatollah kicking out the Shah and executing thousands, enslaving women, ect.[/quote]
I agree that the US should not simply be blamed for things, though I think it is important to understand how things are being perceived. It’s a part of figuring out how to end the cycle of hatred in the long term, or so I think, anyway.
I’m honestly not able to say who should take over. Perhaps the citizens could hold real instead of purportedly rigged elections?
What I don’t know is how difficult it might be to remove the extremists and supporters of terrorism from positions of power… it, the power structure, may be somewhat ingrained.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:
Well, not if you are concerned about eventually not being at war.
The war has already started, that’s the point. The question is, do you allow them to continue their proxy war? [/quote]
Well, “the” war that is happening is not simply the events happening in Iraq and Iran.
It is wider than that. I’m talking about the eventual ending of conflict and enmity between East and West, which should be an end goal at some point.
This will require that we understand the East and that they understand the West, well, to some degree anyway.
Anyway, once again, with respect to the proxy war, is it wrong in general or wrong because it is against you? Because, as you know, the US has engaged in proxy wars before itself, and nobody thought that was wrong.
The US will have to decide if it wishes to go to war with Iran. You may not believe it, but I am not strongly anti-war, though I do believe that wars should be started for the right reasons and with an appropriately informed public.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Try not to let your pompous attitude displace your reason.[/quote]
When your posts show some signs of deeper reasoning capability, then I’ll probably start to sound a little less pompous.
Or, maybe not.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Try not to let your pompous attitude displace your reason.
When your posts show some signs of deeper reasoning capability, then I’ll probably start to sound a little less pompous.
Or, maybe not.[/quote]
And when your posts show some signs of an intelligent being behind the computer, I’ll respond. Shall we continue, Vroom? Is this the debate you were hoping for?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And when your posts show some signs of an intelligent being behind the computer, I’ll respond. Shall we continue, Vroom? Is this the debate you were hoping for?[/quote]
Hmm. That means I’d have to agree with your viewpoint, right?
Knock yourself out…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And when your posts show some signs of an intelligent being behind the computer, I’ll respond. Shall we continue, Vroom? Is this the debate you were hoping for?
Hmm. That means I’d have to agree with your viewpoint, right?
Knock yourself out…[/quote]
No, Vroom. It doesn’t mean you’d have to agree with my viewpoint. If that was the case, I’d have made the above comment to you much earlier. After all, there have been many disagreements between us, on a wide range of issues
You questioned my ability to reason by reducing my position to emotionalism. Essentially, you weren’t after an honest discussion between two people who happen to disagree. So, please don’t pin the “I’d have to agree with your viewpoint” on me.
But hey, I should have expected no less from the guy who played the racism card against me in another thread. Which is a funny thing, since I decided to wave that off as a knee jerk emotional outburst.
See, I wasn’t going to beat you up over it. Other folks pointed out how misguided you were in your post. And, at the time, I didn’t want to pile up on you. So, I let it slide for the most part
But, here you are again, Vroom.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Those in glass houses…
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7191
http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2006/11/terror-irans-chief-export/
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/iran_and_alqaeda_in.php
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/11/iran_forging_alliance_with_alq_1.php
http://www.aina.org/news/20060518110454.htm
[/quote]
Ok, so the best you can do are blogs and propaganda websites. Why am I not surprised? I’ll tell you why. If there was any evidence that Iran is arming Al-Qaeda, I would be the first to denounce that, and your commanders certainly wouldn’t be arguing about whether to bomb them or not. Iran would have been history.
Your “references” all talk about shady sources who allegedly reported that something was going on. That’s not evidence. Those are allegations. And just so you know, where I come from, one is innocent until proven guilty.
One of the guys at ThreatsWatch, Steve Schippert, goes as far as say that the ICU is nothing but a branch of Al-Qaeda. That was actually hilarious. He must have the Gulf syndrome everyone’s talking about (yeah, unlike you, he actually fought in a war!).
If applying the same the same standards to both sides will get me your scorn, I say BringItOn! I don’t hold the life of Americans any higher than that of Iraqis or Somalians. I’d go as far as to say that I’d put a greater value on an Iraqi kid than on a US soldier. Anyone with a uniform or a weapon ranks lower in my opinion than innocent civilians.
Mull that over for a second, and come back to me.
And all you are doing here, is support and in some instances downright excuse terrorism by the United States against innocent civilians.
All I saw were blogs and blatant propaganda sites.
You mistake accusation with evidence.
They are not. Anyone who claims otherwise, is just an imbecile.
I’ll be the first to condemn them if any evidence pops up.
Agreed. Absolutely none.
For heaven’s sake, a soldier is captured. Kidnapping only applies to civilians.
How hard is that to understand?
We have been through this accusation a million times. Mahmoud’s speech was mistranslatetd and misinterpreted. The Iranians released official statements explaining what he meant. Try reading some of the statements of the people who have a say in Iranian foreign affairs (hint: it’s not the president)
What is never reported is that Ayatollah Khamenei stated unequivocally immediately afterwards that “the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country”.
Mahmoud himself, spoke on numerous occasions to explain that his words were never meant as a threat
“There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want.”
