Bush wants Irans Revolutionary Guards Declared Terrorists.

Mick86

FYI wrote:

Here's an anecdote you'd like Mick:

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=4n-UGQcG3Jw&mode=related&search=

Are you going to discuss something?

FYI

Mick86 wrote:

Are you going to discuss something?

Like you said Mick, you can use facts to prove anything. So what's the point?

Mick86

FYI wrote:

Like you said Mick, you can use facts to prove anything. So what's the point?

Here I am, now entertain me as the man almost said.

Liam Byrne

Relatively fair point on the mandate, but the grey area occurs because in order to get the support/mandate of the country Bush lied; and before you say "every politician lies", his lies and their consequences were far worse than Bertie's £30,000......therefore it is debatable whether ihe was truly "mandated democratically by it's people to go to war".

Likewise, the IRA perceived that it had a mandate from its followers (and it even claimed support from the wider Irish people to perform terrorist attacks....was that "mandate" valid ?)

Noting with serious concern that the IAEA Director General’s report....lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns on Iran’s nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

Some semantics.....

1) concerns are not proof (as you've so thoughtfully "conceded") and we never said there was "nothing to be concerned about"......we said "there is no proof"
2) being unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials is not the same as being able to conclude that there are

And the caution is required because Bush invaded Iraq despite similar concerns but without proof.

Regarding the number of arrests and convictions vs attacks vs perpetrators - it means nothing. How many arrests and convictions are made in Ireland for petty (and not so petty) theft ? Compare that figure to the number of crimes committed, and it probably means that Islamic people find it tougher to run away (probably because they wear the traditional long cloaks* - must be a bummer to run away in those!)

*ooops....nasty stereotype there....still, better than labelling them all terrorists

the US also wants to strike back for the Hostage Crisis humiliation and for Iran backing insurgents in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

And therein lies the crux of the matter; the U.S. is simply out for revenge - not democracy, not liberation, not justice - which sparks the Middle-East into action, looking for revenge, which leads us all where, exactly ?

Mick86

Liam Byrne wrote:

Relatively fair point on the mandate, but the grey area occurs because in order to get the support/mandate of the country Bush lied; and before you say "every politician lies", his lies and their consequences were far worse than Bertie's £30,000......therefore it is debatable whether ihe was truly "mandated democratically by it's people to go to war".?

He got re-elected post invasion. His electorate was happy to give him the mandate. You may not like it, but that's democracy. End of story.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Likewise, the IRA perceived that it had a mandate from its followers (and it even claimed support from the wider Irish people to perform terrorist attacks....was that "mandate" valid ?)

The Provos never stood for election as such so the comparison is invalid.


Some semantics.....

Liam Byrne wrote:

1) concerns are not proof (as you've so thoughtfully "conceded")

Hence the concession.:rolleyes:

Liam Byrne wrote:

and we never said there was "nothing to be concerned about"......we said "there is no proof"

Concern prompts wise people to take precautions.

Liam Byrne wrote:

2) being unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials is not the same as being able to conclude that there are

That would account for the lack of proof and hence mere concern rather than panic then.

I've conceded on a couple of accasions that there is no proof. Is it necessary to flog the issue to death?

Liam Byrne wrote:

And the caution is required because Bush invaded Iraq despite similar concerns but without proof.

By the time proof of Iran's nuclear weapons programme becomes available it will be too late to act. You won't accept any level of proof anyway. I doubt that Iran is going to be invaded. The US hasn't sufficent troops and it isn't likely to get any allies to help it apart from Israel. The real likelihood is Israel acting unilaterally.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Regarding the number of arrests and convictions vs attacks vs perpetrators - it means nothing.

Well, YOU would say that wouldn't you.

Liam Byrne wrote:

And therein lies the crux of the matter; the U.S. is simply out for revenge - not democracy, not liberation, not justice - which sparks the Middle-East into action, looking for revenge, which leads us all where, exactly ?

Do you think so, Liam. Do you really think so? Wherever did you get that idea from?:rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

Mick86 wrote:

Wherever did you get that idea from?:rolleyes:

Actually, from your posts....

jonny72

"Authorities in the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq called for the release of an Iranian detained by U.S. forces Thursday in Sulaimaniyah.

The U.S. military said he was smuggling in roadside bombs as a member of the elite Iranian paramilitary Quds Force, which is accused by the United States of arming and training Shiite militias in Iraq.

A Kurdish government statement said the man was part of an Iranian delegation of economists and businessmen, with an "official invitation."

The bold bit is what millions of us hear in the news. The second part is the follow-up, usually a lot closer to the truth, that comes out a few days later, which no one hears about. This has been the case for the last 5 years. Its one of the main reasons I don't believe much of the negative propaganda and 'stories' about Iran.

Mick86

Liam Byrne wrote:

Actually, from your posts....

Do tell.:rolleyes:

Mr.Micro

Off the thread a bit ,but UN is a chastenised nonentity after the Iraq debacle and its failure to keep its members in order . It is now redundant and obselete and basically a platform to hide behind or use and abuse. What has it done for Zimbabwe ?( apology if I spelt it wrong)

Mick86

Mr.Micro wrote:

Off the thread a bit ,but UN is a chastenised nonentity after the Iraq debacle and its failure to keep its members in order . It is now redundant and obselete and basically a platform to hide behind or use and abuse.

