1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Illegal war in Iran

Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by Celerity, Dec 22, 2005.

  1. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    I want you all to know that today Iran declared, as Saddam did in 2002, that they will destroy the Zionist empires of Israel and the US.

    The original article, in Iranian: http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-603386
    You'll have to plug that into a translator.

    I grabbed this from FreeRepublic, the very website that broke the lid off Ted Koppel's faked anti-bush reports, ABC Journalists being banned from Russia, Valerie Plames false timeline, and the Kennedy wiretaps on MLK. Free republic is a vast website of people pasting articles off the mainstream onto one website to be disected and picked apart - and it is primarily Conservative in nature.
     
  2. reckedracing

    reckedracing TTIWWOP VIP

    Messages:
    21,057
    Likes Received:
    1,180
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Location:
    NY
    i hope they nuke each other into oblivion...
     
  3. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    We're included in that.

    You see, this isn't the first time this has happened. Ayatollah Khomeini declared this same thing in the late 80s.
     
  4. hosmer

    hosmer I made the millionth post VIP

    Messages:
    3,162
    Likes Received:
    82
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    B R I D G E W A T E R
    For some reason I don't see Iran as the country that will destroy the US





    China maybe....if they felt like it
     
  5. reckedracing

    reckedracing TTIWWOP VIP

    Messages:
    21,057
    Likes Received:
    1,180
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Location:
    NY
    so why not cut all ties with isreal and let them fend for themselves?
    and while we're at it we can stop giving them foreign aide, and stop setting up countries in other peoples historic territory...
     
  6. Sabz5150

    Sabz5150 FALCON PUNCH!!!

    Messages:
    3,335
    Likes Received:
    41
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Because the neocons see Israel as a keystone to military superiority in that region of the world.

    Neoconservatives are as crazy as the Iranians/Iraqis/insert country here, but only a hair smarter.
     
  7. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    I would suggest reading alittle history on the region before making such a statement. Because it's simply not true. Islam stole that land from the Zions hundreds of years ago, and Israel came to take it back en-masse after WWII displacement. We also do not provide aid to that region. Israel is fine on it's own economically. They are the dominant face of the Middle East.

    Defend this argument.
     
  8. Battle Pope

    Battle Pope New Member

    Messages:
    10,279
    Likes Received:
    60
    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Oregon Coast
    Same principle as why we're still in Iraq. We essentially created Israel, so we can't really "cut them off".
     
  9. cheese9988

    cheese9988 Senior Member VIP

    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    251
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Location:
    Lowell, MA
    Just when you thought we just might, get out of the war...... [​IMG]
     
  10. Sabz5150

    Sabz5150 FALCON PUNCH!!!

    Messages:
    3,335
    Likes Received:
    41
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Which part, the one about Israel or the one about Cons being crazy? Well, the second is blindingly obvious. The first is... well... blindingly obvious.

    I'll make this easy.

    From Wikipedia:

    "Some opponents of neoconservatives have sought to emphasize their interest in Israel and the relatively large proportion of Jewish neoconservatives, and have raised the question of "dual loyalty". A number of critics, such as Pat Buchanan, have accused them of putting Israeli interests above those of America. In turn these critics have been labeled as anti-Semites by many neoconservatives (which in turn has led to accusations of professional smearing, and then paranoia, and so on).

    Many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, among them Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, and Max Boot. Furthermore, neoconservatives in the 1960s were much less interested in Israel before the June 1967 Six Day War. It was only after this conflict, which raised the specter of unopposed Soviet influence in the Middle East, that the neoconservatives became preoccupied by Israel's security interests. They promote the view that Israel is the US's strongest ally in the Middle East as the sole Western-style democracy in the region, aside from Turkey (George W. Bush has also supported Turkey in its efforts to join the European Union)."

    The Cons have almost *ALWAYS* had an interest in Israel.
     
  11. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    We can cut them off, happens all the time. We created Japan and "cut them off" and they thrived just fine. The idea, in fact, is to let these people gain independence and become Friends of the US, and not Subjects of the US. (The opposite, "Imperialism" is what everyone says we do. we do not. We have not ever done this.)

    What we have here is the reason that we went to war with Iraq. Iraq made this same statement, and we asked the international community for permission to put a heavy hand on the Iraq regime to prevent their possible attack - we were turned down (As we are in this case in Iran). We (Bush and friends) made the call that we had to take matters in our hands to protect ourselves.

    So the question is this: Do we preemptively take them on? Do we prepare for war? Or do we dismiss them and wait for the international community to recognise a threat ? If we do that, are we willing to risk an attack on US soil? No? Then it appears we will do the SAME EXACT thing that got everyone so pissed off in the first place.
     