Now, now, If you’re gonna go into how they arm Hezbollah, that’s a totally different story from saying that they arm Al-Qaeda. One is a grassroots movement established to resist an occupation while the other are a bunch of kooks.
Your attempt to amalgamate is futile. Don’t try that on my watch.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
They blame every crime Iran has committed against the US on the US backing the Shah and it is ok, reasonable, logical ect.
But…when we list the Iranian crimes against us since the fall of the Shah as reasons we try to disrupt their government, it is NOT ok, reasonable, logical, ect.[/quote]
Nothing wrong with your “reason”, Gkhan - you raise a great point.
We hear over and over about Middle Eastern thugocracies “reacting” to stuff we do as the genesis of their mayhem. But this idea should cut both ways - surely stuff they do invites a reaction from the US - but it never does in application by the theorists that peddle it.
EDIT: addressed wrong poster (Sloth).
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Those in glass houses…
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7191
http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2006/11/terror-irans-chief-export/
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/iran_and_alqaeda_in.php
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/11/iran_forging_alliance_with_alq_1.php
http://www.aina.org/news/20060518110454.htm
Ok, so the best you can do are blogs and propaganda websites. Why am I not surprised?[/quote]
Before anyone goes any further, Lixy just accused JeffR of using biased, “propagandistic” sources of news, when only recently Lixy referenced Democracy Now! and Al-Jazeera.
This is almost painful to read.
Lixy, look up the “glass houses” metaphor - it would be useful going forward.
[quote]kroby wrote:
But this is exactly why we vote for representatives. Or is your stance one that rule of law should be completely by polls? [/quote]
First, a referendum is NOT a poll. But that’s just terminology…
Secondly, I never said that representatives were not Ok. I merely stated that a referendum carries more legitimacy than the decision of some head of state.
In the case of Iraq, and seeing how
the population is not only divided on the matter, but lives are actually lost every single day, I’ll say that a referendum is in order. If a similar situation was taking place in the US, you’d be the first to demand a say in the presence of foreign troops on your soil.
Why deny the Iraqis that right? When a state’s infrastructure has been shattered, and an occupation is taking place, the likelihood of the head of state succumbing to demands of the occupying force is great. The chaotic situation stems from the little legitimacy Al-Maliki has. Many accuse him - and his cabinet - of being a pawn of the Americans. Whether that is true or not doesn’t matter.
What’s important is that the important decisions be taken by the people. I believe the presence/withdrawal of US troops is one of them, if not the most important.
Saddam used to kill, torture and even desecrate his political opponents, NOT the civilians minding their own business.
If you, or your entourage, didn’t belong to a separatist movement or a party that wanted Saddam removed, the risks that you’ll be harmed were very low.
Yes, Saddam was a monsterous dictator, but by no means can you compare the stability under his rule to the current clusterfuck. In case you haven’t noticed, bombs explode every day, killing innocents.
Do you have - civilan - family members in Iraq? So, shut the fuck up!
I lost relatives in this idiotic war. They were regular folks with regular jobs, and they were safe under Saddam as long as they kept their mouths shut and played by the rules. Now, the terrorists are blowing up markets for no other reason than to destabilize the fragile country.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So what if America is sorounding Iran, so what if they called Iran “Axis of Evil.” Does that give them the right to supply arms to our enemies? Nothing is forcing them to do so.
The only thing they and Saudi Arabia fear is that the democracy in Iraq would succeed. Because if it did, their governments would come crashing down when their citizens demanded the same.
That is why they arm the enemy. [/quote]
That’s a wild hypothesis, Ghensis, but an interesting one nonetheless.
Why would the Iranians wait for Iraq to become democratic? Is the geopraphical proximity factor of any importance in the digital age? Don’t they see the shiny democratic models of Europe or America? What’s your take on that.
Awww…
Where did I say that it’s OK to arm Iran? Never, that’s where!
All I said was that it’s not OK to arm the Contras. Where the money came from is a moot point.
Invasion? In 1985? What world do you live in? Reagan’s fantasyland?
Grenada was never a threat to the US, and neither was Nicaragua. The problem wasn’t a threat to your sovereignty, but to your economical interests. That’s why you had the army intervene (killing countless innocents in doing so).
Walk me thru the justification about those those two countries and how their fall to the “evil commies”, would have represented a threat to your sovereignty, will you?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So what your saying is it’s ok for Iran to do all of that because we backed the Shah? [/quote]
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that their gutural aversion of anything American is justified. I mean, they witnessed firsthand the ruthless interventionism of the US.
Now, can you find any recent statement that threatens to harm US citizens or destabilize the US government issued by an Iranian official? I seriously can’t think of any.
Until you can come up with one, I’d say that they are “shutting the hell up”.
Here’s what you’re missing: The US occupation of two adjacent countries is perceived as the action against them. Shit, in a previous post, you said that actions against Nicaragua and Chile were justified because of their ties to the Soviets. And those are countries quite far from your borders. What would you have said if the Soviets occupied Canada and Mexico?
A smooth democratic transition. The Iranians determining their own future. Vox populi, vox dei!
