Chirrac and Iran

BigWilly

PARIS — French President Jacques Chirac backtracked Thursday and said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable, reversing his earlier comments that Tehran's possession of a nuclear bomb would not be "very dangerous."

"France, along with the international community, cannot accept the prospect of an Iran equipped with a nuclear weapon," Chirac's office said in a statement seeking to limit fallout from the leader's remarks to the International Herald Tribune and two other publications.

"The Iranian nuclear program is opaque and therefore dangerous for the region," the statement said. It urged Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and said that the United Nations would respond by suspending sanctions and that negotiations with Tehran would resume.

On Monday, Chirac said of Iran, "I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb. Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that's not very dangerous."

For Iran — whose leader has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" — possessing the weapon would be useless because using it would mean an instant counterattack, he said.

"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?" Chirac asked. "It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."

Chirac's initial remarks, which would have marked a major departure from France's official policy of working to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, prompted sharp criticism and protest from experts and the opposition Socialist Party. His office said that foreign governments were also asking for an official clarification.

A French official said the president had been speaking in a "strategic" or hypothetical way about nuclear deterrence involving Iran, not about "diplomacy."

The official said that Chirac had spoken hastily, prompting the president to call back the reporters. He said Chirac's idea was to point out it was unthinkable that Iran could consider using a nuclear weapon.

In the second interview with the publications, Chirac retracted his comment about Tehran being razed. "I retract it, of course, when I said, 'One is going to raze Tehran,' " he said.

Is he right. I almost believe that he is. This threat from Iran seems as though it is alot worse than it actually is. Like Chirac says, the worst thing that will happen is that Iran's neighbours will develop a bomb. But whats in it for them?

Sesshoumaru

That is madness. Irans leaders are not rational people. Ahmadinejad is certainly not a rational and logical man. He wants nuclears warheads so their precious 12th Imam can come riding down on the back of nuclear missile over Jerusalem. Have you bothered to read his speeches? You know the ones about "wiping Israel off the map" and the return of the hidden Imam. The return of the 12th Imam is supposed to be preceded by a period of great suffering for Muslims. So he would probably welcome the nuclear fire that would rain down on his country in retaliation. He would afterall just be fulfilling prophecy the shiites believe in.

RedPlanet

It's a load of tripe.
I will not believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons until i see evidence supporting that claim.
And no, not cooperating with such and such UN body or Resolution is not the same thing as evidence.

WMD in Iraq anyone?

Sesshoumaru

RedPlanet wrote:

It's a load of tripe.
I will not believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons until i see evidence supporting that claim.
And no, not cooperating with such and such UN body or Resolution is not the same thing as evidence.

WMD in Iraq anyone?

I'm afraid the only kind of evidence that will satisfy some people is when there is a large mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The man is calling for the destruction of Israel.

http://today.reuters.com/news/GBUStories.aspx

Iran president says Israel's days are numbered

"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.

You continue to report that "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map"" even though many Mideast experts have stated that the interpretation of what Ahmadinejad actually said was that the "Zionist regime will not last."

In other words, rather than calling for ethnic cleansing, as your news stories imply, Iranian officials are calling for regime change--a common enough phrase these days. Are your reporters and editors deliberately misinforming the public?

Jan

We actually had access to this speech, and heard the president's words verbatim from our own TV footage. We stand behind our translation. In this case, he used the word "mahv," which in Farsi means "wiped off": Editor

They have also refused several generous offers made by the EU. Insanely generous offers! We are practically bending over backwards for them. But some people would rather believe genocidal maniacs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

RedPlanet

"genocidal manic" is just media sensationalist term.
How many people has the man killed?
None?
Yet you label him a genocidal manic?
How was the Soviet Union destroyed, was it by a mushroom cloud?

Recent history provides us a good measure of a country's miltary aggressiveness, or their willingness to commit miltary aggression.
And in the case of Iran, that is neglible.
Despite the very real provocations on their borders particularly when the Taliban were coming to power.
Not to mention when the US shot down one of their civilian airlines inside Iranian airspace.
You should stick to facts, not sensationalist media hyperbole.

