Bush wants Irans Revolutionary Guards Declared Terrorists.

sovtek

Liam Byrne wrote:

Your timeline also conveniently excludes the 1998 Omagh atrocity, America's home-grown Timothy McVeigh in 1995.

Also the bombing at the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996.

jonny72

Mick86 wrote:

Not necessarily. The CIA produced an Int report on Iraq and WMDs. Bush and co assessed who they would attack next and settled on Iraq based on the CIA assessment and the fact that Iraq was an old enemy. After the invasion it turns out that the CIA got it wrong again. How hard the CIA had to try to convince the Government, or how hard the government was to convince on WMDs is a matter of conjecture.

No, Bush and Co had decided on Iraq a long time ago. You have to understand that there are people in the administration who simply hold 'grudges', who create demons from paranoid or perceived threats, and who quite bluntly put, hate muslims and their ideology (they can lump Persians in there too because they are too ignorant to know the difference, ring a bell?)

Every single piece of news I hear about Iran now is this pathetic pro-West propaganda, and trust me, the indoctrination is working. Twice-weekly now you get the token "Iran supporting anti US militias in Iraq" spiel.

Saddam Hussein is not deserving of any sympathy

Neither is Kim Il Yong, but all he seems to get is constant appeasement by the chicken hawks. Right wingers see violence and brute force as the solution for almost everything, except of course, you know, when they might actually get a bloody nose in the matter, then the bad guys are treated with kid gloves.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

No, Bush and Co had decided on Iraq a long time ago.

I'm inclined to agree with you. So the CIA didn't have to try very hard with the WMDs report. On the plus side the invasion saw the demise of an unpleasant shower of bastrads.

jonny72 wrote:

You have to understand that there are people in the administration who simply hold 'grudges', who create demons from paranoid or perceived threats, and who quite bluntly put, hate muslims and their ideology

Some Muslim ideology is detestable. Jihad, suicide bombing and the justification for killing "infidels". It's a warped version of Islam but nevertheless as much part of Islam as the Spanish Inquisition was part of Catholicism.

jonny72 wrote:

(they can lump Persians in there too because they are too ignorant to know the difference, ring a bell?)

96% of Iranians are Muslim. So we can extrapolate that the 51% of Iranians who are Persian are almost wholly Muslim also.

jonny72 wrote:

Every single piece of news I hear about Iran now is this pathetic pro-West propaganda, and trust me, the indoctrination is working. Twice-weekly now you get the token "Iran supporting anti US militias in Iraq" spiel.

Because the US was caught telling lies about Iraq it is automatically assumed that it is now telling lies about Iran. This may not necessarily be the case.

jonny72 wrote:

Neither is Kim Il Yong, but all he seems to get is constant appeasement by the chicken hawks. Right wingers see violence and brute force as the solution for almost everything, except of course, you know, when they might actually get a bloody nose in the matter, then the bad guys are treated with kid gloves.

Naturally. the NKs have a huge army, something like 80 divisions. Plus they are nuclear armed. Attacking NK isn't a real option is it?

Mick86

Liam Byrne wrote:

Does that still apply, or should I post about this some more ?

No. Your encyclopaedic posts are too much for me. Apart from that they are just endless repetition. Later.

nacho libre

Mick86 wrote:

Because the US was caught telling lies about Iraq it is automatically assumed that it is now telling lies about Iran. This may not necessarily be the case.

Given America's history of lying in such matters it is more than likely they are lying again. We certainly shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt with their track record.
So from now on i imagine you'll be using words like claim when discussing Iran's nuclear energy programme instead of parroting the American position that Iran is intent on developing a nuclear weapon.
Also, when making such claims it is important to bear in mind what Ayatollah Kohemeni said in relation to Iran possessing nuclear weapons.

Mr.Micro

nacho libre wrote:

Given America's history of lying in such matters it is more than likely they are lying again. We certainly shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt with their track record.
So from now on i imagine you'll be using words like claim when discussing Iran's nuclear energy programme instead of parroting the American position that Iran is intent on developing a nuclear weapon.
Also, when making such claims it is important to bear in mind what Ayatollah Kohemeni said in relation to Iran possessing nuclear weapons.

Absolutely right the Americans cannot be trusted to tell the truth. France is the latest American mouth piece to suggest that war with Iran is probable because of its Nuclear ambitions. France lost out last time when it opposed the Iraq invasion so its determined to be all pro American now with its new President .Any reason to get rid of the alleged threat of Iran will suit the Americans .I for one do nor believe any of the spin.