The UN has always been like that more or less. It needs to be overhauled radically but the alternative of having no UN at all woukd lead to more chaos and anarchy.

nacho libre

Mr.Micro wrote:

Off the thread a bit ,but UN is a chastenised nonentity after the Iraq debacle and its failure to keep its members in order . It is now redundant and obselete and basically a platform to hide behind or use and abuse. What has it done for Zimbabwe ?( apology if I spelt it wrong)

it seems to be revelant though when America are vetoing resolutions on Israel. Also, when the USA is seeking to secure oil supply in the event of peak oil

nacho libre

jonny72 wrote:

"Authorities in the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq called for the release of an Iranian detained by U.S. forces Thursday in Sulaimaniyah.

The U.S. military said he was smuggling in roadside bombs as a member of the elite Iranian paramilitary Quds Force, which is accused by the United States of arming and training Shiite militias in Iraq.

A Kurdish government statement said the man was part of an Iranian delegation of economists and businessmen, with an "official invitation."

The bold bit is what millions of us hear in the news. The second part is the follow-up, usually a lot closer to the truth, that comes out a few days later, which no one hears about. This has been the case for the last 5 years. Its one of the main reasons I don't believe much of the negative propaganda and 'stories' about Iran.

No doubt the U.S. military could well be lying as it suits their agenda.
However, any intelligence agent operating covertly will not have a sign on their forehead saying i'm a member of an intelligence organisation. It also makes sense for Iran to be making life difficult as possible for America in Iran. It's impossible to know what is really going on...

jonny72

nacho libre wrote:

No doubt the U.S. military could well be lying as it suits their agenda.
However, any intelligence agent operating covertly will not have a sign on their forehead saying i'm a member of an intelligence organisation. It also makes sense for Iran to be making life difficult as possible for America in Iran. It's impossible to know what is really going on...

Lets imagine there is a huge war going on in Mexico, do you think the US would have absolutely nothing to do with it?.. of course Iran is meddling in Iraq, it is it's neighbour, I have no doubt about that. I just hate the bull**** double standards applied, everyone seems to squeal about Iran supposedly arming militants when the US is arming or has armed almost every faction in Iraq, from the Shiite deathsquads to the Sunnis. As history has proven these groups will turn against the US in due time, creating more problems.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

..I have no doubt about that. I just hate the bull**** double standards applied, ....

Well it's a war not a game of football. Being fair and giving the other side a chance doesn't come into it.

By the way, the thing about smuggling in roadside bombs doesn't ring true. RSBs are usually made up from any handy explosives - Unexploded bombs and shells, unfired munitions, mines etc. All you need is a detonator and an initiating device- control wire, radio control or victim activated. Your average Iraqi insurgent probably has all this stuff lying around his backyard.

Whatever this lad was doing in the area it wasn't smuggling RSBs.

jonny72

Mick86 wrote:

Well it's a war not a game of football. Being fair and giving the other side a chance doesn't come into it.

By the way, the thing about smuggling in roadside bombs doesn't ring true. RSBs are usually made up from any handy explosives - Unexploded bombs and shells, unfired munitions, mines etc. All you need is a detonator and an initiating device- control wire, radio control or victim activated. Your average Iraqi insurgent probably has all this stuff lying around his backyard.

Whatever this lad was doing in the area it wasn't smuggling RSBs.

The insurgents are always improving their bombs as the coalition forces improve their armor. Specially shaped charges, etc.

nacho libre

jonny72 wrote:

Lets imagine there is a huge war going on in Mexico, do you think the US would have absolutely nothing to do with it?.. of course Iran is meddling in Iraq, it is it's neighbour, I have no doubt about that. I just hate the bull**** double standards applied, everyone seems to squeal about Iran supposedly arming militants when the US is arming or has armed almost every faction in Iraq, from the Shiite deathsquads to the Sunnis. As history has proven these groups will turn against the US in due time, creating more problems.

my point about this guy is, intelligence agents pose as businessmen and use diplomatic cover all the time, so this story may well be true. As for Iran meddling in Iraq of course they are. I wasn't doubting that.
However, let's not forget the CIA helping Jundullah and other groups to foment trouble against the government in Iran. that is the real hypocrisy... America complaining about Iran meddling in Iraq while at the same time doing the exact same thing themselves in Iran.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

The insurgents are always improving their bombs as the coalition forces improve their armor. Specially shaped charges, etc.

Still not the sort of thing a man would smuggle in his arse pocket.:D

Mick86

nacho libre wrote:

that is the real hypocrisy... America complaining about Iran meddling in Iraq while at the same time doing the exact same thing themselves in Iran.

What would you bet that the Iranian media is always moaning about the nasty Americans meddling in their affairs but ignores Iran supporting Hezbollah and so on.

A quick Google of the Tehran times and...:D

Foreign Minister Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini also stated that such actions by the United States military is an evident violation of international conventions, and is aimed at harming Iraq’s official relations with its neighbors.

Such insolent actions prove that the occupiers are still pursuing their “interfering and riotous” policies in the internal affairs of Iraq and the region, he stressed.

The U.S. should put an end to such behavior by withdrawing its troops from the region as soon as possible, he added

eoin5

Blame is fickle and oft-manipulated. The USS Stark was attacked by Iraqis in the Iraq-Iran war and somehow the US managed to turn the blame on the Iranians. Dont forget that would have been friendly fire at the time.