Sesshoumaru

RedPlanet wrote:

"genocidal manic" is just media sensationalist term.
How many people has the man killed?
None?
Yet you label him a genocidal manic?
How was the Soviet Union destroyed, was it by a mushroom cloud?

Recent history provides us a good measure of a country's miltary aggressiveness, or their willingness to commit miltary aggression.
And in the case of Iran, that is neglible.
Despite the very real provocations on their borders particularly when the Taliban were coming to power.
Not to mention when the US shot down one of their civilian airlines inside Iranian airspace.
You should stick to facts, not sensationalist media hyperbole.

The facts are he talks about the coming of the 12th Imam/Hidden Imam. Why don't you go read up on that side of the maniac? He certainly makes enough speeches about it. Then you can wonder why incredibly well armed cults are springing up in Iraq that believe this prophecy.

http://news.google.ie/news?hl=en&ned=en_ie&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1113130157

Where did they get all those heavy weapons? Iran perhaps? All part of Mahmoud Ahmadinejads mad plan to pave the way for the return of the 12th Imam. Send in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards to Iraq to get the followers ready and then wipe Israel of the face planet. With nukes of course.

Oh and you forgot to mention the shooting down of an Iranian airliner was accidental. Perhaps if Irans forces weren't attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf at the time, then that accident could have been avoided.

banaman

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Oh and you forgot to mention the shooting down of an Iranian airliner was accidental. Perhaps if Irans forces weren't attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf at the time, then that accident could have been avoided.

To deal with this one first; the reason Iran was attacking western shipping, which you biasedly ignore, was the total support of the west for the war started by our ally Saddam Hussein, remember him? The US, with the backing of its puppet Israel, were quite happily arming Iraq with chemical and biological weapons which they KNEW were being used in breach of ALL conventions in a war of aggression against a state which had had the temerity to overthrow a brutal but ALSO Pro-Western and Israeli supported regime, namely Iran.

The airliner in question was clearly identified as civilian, ON its CORRECT flight path and in open radio contact with the ground. THe US cruiser was found to be "trigger-happy" and to have poor command and control structures. The shooting down was widely acknowledged as a deliberate war crime BUT THE CAPTAIN WAS DECORATED FOR HIS PART IN THE MURDER OF OVER 100 INNOCENT PEOPLE. Is it any wonder that the Iranian regime wants some form of guaranteed protection from a state (the US) which is openly hostile and has a track record of invasion or overthrow of regimes it dislikes, democratic or not?

Amenijad's rhetoric against Israel is tyrannical and unbalanced but to label him as irrational is equally dangerous. Just because someone does not share your religious/cultural/scientific outlook does not make them irrational, illogical or wrong. In order to decide if he is irrational you have to look at his belief system from his point of view, not ours. Then if what he says is at odds with his cultural/religious/scientific norms then and only then can you label him as irrational.

With respect of arming terrorist groups the US, UK, Israel and others have done it since the dawn of Imperialism, and still do. Who is arming Hamas? Who assisted the formation of the Fatah party(Israel did).

Iran's nuclear programme: I suggest you read this article. Granted its from the Observer, which is left-of-centre, but that does not mean it's not true.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2000303,00.html
Remember those who took us into Iraq lied about the WMD and how much of a threat Saddam was. Show me uncontested, unbiased proof that Iran and most Muslim peoples are a danger to me and I might consider the need for war. What we have at the moment is hype, lies and oppression based on the Bush White-House, Neo-con, radical Christian Second Coming ideologies and agendas which sees the state of Israel and the removal of Islam and the rebuilding of a temple on the site of the Dome on the Rock as precursors for the "coming of the Lord". AND you condemn Amenijad as being illogical and deluded!!!!! Saying about POTS and KETTLES comes to mind.

mikep

What about Blair and Bush both saying God had influenced thier decision for invasion of Iraq!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4772142.stm

The Iranian pres. isn't the only one being influenced by his religon......:eek:

purple'n'gold

Oh and you forgot to mention the shooting down of an Iranian airliner was accidental.

How very comforting for the relatives of the dead people on the plane. Just like the guy in boot hill really “Shot by mistake”

purple'n'gold

Ahmadinejad is an air head, when his mouth opens his brain shuts down. Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI is the real boss and he has been reining him in of late.