Mick86

nacho libre wrote:

Given America's history of lying in such matters it is more than likely they are lying again. We certainly shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt with their track record.

What if the US is correct this time.

nacho libre wrote:

So from now on i imagine you'll be using words like claim when discussing Iran's nuclear energy programme instead of parroting the American position that Iran is intent on developing a nuclear weapon.

It is my humble opinion that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons.

nacho libre wrote:

Also, when making such claims it is important to bear in mind what Ayatollah Kohemeni said in relation to Iran possessing nuclear weapons.

Kohemeni is dead so his opinions on Iranian defence policy are irrelevant.

Mick86

Mr.Micro wrote:

Absolutely right the Americans cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

No government anywhere can be trusted to tell the truth. There is no more reason to believe the Iranians when they say they are not developing nuclear weapons than there is to believe the US when its says they are.

Incidentally it isn't just the US that is concerned about Iran's nuclear programme. The UN has passed two resolutions (1696 and 1737) on the issue.

FYI

Mick86 wrote:

Incidentally it isn't just the US that is concerned about Iran's nuclear programme. The UN has passed two resolutions (1696 and 1737) on the issue.

Nuclear chief walks out on EU speech on Iran
Article from: Agence France-
From correspondents in Vienna

September 12, 2007 05:31am

UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei walked out on an afternoon session of his IAEA to protest an EU speech which did not fully support his deal for new inspections in Iran, diplomats said.

"He walked out because the EU did not support the Secretariat," a diplomat who was at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors said.

...

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming declined comment but several diplomats confirmed that Mr ElBaradei had walked out in protest.

continued...

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22404789-5005961,00.html

Mick86

FYI wrote:

Nuclear chief walks out on EU speech on Iran
Article from: Agence France-
From correspondents in Vienna

September 12, 2007 05:31am

UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei walked out on an afternoon session of his IAEA to protest an EU speech which did not fully support his deal for new inspections in Iran, diplomats said.

"He walked out because the EU did not support the Secretariat," a diplomat who was at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors said.

...

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming declined comment but several diplomats confirmed that Mr ElBaradei had walked out in protest.

continued...

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22404789-5005961,00.html

What's your point?

edanto

Mick86 wrote:

No government anywhere can be trusted to tell the truth. There is no more reason to believe the Iranians when they say they are not developing nuclear weapons than there is to believe the US when its says they are.

So, the Iranians might be lying and that's the justification for invading them?

Mick86

edanto wrote:

So, the Iranians might be lying and that's the justification for invading them?

Nobody is likely to invade Iran in my opinion. The current debacle in Iraq virtually precludes it.

The Iranians might be lying so it behoves the rest of the world to work to ensure that Iran does not arm itself with nuclear weapons. Ideally this should be done through the UN, with the final option of military action if Iran does not comply with UN demands.

FYI

Mick86 wrote:

The Iranians might be lying so it behoves the rest of the world to work to ensure that Iran does not arm itself with nuclear weapons. Ideally this should be done through the UN, with the final option of military action if Iran does not comply with UN demands.

The point of the previous article is obvious. The IAEA chief is unhappy with the way the EU is approaching the 'stand-off'. The IAEA is the most reliable source of information the EU has on the issue. Something of a conflict there.

What evidence do you have that Iran is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons?

Mick86

FYI wrote:

The point of the previous article is obvious.

I didn't ask you what the point of the article was, I asked what YOUR point was.

FYI wrote:

The IAEA chief is unhappy with the way the EU is approaching the 'stand-off'. The IAEA is the most reliable source of information the EU has on the issue. Something of a conflict there.

So the IAEA Chief is unhappy. He should build a bridge and get over it. The EU is unhappy with the IAEA Chief's proposals as they give a lot more time to Iran to get on with their work. His reaction was rather childish in my opinion. Apart from all that the article has no bearing on the substantive issue which is that Iran's nuclear programme is perceived as a problem. Differences of opinion on how that problem should be dealt with do not make it any less of a problem.

FYI wrote:

What evidence do you have that Iran is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons?

What evidence do you have that Iran is not attempting to acquire nuclear weapons?

FYI

Mick86 wrote:

The EU is unhappy with the IAEA Chief's proposals as they give a lot more time to Iran to get on with their work. His reaction was rather childish in my opinion. Someone in such a responsible position needsto be told get a grip or be replaced.