And why exactly would you accuse me of lying? Why would I support an Iran that’s regressive, oppresses its youth, and gives a bad name to my religion? Seriously, what reasons do you have not to believe me?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Saddam used to kill, torture and even desecrate his political opponents, NOT the civilians minding their own business.
If you, or your entourage, didn’t belong to a separatist movement or a party that wanted Saddam removed, the risks that you’ll be harmed were very low.
Yes, Saddam was a monsterous dictator, but by no means can you compare the stability under his rule to the current clusterfuck. In case you haven’t noticed, bombs explode every day, killing innocents.[/quote]
The more Lixy types, the more we see inside his diseased ideology.
You make a false distinction between “political opponents” and “innocents”.
Political opponents are innocent civilians - and the ones in most obvious need of protection.
In a ghastly statement, you indicate that if only you “shut up and take it”, you would have suffered very little under Saddam. And, well, if you decided to speak your mind and want different leadership, you were just asking for it.
What an apologist for oppression you are, Lixy. Fake oppression, you are all about action against it. Real, withering oppression, well, you create tolerable caveats as long as it enables you condemn the US.
Anyone else just amazed about how the self-described “humanist” could have made such apologies for the Saddam regime?
Oh, and were the marsh Arabs innocent or guilty in Lixy’s brain fevered world?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Before anyone goes any further, Lixy just accused JeffR of using biased, “propagandistic” sources of news, when only recently Lixy referenced Democracy Now! and Al-Jazeera. [/quote]
I referenced to DN! and Al-Jazeera because they were the first to carry the story (at least 24 hours before other news outlets). The piece presented was actually from the AP, and I gave numerous other media covering the story, when they finally decided to run it. That was at Pat36’s demand and included the “Herald-Tribune” and the “Jerusalem Post”.
Now, crawl back under your rock and stop taking things out of context.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Now, crawl back under your rock and stop taking things out of context.[/quote]
If JeffR’s media are the “first to report” a given topic, why are they any less viable than al-Jazeera or Alternet?
Sorry, Lixy - can’t complain about one and not the other.
EDIT: oh wait - on a second read: is Lixy complaining because the story has to be picked up by mainstream media in order to be valid, and JeffR’s independent media’s reporting of it can’t be trusted?
As if we need further proof of Lixy’s lack of seriousness, he now has competely contradicted himself.
[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Before anyone goes any further, Lixy just accused JeffR of using biased, “propagandistic” sources of news, when only recently Lixy referenced Democracy Now! and Al-Jazeera.
I referenced to DN! and Al-Jazeera because they were the first to carry the story (at least 24 hours before other news outlets). The piece presented was actually from the AP, and I gave numerous other media covering the story, when they finally decided to run it. That was at Pat36’s demand and included the “Herald-Tribune” and the “Jerusalem Post”.
Now, crawl back under your rock and stop taking things out of context.[/quote]
lixy,
Your response to my sources was weak.
The rest of us understand the implications of iran arming al qaeda and the taliban.
Just for fun, lixy, give me 3-4 sources you find reliable.
Thanks in advance,
JeffR
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In a ghastly statement, you indicate that if only you “shut up and take it”, you would have suffered very little under Saddam. And, well, if you decided to speak your mind and want different leadership, you were just asking for it. [/quote]
When you’re under a dictatorship, dissent can become very costly. This is self-evident and I don’t see what problem you have with the assertion.
It’s not apologism. It’s telling it like it is.
Iraq was better off with Saddam. Now, maybe in the long run, things will even out and Iraq will blossom into the democratic stable fairy land Bush’s been blubbering about. But until that happens, I’ll keep saying that the average Joe in Iraq that wasn’t politically active (i.e: 99% of Iraqis) were better off under Saddam. They weren’t constantly fearing suicide bombers on their way to school, markets, jobs, etc…
Go talk to an Iraqi mother then come back to me.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Your response to my sources was weak.
The rest of us understand the implications of iran arming al qaeda and the taliban.
Just for fun, lixy, give me 3-4 sources you find reliable. [/quote]
Honey,
It’s not about the sources. When a story’s got substance, the source don’t really matter much. For that it must be: transparent and verifiable like my story. All one has to do to verify it, is to go to the Iraqi parliament (granted, not the safest place to be) and check the transcripts.
About the accusations of Iran arming Al-Qaeda, I must say that I start getting suspicious when, somebody accuses somebody else of something without proper evidence. My critical nature I guess. It’s most important in the context of international relations, and often, national security will be invoked as the reason for not disclosing the sources. And we all know the abuse that can result from such things. See the WMD scam. That’s why one must remain cautious and always double check what’s presented as “facts”.
I understand the implications of Iran arming Al-Qaeda, and that’s why I said that I’d condemn them as soon as I get proof of that happening. Common sense tells me that Iran collaborating with Al-Qaeda is ridiculous. They would not do that, because of the serious potential consequences. They’re also gaining nothing from doing it, the risk of getting caught is too high, and the consequences could be dire.
Now, if you have ANY evidence backing that up, please provide it. Otherwise, stop trying to build a case on nothing but suspicions. Don’t you people ever learn?