Sesshoumaru

Yes I know the Iranian president isn't the only one who mentioned god as a reason for going to war. When did I ever say I supported Bush? Blair? or the Iraq war? I was quite happy to keep genocidal dictator like Saddam Hussein in power. I mean he wasn't exactly nice to his own people. But he did keep a lid on religous nutjobs in Iraq. I assume since you folks were anti war you were also in favour of keeping the former dictator Saddam Hussein in power? For the same pragmatic reasons as myself?

Amenijad's rhetoric against Israel is tyrannical and unbalanced but to label him as irrational is equally dangerous. Just because someone does not share your religious/cultural/scientific outlook does not make them irrational, illogical or wrong. In order to decide if he is irrational you have to look at his belief system from his point of view, not ours. Then if what he says is at odds with his cultural/religious/scientific norms then and only then can you label him as irrational.

Ok his religion/culture is irrational and illogical. Does that satisfy you?

With respect of arming terrorist groups the US, UK, Israel and others have done it since the dawn of Imperialism, and still do. Who is arming Hamas? Who assisted the formation of the Fatah party(Israel did).

I never said Europe and America were perfect. Only that our culture is superior.

The airliner in question was clearly identified as civilian, ON its CORRECT flight path and in open radio contact with the ground. THe US cruiser was found to be "trigger-happy" and to have poor command and control structures. The shooting down was widely acknowledged as a deliberate war crime BUT THE CAPTAIN WAS DECORATED FOR HIS PART IN THE MURDER OF OVER 100 INNOCENT PEOPLE. Is it any wonder that the Iranian regime wants some form of guaranteed protection from a state (the US) which is openly hostile and has a track record of invasion or overthrow of regimes it dislikes, democratic or not?

Are you saying the captain of the Aegis cruiser knew it was a passenger jet? As far as I knew it was a design flaw in the radar system that caused it to confuse it for an Iranian F-14 that was taking off from the same airport. You'd have to be a fairly cold blooded individual to give the order to shoot down a passenger jet knowing for sure it was a civilian airliner.

Iran's nuclear programme: I suggest you read this article. Granted its from the Observer, which is left-of-centre, but that does not mean it's not true.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...000303,00.html
Remember those who took us into Iraq lied about the WMD and how much of a threat Saddam was. Show me uncontested, unbiased proof that Iran and most Muslim peoples are a danger to me and I might consider the need for war. What we have at the moment is hype, lies and oppression based on the Bush White-House, Neo-con, radical Christian Second Coming ideologies and agendas which sees the state of Israel and the removal of Islam and the rebuilding of a temple on the site of the Dome on the Rock as precursors for the "coming of the Lord". AND you condemn Amenijad as being illogical and deluded!!!!! Saying about POTS and KETTLES comes to mind.

I had already read that article. I don't find it very reassuring that they may have had a small setback in their nuclear weapons program. What we have learned from Iraq is that there are always ways and means to work around sanctions. Look at the oil for food scandal in Iraq.

Jonny7

"Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department.

It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html

InFront

Does nobody remember what happened after september the 11th and Afghanistan, when suddenly USA decided to shift the attention from Usama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein?
Now look what they're doing, turning the attention from Iraq to Iran, remember the 20,000 surge speech, adding in that bit about Iran being a menace to their security? Associating Iran with the trouble in Iraq, that's a convenient link.
Nothing about their own crazy belligerence and the blood of 650,000 Iraqis on their hands? Lets not be under any illusion, the USA are the bad guys here. Reinforcing their fleet in the gulf is just cauing more trouble, they're gauding Iran for an escalation of tensions.

How long now before your average American idiot starts associating Iran with 9/11?
How long before they start thinking Al Qaeda = Hizbollah?

Originally posted by Sesshoumaru
The facts are he talks about the coming of the 12th Imam/Hidden Imam. Why don't you go read up on that side of the maniac? He certainly makes enough speeches about it. Then you can wonder why incredibly well armed cults are springing up in Iraq that believe this prophecy.