What evidence do you have that Iran is not attempting to acquire nuclear weapons?

Ha, good one. Oh, are you serious?

Is it possible to have evidence that proves the non-existence of something? Someone should have told Saddam. You should ask Richard Dawkins.

Mick86

FYI wrote:

Is it possible to have evidence that proves the non-existence of something? You should ask Richard Dawkins.

That's a No then.

Your side of the debate is that Iran is not developing nuclear wepaons but you have nothing on which you base that opinion.

FYI

Mick86 wrote:

That's a No then.

Your side of the debate is that Iran is not developing nuclear wepaons but you have nothing on which you base that opinion.

No. My opinion is based on the absense of evidence from your 'side' of the debate. That's how it works, if you want to claim something exists, you need to provide evidence to that effect. Otherwise I could reasonably argue that Mick86 has a forty story invisible and infinitely light building sitting on his head, to which you could not reasonable prove otherwise.

Mick86

FYI wrote:

No. My opinion is based on the absense of evidence from your 'side' of the debate. That's how it works, if you want to claim something exists, you need to provide evidence to that effect. ....

No that's not how it works. I base my argument on the concerns of the UN, EU and the IAEA . You must then come up with a counter argument to refute those concerns based on something or other.

edanto

Ah, this reminds me of the rubbish before the Iraq invasion. Hans Blix asking for more time, more time, more time and all the warmongerers shouting - no, you can't have more time, there's something urgent about this that we can't explain. - we have to invade, get out of the way.

And then of course as soon as THEY started looking for these Weapons of Mass Distraction... eh, we need more time, more time, more time.

Liam Byrne

Mick86 wrote:

No. Your encyclopaedic posts are too much for me. Apart from that they are just endless repetition. Later.

Since encyclopaediae tend to be factual and objective, I'll take that as a compliment.

Mr.Micro

Mick86 wrote:

No government anywhere can be trusted to tell the truth. There is no more reason to believe the Iranians when they say they are not developing nuclear weapons than there is to believe the US when its says they are.

Incidentally it isn't just the US that is concerned about Iran's nuclear programme. The UN has passed two resolutions (1696 and 1737) on the issue.

point taken but the UN is just a waste of time . If a superpower nation agrees with a UN mandate or resolution, great. If it does not go it alone ,as we have experienced with Iraq . Hans Blix (UN official) said no WMD . His report ignored so much for the UN.

edanto

Mick86 wrote:

The Iranians might be lying so it behoves the rest of the world to work to ensure that Iran does not arm itself with nuclear weapons.

Oh right, because then Iran would be in breach of the all important non-proliferation treaty. The same NPT that the US has been in breach of since before the ink was dry on it and that Israel is also in breach of?

We should turn a blind eye to the wrongs of a country that gives us money and investment, but support the invasion/arial bombarbments of another country that might be building a bomb. Because it's one law for countries with lots of friendly bankers and another law for countries with lots of sand, is that it?

I've ignored the bit above where you replied line by line to my post, as that was just getting out of hand. You had a point, though, I was being a bit patronising.

But, I don't think I have all the answers. Not by a long way.

Look, I'm concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons and I don't want them to, even though I think they intend to.

But only someone brainwashed by military thinking would believe that the way to stop Iran developing weapons is to threaten them with war, give weapons grants to their US-friendly neighbours and ignore the problems that the unquestioning US-support of Israel creates.

Mr.Micro

What gives the US the right to meddle in world affairs always on foreign soil.The American public is then fed patriotic propaganda .Nobody challenges the US about the wrongs they do as most nations ours included are afraid of economic sanctions . Should we feel safe that many other countries have nuclear capability . What about China and Russia .Why is the US not telling them to back off.

Mick86

edanto wrote:

Oh right, because then Iran would be in breach of the all important non-proliferation treaty.

No, because Iran might USE the nukes.

edanto wrote:

The same NPT that the US has been in breach of since before the ink was dry on it and that Israel is also in breach of?

Countries that feel threatened are not going to be bound by treaties. Particularly if they believe that people they don't trust won't be bound by them either.

edanto wrote:

We should turn a blind eye to the wrongs of a country that gives us money and investment, but support the invasion/arial bombarbments of another country that might be building a bomb. Because it's one law for countries with lots of friendly bankers and another law for countries with lots of sand, is that it?