  12. Sabz5150

    Sabz5150 FALCON PUNCH!!!

    Messages:
    3,335
    Likes Received:
    41
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    I'll snip from the CSM this time...

    "Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

    Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary. "

    With neocons in power, expect this "war" to last a very long time.

    East Asia... Eurasia... Iraq... Iran... what's the difference?
     
  13. Battle Pope

    Battle Pope New Member

    Messages:
    10,279
    Likes Received:
    60
    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Oregon Coast
    I think that's part of the reason that we "took" Iraq - in addition to Israel it would prove to be a viable base of operations (if suicide bombers weren't bringing the country down around them).
     
  14. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    both of these statements, from Pat Buchanan (Who is pretty strange and fli-floppy in his political stances anyway) and that CSM article are very opinion-based.

    That said I know people's opinions. 80% now (Encroaching) share this same opinion. I contend that this opinion is wrong. If you can (Which I'm not sure you can) defend your arguments with facts and fact-based rhetoric before picking from the endless internet-based supply of opinion and heresay.

    Try again, I am interested. If you can change my mind, I won't spend so many nights angrily typing out 100 wpm to block the ignorance that gets sent my way ad nauseum.

    In addition: The second writing is correct in it's basis, but then loses sight in it's perspective.

    Wars will fought and won, and the winner will do what they will. I state that the US does the most honorable and ultimately, best result with each of it's own wars fought. All you need to do is look at Japan, Germany and Italy.

    I will in the meantime consider the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, The Falken Islands and the Panama Canal - All wars fought on liberal ideals and leadership.

    Vietnam as well, although not a great victory, still a war that we fought because of French failures in the area. We were called upon to fight alongside allies, and we caught the whole brunt of it. We stood by during the Falken Islands and were criticised for it, we stepped forward during the Kuwait occupation and got criticised for it.

    Pat Buchanan says stuff that I agree with, and other things that I think are complete horsehit. That's because he flip flops between my ideals and then the ideals of others. If you would like to see a break in that pattern, observe Joe Leiberman. Democrat, pro-israeli Jew.

    -> Steve
     
  15. Sabz5150

    Sabz5150 FALCON PUNCH!!!

    Messages:
    3,335
    Likes Received:
    41
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    And your sources aren't???

    God I love conservative thinking, gives me a good laugh every time.
     
  16. totalburnout

    totalburnout Well-Known Member VIP

    Messages:
    7,068
    Likes Received:
    126
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Location:
    NJ
    Look on the flipside. You're doing the same thing and being a cocky, ignorant, ass about it.

    There's always two sides to every story. :ph34r:
     
  17. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    What source? The Iranian paper written in Arabic ?

    Or the fact that it was pointed out on Free Republic ?

    -> Steve
     
  18. reckedracing

    reckedracing TTIWWOP VIP

    Messages:
    21,057
    Likes Received:
    1,180
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Location:
    NY
    ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????!?!?!
    it seems that anything that comes out of your mouth is totally false and untruthful...
    do you work in the bush administration now?????


    from the jewishvirtuallibrary.org

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...to_Israel1.html


     
  19. Sabz5150

    Sabz5150 FALCON PUNCH!!!

    Messages:
    3,335
    Likes Received:
    41
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Did I say my sources were neutral? Don't think I ever did.

    However Celerity pointed out that his sources had a right wing slant to it. Sorry dude, but Wikipedia is written by people like you and me and can be edited by people like you and me so the chances for bias are quite slim.

    You right wingers like to take everything a right wing source (FOX, Free Republic) as solid fact reguardless of bias.

    I recognize the bias in all sources, liberal included. Do you see the bias in yours?
     
  20. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    You wanna talk about sources? Huh ? I'll give you your goddam sources, and I'll even play into your little trap:

    I'll give you the MUSLIM ones (And a Wikipedia article, since that's been established as fair and balanced)

    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E...3CE0E9957EA.htm
    http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0510265904171054.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinezhad


    Choke on it. The dude wants to declare war upon us, and he's getting his country ready for it.

    In 3 years you'll all be sitting here "Man, those neocons are just out for power" and "We shouldn't be in Iran" Well fuck you, in advance. This is happening NOW, and I'm pointing it out AS I PROMISED... When it's happening.

    Iraq did this same thing, I pointed out the real news sources (Al-Jazeera, CNN, D-Welle, BBC articles in a previous post) and went ignored or further ridiculed.

    God I love the Liberal thinking, it makes me laugh everytime.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page