Perhaps you would be well advised to look up this topic before you direct others blankly to the google search engine. Do you even have the faintest idea what you're talking about or was it something on a FOX news report? Calling someone's religion and culture irrational and illogical really doesn't achieve anything positive.

Sesshoumaru

InFront wrote:

Does nobody remember what happened after september the 11th and Afghanistan, when suddenly USA decided to shift the attention from Usama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein?
Now look what they're doing, turning the attention from Iraq to Iran, remember the 20,000 surge speech, adding in that bit about Iran being a menace to their security? Associating Iran with the trouble in Iraq, that's a convenient link.
Nothing about their own crazy belligerence and the blood of 650,000 Iraqis on their hands? Lets not be under any illusion, the USA are the bad guys here. Reinforcing their fleet in the gulf is just cauing more trouble, they're gauding Iran for an escalation of tensions.

How long now before your average American idiot starts associating Iran with 9/11?
How long before they start thinking Al Qaeda = Hizbollah?



Perhaps you would be well advised to look up this topic before you direct others blankly to the google search engine. Do you even have the faintest idea what you're talking about or was it something on a FOX news report? Calling someone's religion and culture irrational and illogical really doesn't achieve anything positive.

Not exactly a fountain of wisdom yourself. What makes you think Americans are so stupid they would associate Iran with 9/11? Do you know anything about America at all? and the blood of 650,000 Iraqis on their hands?? Making up statistics, is that your job? USA are the bad guys? Which country do you admire the most then? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Syria?

Ping Chow Chi

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I'm afraid the only kind of evidence that will satisfy some people is when there is a large mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The man is calling for the destruction of Israel.

http://today.reuters.com/news/GBUStories.aspx


They have also refused several generous offers made by the EU. Insanely generous offers! We are practically bending over backwards for them. But some people would rather believe genocidal maniacs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

hummm I always assumed that the pres of Iran wanted to kill everyone in Israel, but looking at you quote - it would seem that he want them to dissapear in the same lines that the soviet empire did, which isnt the same.

It would seem that the press over here have spun it for their own means.

Akrasia

That is madness. Irans leaders are not rational people. Ahmadinejad is certainly not a rational and logical man. He wants nuclears warheads so their precious 12th Imam can come riding down on the back of nuclear missile over Jerusalem. Have you bothered to read his speeches? You know the ones about "wiping Israel off the map" and the return of the hidden Imam. The return of the 12th Imam is supposed to be preceded by a period of great suffering for Muslims. So he would probably welcome the nuclear fire that would rain down on his country in retaliation. He would afterall just be fulfilling prophecy the shiites believe in.

well this is a page from the loony pro war book of insane logic. Loads of half truths, unsubstantiated assumptions and unsupported conclusions to support an the drive towards a 3rd world war.

If america or Israel attack Iran, then the consequences for everyone on this planet will be catastrophic

Sesshoumaru

Ping Chow Chi wrote:

hummm I always assumed that the pres of Iran wanted to kill everyone in Israel, but looking at you quote - it would seem that he want them to dissapear in the same lines that the soviet empire did, which isnt the same.

It would seem that the press over here have spun it for their own means.

Disappear? Do you want to explain that? Disappear to where? Israel is their home and it was the Jews home long before there was even such a thing as Muslims. Iran also supports Hezbollah whose leader has let slip such gems as:

If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli. (New Yorker, Oct. 14, 2002)

I'm not sure how you can reconcile Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the man of peace with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who supports Hezbollah and champion of Irans right to build nuclear weapons.

Sesshoumaru

Akrasia wrote:

well this is a page from the loony pro war book of insane logic. Loads of half truths, unsubstantiated assumptions and unsupported conclusions to support an the drive towards a 3rd world war.

If america or Israel attack Iran, then the consequences for everyone on this planet will be catastrophic

As opposed to loony anti war appeasement mentality?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52071
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342123,00.html

Make your own judgements on the man. I think he is crazy. Q.E.D.

purple'n'gold

Not exactly a fountain of wisdom yourself. What makes you think Americans are so stupid they would associate Iran with 9/11?

they were stupid enough to associate Iraq with 9/11.