Not at all. You can try and get the US to do away with it's nuclear weapons if you want. I'm sure that a reasoned argument will sway the yanks to your point of view.

edanto wrote:

Look, I'm concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons and I don't want them to, even though I think they intend to. But only someone brainwashed by military thinking would believe that the way to stop Iran developing weapons is to threaten them with war, give weapons grants to their US-friendly neighbours and ignore the problems that the unquestioning US-support of Israel creates.

Iran exports wepaons, training and support to anti-Israeli and anti-US movements so they have no cause for complaint there. Likewise Iran makes regular threats against it's enemies. Only the woolyminded and naive would believe that Iran will take heed of anything else.

edanto

Whereas the US has never supported, trained or funded any pro-Israeli or pro-US terrorist groups, particularly not in South American or Afghanistan for example.

All the things that you are accusing Iran of the United States is guilty of!

Mick86

Mr.Micro wrote:

What gives the US the right to meddle in world affairs always on foreign soil..

Nobody has the power to stop them.

Mr.Micro wrote:

What about China and Russia .Why is the US not telling them to back off.

They already have nukes so the US can't realistically threaten them. Logically the more countries that are nuclear armed, the greater the risk that someone will pop one off on an enemy. Survival demands that we attempt to keep the number of nuclear armed countries at present levels. Hopefully at some future date, those countries will begin to disarm their nukes. Unlikely I know but we live in hope.

Mick86

edanto wrote:

Whereas the US has never supported, trained or funded any pro-Israeli or pro-US terrorist groups, particularly not in South American or Afghanistan for example.

All the things that you are accusing Iran of the United States is guilty of!

You already said that which is why I pointed out that Iran does the same thing.

Liam Byrne

There's a lot of truth in your posts, Mike, but I think the issue comes down to the fact that you trust the U.S., whereas most people don't; the people who don't trust the U.S. have valid reasons not to, not least the fact that they lied through their teeth in order to brainwash the uninformed into supporting an unjustified invasion of Iraq.

Everything that you say that Iran "might" do is a valid argument, however you seem to have no problem with the fact that the U.S. not only "might" do the same, but have proven time and time again that they "will" do the same.

And the same applies to the argument that "because we don't trust them and they might do these things, they shouldn't have nukes"......however you seem to implicity accept this because, well, the U.S. already "have" nukes while Iran are only supposedly/allegedly developing them now.

In the same way that the U.S. sees Iran as a threat, Iran sees the U.S. as a threat, so are they not entitled to develop a defence ?

If it were the other way around (if Iran had nukes but the U.S. didn't) would you as against the idea of the U.S. developing nukes as a deterrent/defence ?

And if not, why not ?

And if we're sceptical of the U.S., forgive us......they seem to invade ONLY based on their criteria and interests, and all the smokescreen about threats and democracy don't hold water when they're targetting countries that "might" be a threat or might be developing weapons (and as Iraq proved we only have their word for those allegations) while completely ignoring the countries that we all know well DO have weapons and ARE a threat.

Your view also seems to be solely based on guesswork and/or prejudice......"Iran might be lying" was how you phrased it. The word "might" also implies a complete validity in the phrase "they might not be lying". And again, how come the U.S. definitely lying does not seem to bother you, but Iran possibly lying does ?

Manic Moran

Liam Byrne wrote:

There's a lot of truth in your posts, Mike, but I think the issue comes down to the fact that you trust the U.S., whereas most people don't;

I disagree. At best (worst?) I'd say that most people don't trust the Bush administration, but I'm less convinced that this mistrust extends to the same extent to whoever takes over, especially if it's a Democrat.

However, the Iran problem will still exist come January 2009, and at that point presuming that the economic and political sanctions have not yet had their desired effect, whoever has taken over the helm in the US will still have this concern to face.

And if we're sceptical of the U.S., forgive us......they seem to invade ONLY based on their criteria and interests,

Whilst this is true, the one motivation that they have not yet invaded on has been religion, which is the motivation by which the most vicious wars have been fought and which is one of the major factors in the Middle-East. All sorts of atrocities have been carried out over the years by most religions, excused by the argument that it's all OK as it's done in the name of God. I would not put nuclear weapons usage outside of that sphere: It becomes a religious weapon, and not a strategic one.

NTM

The Saint

Thought I'd just throw this in here

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.
...........
The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, with possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of negotiating road maps on disarmament, terrorism and economic cooperation.
............
Leverett said Guldimann included a cover letter that it was an authoritative initiative that had the support of then-President Mohammad Khatami and supreme religious leader Ali Khamenei.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html