Sesshoumaru

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L30464650

Another good reason to let peaceful Iran have nukes :rolleyes:

Groiss said all the textbooks were underpinned by the belief that Iran was a world power preparing for global "jihad", or holy struggle, with the aim of world dominance of Islam.

"This has been a structural component of the Iranian regime since (the Islamic Revolution in) 1979. It is not a product of (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad," he said of Iran's firebrand president who has called for the destruction of Israel.

Stories and poems aimed at primary school-age children hailed martyrs killed in defence of their country and faith, such as those who died in the 1980 to 1988 war with Iraq, with one illustrated with a rainbow dripping with martyr's blood.

oscarBravo

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Not exactly a fountain of wisdom yourself.

One more crack like that and you'll be taking a break from here.

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Disappear? Do you want to explain that? Disappear to where? Israel is their home and it was the Jews home long before there was even such a thing as Muslims.

The Roman and other powers well over a 1000 years ago kicked most of the Jews out of historical Israel. The Muslims defeated the Romans and settled there. Now there were always Jews in Jerusalem even under Muslim and Roman rule.

Now the area which the Muslims referred to as Palestine had a majority Palestinan population. That was until the 1948 when immigrant (both legal and illegal), started a war and kicked a few hundred thousand Palestinians from there homes, where they have lived for 100's of years and other Palestinians fled the war. The Israeli's won the war, and will not allow the Palestinian refugees to return.

Today there are something like 3 - 4 Million Palestinian refugee's (source 1: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/mepp/prrn/proverview.html Source 2: http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/index.html). The current situation benefits the Israeli's as they want a "Jewish" state, and allowing the millions of Palestinians refugees to return would make a "Jewish" state impossible. They would probably have to settle for a secular state. You pretend as if Israel has not attacked its neighbors (e.g. the Suez canal business) and isn't violating UN resolutions with an illegal occupation.

Former US president Jimmy Carter, the guy who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, and not too mention the US "Aid" package to Israel described the situation as apartheid. So the land isn't the Israeli's, they took it by force. So you seem to talking only of a historical Israel, while ignoring the passage of time between the historical Israel and the current. I know Israel has been attacked, but they have attacked as well and violated just as many international laws as her neighbors.

Back to the topic at hand. The US and many other nations are best pals with the worst scum in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. Tony Blair was recently trying to get the Sunni nations to unite against Iran. This would lead to a Middle East wide version of Iraq, if it were to take place. It would also leave the Middle East even more broken than before, and ripe for the taking so to speak.

As yet there is no proof that Iran has Nuclear weapons. There seems to be mounting evidence as pointed out by others above, that Iran basically put everything the table, only to have the US throw it back in there face. We already seen a war were someone went looking for WMD's and found nothing. These same people seem to think we are all stupid enough to believe them when they cry Wolf again.

There is opposition to Adminjaed (or however you spell it) within Iran, he took a beating in recent elections. Also the Supreme Leader decides to go to war not the president. If he was saying this there may be need to take heed. To give you an example the President before the Adminjaed was a reformer and he could do nothing except talk (like the current guy) about reform. All you have to do is look at more open source to know there is huge opposition to the Islamic Republic in Iran from the younger population and this is growing. A war would destroy this, as with any war Jingoistic nationalism would come into force even among the normally reasonable.

So the entire Middle East blowing up in a conflagration would would allow the US and her allies, dominance the likes of which have not been seen since colonial times, and would hand the terrorists another recruitment god send with another "crusade" as they would call it.

Sesshoumaru

Its not America who has been negotiating with Iran. It is Germany, France and Britain. They offered technology and assistance in constructing nuclear reactors and Iran threw it back in our face.

Also you make it sound like the middle east was a picture of harmony and peace before western nations started meddling and turning sunni against shiite. But these two factions have been fighting each other for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It was Saudi Arabia that declared it would start arming sunnis in Iraq if America pulled out. It was Jordans king that started complaining about a new "shiite crescent" spreading over the middle east lead by Iran.

Also I am not necessarily saying we should go to war with Iran. I'm not some war monger eager to drink the blood of innocents. But we should be prepared for it and make it clear to Iran we are prepared for war. This IMO will give us the best chance at the negotiating table.

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Its not America who has been negotiating with Iran. It is Germany, France and Britain. They offered technology and assistance in constructing nuclear reactors and Iran threw it back in our face.

The Iran offer precedes all these if I am getting the time line correct. Things changed way before that.

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Also you make it sound like the middle east was a picture of harmony and peace before western nations started meddling and turning sunni against shiite. But these two factions have been fighting each other for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It was Saudi Arabia that declared it would start arming sunnis in Iraq if America pulled out. It was Jordans king that started complaining about a new "shiite crescent" spreading over the middle east lead by Iran.

I said things will get worse e.g. Iraq it was crap under Saddam, but things have gotten worse after the invasion. The peace and harmony is something you read into what I said.

Trying to get all the Sunni factions together to hammer Iran will take the sectarian strife that exists and makes is a 1000 times worse. Iraq is a powder keg that could effect the entire region.

Also Sunni's and Shia's can get along just fine. Inter-marriages between the 2 sects is common place. Its the guys on top who hate each other who egg on the average guy on the street who would rather raise his family.

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Also I am not necessarily saying we should go to war with Iran. I'm not some war monger eager to drink the blood of innocents. But we should be prepared for it and make it clear to Iran we are prepared for war. This IMO will give us the best chance at the negotiating table.

I agree war is a bad idea.

The situation that presists in the middle east concerning Iran is very simple. Both the Taliban and Saddam kept Iran in check. Now with both gone the US has accidently empowered and emboldened them in unforseen ways. Once Saddam was taken out of the picture, Iraq became a natural ally rather than an enemy as it has been previous.

SeanW

I think military action against Iran should be off the table.

I read in a Christian Science Monitor article a few days ago (they actually give good analysis in their reporting despite their obvious bias) and it said that the West has a lot of respect among the Iranian people, surprisingly the Americans in particular. The Iranian people apparently tend to be apolitical, don't care for the government one way or the other, and those who want bypass Islamic law can do so easily, such as buy smuggled Turkish beer etc.

It also said that a commonly held view of the Iranian people is that they would unite behind their government and country in the event of an attack by the Western powers. This combined with all the other problems in the Middle East suggests that Western powers would be well advised not to start any more sh1t storms.

Should it be necessary to take action against the Iranian government, I think it should be limited to a "soft" campaign, of PR, security council sanctions and the funding of internal anti-government democracy movements.

The West should make it clear to the Iranian government that we won't tolerate them developing nuclear weapons. But it should be made equally clear that if they are telling the truth about only wanting peaceful nuclear power, that we're ready to talk business.

InFront

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Not exactly a fountain of wisdom yourself. What makes you think Americans are so stupid they would associate Iran with 9/11?

This. If they can associate Iraq with 9-11, why not Iran. Almost the same thing, right? Them "Moslems".

Originally posted by Sesshoumaru
and the blood of 650,000 Iraqis on their hands?? Making up statistics, is that your job?

No, this is the figure put forward by the John Hopkins School of Medicine and Public Health, one of the best recognized medical institutions in the world known for its international studies.

Originally posted by Seeshoumaru
USA are the bad guys?

Yep.

Sesshoumaru

InFront wrote:

This. If they can associate Iraq with 9-11, why not Iran. Almost the same thing, right? Them "Moslems".


No, this is the figure put forward by the John Hopkins School of Medicine and Public Health, one of the best recognized medical institutions in the world known for its international studies.


Yep.

Many people in "Moslem" countries believe the United States government carried out the 911 attack. Calling one side stupid is pointless if using your standards the other side is equally stupid. Why don't we just agree there are a lot of stupid people in the world and move on.

I think you mean "Moslems" have blood on their hands. I don't recall seeing news reports lately of Americans setting off car bombs in Baghdad. Plenty of "Moslems" killing each other though.

Would you subscribe to the official Iranian view that America is "The Great Satan" ?

InFront

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Many people in "Moslem" countries believe the United States government carried out the 911 attack.

How big is 'many'? I presume you're going to link to some evidence.

The other point, and you know this, is that the US have instigated a war in iraq. Muslims do indeed have very bloody hands there, but if you don't think that there is any US culpability, or if you are trying to deny that their handling of the Iraqi situation has led to this inevitable escalation in sectarian tensions, or if you think that the US government are not guilty of human rights violations by their own direct warfare, then I would suggest that you don't understand what you are writing about in this thread.

What is happening in Iraq is rooted not only in the brutality of the invasion that began in 2003, but their consistent mishandling of Middle East Crises over the years.

Sesshoumaru

Well then how many of those supposed 650,000 casualties are Americas fault? I don't recall Bush or the Republicans ever being happy about the Iraq civil war. All they wanted to do was liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator and bring them enlightenment values. I seem to recall seeing many scenes of jubilant Iraqi's celebrating on the streets when the marines went in first. But afterwards the Iraqi's seemed more intent on settling old scores and killing each other. Is that really Americas fault?

InFront

Sesshoumaru wrote:

All they wanted to do was liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator and bring them enlightenment values.

That is typically meaningless, empty, completely worthless vocabulary. "Liberate"... "enlightenment values"? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Are these some sort of PR terms? I don't think that kind of language has much impact on anyone who wants to make up their minds based on factual evidence and employ some sort of logic when looking at this war. There was no valid reason to invade Iraq.

Originally posted by Sesshoumaru
Well then how many of those supposed 650,000 casualties are Americas fault?

Why do you say "supposed", do you know of estimates more reliable than the John Hopkins School of Medicine? And why do you call them casualties? They are not recovering, they are dead.

America is implicated in every last one of these deaths. Not all of these guys would have been killed by American soldiers, but their deaths are a direct result of the American War, a war that should never have occured.

Some will have been killed in local wranglings for power since the Americans brought their havoc, others will have been killed because of the pressure atrocities have placed on Iraqi hospitals as a result of the war, others have American bullets in the brains or anywhere else their soldiers see fit to place them. Americans started this war, it is the war that is causing the continued suffering and murder of Iraqis.

I find it odd that you would refer to Saddam's removal as a positive thing, when it is the American president who is now the brutal ruler of Iraq. He is the incompetent idiot whose army has been presiding over this country, and he is their "commander". If such a commander is going to illegally invade a foreign nation, he should make sure he's got the ability to maintain some sort of peace there. Right?
If there was civil war in Arkansas, he would be the guy with responsibility to end it. In Iraq, too, the buck has to stop with him, and with those who support the war.

Furthermore, we know that US soldiers have abused their power there, and we can pretty logically deduce that if 3000+ American soldiers have been killed, the Americans weren't moping around sadly after each one with their hands in their pockets. Get real.

Originally posted by Sesshoumaru
I seem to recall seeing many scenes of jubilant Iraqi's celebrating on the streets when the marines went in first

What you saw were some Shi'ites and the Nationalists celebrating. I don't know if you understand, it is now these people who are trying to get the Americans out... why do you think they are not grateful to America? What does this tell you about how America are perpetuating their terror in Iraq? If America was really there protecting their freedom, what would be the problem?
Anyway, there was also this article in the LA Times

Originally posted by Sesshoumaru
Is that really Americas fault?

Yes. Not only is it the American leadership's fault, more seriously it is the fault of American citizens who are disgustingly complicit in perpetuating it.
I really can't understand the mentality of backing the reasons for beginning the war in Iraq, not to mention the mentality that attempts to defend American policy there and throughout the ME to this day.
I was surprised to read in the Irish Times last weekend, the defiantly positive and upbeat mood of that other pioneer of the great intellectual abyss, Dick Cheney. "There's problems," in Iraq, he pondered, but it is not a "terrible situation".
I wonder if he thinks the John Hopkins research refers to Iraqis with scratched knees and broken fingers, as well. He's an idiot. Bush is an idiot. The gung-ho Americans support them by the millions, they are idiots.


Anyway, just in relation to Iran, more topically, there is a link here on the art of selling war

Nick_oliveri

Sesshoumaru wrote:

All they wanted to do was liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator and bring them enlightenment values.

Lol, yeah right. And i pick leprechauns out of my ass every night!! (painful)

The dead aren't very enlightened, on both sides. More dead now than there ever was under Saddams "Reich"!

Liberate..., lol thanks for the laugh. :rolleyes: