DogOnPorch Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) iran nazi past? get real. Some links re: Persia's Iran's past.... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGODGH99Q1.DTL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht http://www.tnscolumbus.com/index.php?optio...4&Itemid=26 Not just Iran... http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqaxiscoup.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud --------------------------------- It's a Daisy. Edited February 10, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Chris in KW Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Some links re: Persia's Iran's past....--------------------------------- It's a Daisy. So now we're judging countries based on their affiliation in the world wars? Are we going to add Italy, Japan and Turkey to the list of countries who aren't allowed to have nuclear power? Or Austria, since they were fairly sympathetic to the Nazis? All this old history may be true (and yes, you can find holocaust-deniers in the middle east). But it has nothing to do with recent policies on Iran, which were based on Cheney-style paranoia. Quote The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. (Carl Jung)
DogOnPorch Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 So now we're judging countries based on their affiliation in the world wars? The question was: "did Iran (nee: Persia) have ties to the Nazis under the Shah's father?" When some posters replied in contest, evidence was provided. Is there a problem? Are we going to add Italy, Japan and Turkey to the list of countries who aren't allowed to have nuclear power? Or Austria, since they were fairly sympathetic to the Nazis? I don't think having nuclear power is the issue, rather nuclear weapons. Why would Iran want to seperate U-235 from U-238, otherwise? But, good news for you "A-Bombs For Everyone" crowd. A.Q. Khan was released today by the Pakistani government (people?). That should open up the ol' atomic-marketplace quite well. All this old history may be true (and yes, you can find holocaust-deniers in the middle east). But it has nothing to do with recent policies on Iran, which were based on Cheney-style paranoia. In other debates on this and other boards, I've seen posters say 'such & such is ancient history' (and thus apparently irrelevant) then turn around and talk about 1967 borders or what-not...apparently NOT so-called 'ancient history'. Fact is, all history is relevant right down to the tiniest detail. ----------------------------------------------------------- We believe A.Q. Khan remains a serious proliferation risk. ---Gordon Duguid: US State Dept. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Chris in KW Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 The question was: "did Iran (nee: Persia) have ties to the Nazis under the Shah's father?"----------------------------------------------------------- We believe A.Q. Khan remains a serious proliferation risk. ---Gordon Duguid: US State Dept. I was questioning the relevance of this topic (Iran's ties to Nazi Germany) to the thread (Why can't Iran have nuclear power). Quote The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. (Carl Jung)
Chris in KW Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 But, good news for you "A-Bombs For Everyone" crowd. Wow, that's quite a leap! Quote The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. (Carl Jung)
DogOnPorch Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Wow, that's quite a leap! Not really. He gave Iran and N. Korea their nuclear secrets. Somebody must love him...he's not in 'jail' anymore. Maybe it's a leap that you thought that meant YOU. That being said, there are plenty of people that seem to be really keen on Iran being allowed to pursue nuclear technology without interference. They just overlook things like gas centrifuges and such....pretty easy when most people generally have zero understanding of reactors and atomic bombs. I was questioning the relevance of this topic (Iran's ties to Nazi Germany) to the thread (Why can't Iran have nuclear power). That's nice. Questioning is allowed...but not if it is merely an attempt to shut-down discussion re: unfavorable facts that might disagree with one's philosophy. ---------------------------------- It's a Daisy. Edited February 10, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dub Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Some links re: Persia's Iran's past....http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGODGH99Q1.DTL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht http://www.tnscolumbus.com/index.php?optio...4&Itemid=26 Not just Iran... http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqaxiscoup.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud --------------------------------- It's a Daisy. thanx for the opinion articles by Edwin Black, but just like dancer, you've failed, again, to show that iran broke any laws of war when it declared itself "neutral". who cares that there is a sentence about Schacht in wikipedia that says that he convinced iran to call itself "iran" to the outside world. even though iranians have been calling their country iran well before the 20th century. how is that breaking the neutrality law? call me when you're able to show that iran broke the laws of war after it declared itself neutral. Edited February 10, 2009 by dub Quote
Chris in KW Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Not really. He gave Iran and N. Korea their nuclear secrets. Somebody must love him...he's not in 'jail' anymore. Maybe it's a leap that you thought that meant YOU. Not sure what you're talking about. I questioned the relevance of Iran's ties to Nazi Germany, and as a result you suggested that that gives me membership in some "A-bombs for everybody" club.... Not sure what that has to do with some Pakistani guy who's giving away nuclear secrets. I get the fact that you don't like Iran. But the WW2 Nazi connection is not really a compelling reason any more. None of this has much to do with the original thread. My opinion about "allowing" Iran to have nuclear weapons, is that I don't know.. (but I'm not sure we can stop them short of bombing plants, which is stupid). The US has already created enough fanaticism in the middle east -- we sure as hell don't need a war with Iran to fan those flames. I'm sure the US would "win", the same way they "won" the war in Iraq. I don't see other countries (even "extremists" like North Korea or Pakistan) being eager to join the club of nations who have used atomic weapons in war. BTW, that club currently contains only one member. Quote The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. (Carl Jung)
dub Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 And Britain followed all the rules when it invaded Iran to end the oil shipments to the the Nazis and becoming a Nazi sattelite. tell me when you become interested in talking about the real world and not the fake world you're trying to shove down our throats. Quote
M.Dancer Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 tell me when you become interested in talking about the real world and not the fake world you're trying to shove down our throats. Have you always believed that what you don't see isn't real or is this a new symptom? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
dub Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Not sure what you're talking about. I questioned the relevance of Iran's ties to Nazi Germany, and as a result you suggested that that gives me membership in some "A-bombs for everybody" club.... Not sure what that has to do with some Pakistani guy who's giving away nuclear secrets. I get the fact that you don't like Iran. But the WW2 Nazi connection is not really a compelling reason any more. iranians partied with germans back during the world war and so they are nazis and shouldn't have nuclear power. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND?! None of this has much to do with the original thread. My opinion about "allowing" Iran to have nuclear weapons, is that I don't know.. (but I'm not sure we can stop them short of bombing plants, which is stupid). The US has already created enough fanaticism in the middle east -- we sure as hell don't need a war with Iran to fan those flames. I'm sure the US would "win", the same way they "won" the war in Iraq.I don't see other countries (even "extremists" like North Korea or Pakistan) being eager to join the club of nations who have used atomic weapons in war. BTW, that club currently contains only one member. dogonporch is here to push an agenda. he doesn't care about the US and even Canada. not the way he cares for the zionist agenda. Quote
dub Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Have you always believed that what you don't see isn't real or is this a new symptom? eh? you're trying to substitute spins, lies and misinformation for reality. you're a liar just like people like bill o'reilly and glenn beck are liars. Quote
M.Dancer Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 (but I'm not sure we can stop them short of bombing plants, which is stupid). Why is it stupid? Worked in Iraq....and if you are lucky, you not only disable the plants, you get to terminate the intellectual assets. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 eh?you're trying to substitute spins, lies and misinformation for reality. you're a liar just like people like bill o'reilly and glenn beck are liars. So what you are trying say is, that if it wasn't for the tourettes which incapaccitates your reasoning, you would have better grip? Well good luck, when the spasms abate, lets continue. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
dub Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 So what you are trying say is, that if it wasn't for the tourettes which incapaccitates your reasoning, you would have better grip?Well good luck, when the spasms abate, lets continue. as orwell has said: To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed. Quote
dub Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) And Britain followed all the rules when it invaded Iran to end the oil shipments to the the Nazis and becoming a Nazi sattelite. look at your contribution above. another lie. reality was that when hitler invaded the soviet union in 1941, the Allies urgently needed to transport war material across iran to the soviet union, an operation that would have violated iranian neutrality. so they attacked iran. Edited February 10, 2009 by dub Quote
M.Dancer Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 look at your contribution above.another lie. reality was that when hitler invaded the soviet union in 1941, the Allies urgently needed to transport war material across iran to the soviet union, an operation that would have violated iranian neutrality. so they attacked iran. Ho hum....spin spin spin..half truths and half the story....you're no better than Rush Limabuagh or Glenn Beck.... CHAPTER XXVI PERSIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST Summer and Autumn 1941 The need to pass munitions and supplies of all kinds to the Soviet Government and the extreme difficulties of the Arctic route, together with future strategic possibilities, made it eminently desirable to open the fullest communication with Russia through Persia. The Persian oilfields were a prime war factor. An active and numerous German mission had installed itself in Teheran, and German prestige stood high. The suppression of the revolt in Iraq and the Anglo-French occupation of Syria, achieved as they were by narrow margins, blotted out Hitler's Oriental plan. We welcomed the opportunity of joining hands with the Russians and proposed to them a joint campaign. I was not without some anxiety about embarking on a Persian war, but the arguments for it were compulsive. I was very glad that General Wavell should be in India to direct the military movements. On July 11, 1941, the Chiefs of Staff were asked by a Cabinet Committee to consider the desirability of joint military action in conjunction with the Russians in Persia in the event of the Persian Government refusing to expel the German community at present employed in that country. On July 18 they recommended that we should adopt a firm attitude in dealing with the Persian Government. This view was also strongly held by General Wavell, who had telegraphed the War Office on the previous day in the following terms: The complaisant attitude it is proposed to adopt over Iran appears to me incomprehensible. It is essential to the defence of India that Germans should be cleared out of Iran now. Failure to do so will lead to a repetition of events which in Iraq were only just countered in time. It is essential we should join hands with Russia through Iran, and if the present Government is not willing to facilitate this it must be made to give way to one which will. To this end the strongest possible pressure should be applied forthwith while issue of German-Russian struggle is in doubt.... On the 21st I replied to General Wavell: Cabinet will consider Persian situation to-morrow. I am in general agreement with your view, and would like to give Persians an ultimatum from Britain and Russia to clear out the Germans without delay or take the consequences. Question is what forces we have available in case of refusal. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/iran.htm Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
dub Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Ho hum....spin spin spin..half truths and half the story....you're no better than Rush Limabuagh or Glenn Beck....http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/iran.htm nice quote. did you purposely forget the first sentence? where is your claim that britain attacked iran to to end the oil shipments to the the Nazis and becoming a Nazi sattelite.? here is your own quote, maybe you'll learn something from it: The need to pass munitions and supplies of all kinds to the Soviet Government and the extreme difficulties of the Arctic route, together with future strategic possibilities, made it eminently desirable to open the fullest communication with Russia through Persia. The Persian oilfields were a prime war factor. An active and numerous German mission had installed itself in Teheran, and German prestige stood high. there is nothing here about iran breaking the law of neutrality. do you have any more quotes to paste that prove absolutely nothing in regards to your make belief world? Edited February 10, 2009 by dub Quote
M.Dancer Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 there is nothing here about iran breaking the law of neutrality. Really?.. It is essential to the defence of India that Germans should be cleared out of Iran now. Failure to do so will lead to a repetition of events which in Iraq were only just countered in time. I guess I should have used visual aids.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted February 10, 2009 Report Posted February 10, 2009 Sticking up for Nazi Germany re: a nation's neutrality...I love it. ------------------------------- You so consistantly...crack us up. ---Anthony 'Fat Tony' D'Amico: The Simpsons Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dub Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 Really?..It is essential to the defence of India that Germans should be cleared out of Iran now. Failure to do so will lead to a repetition of events which in Iraq were only just countered in time. really. how is your comment proof that iran violated the rules of neutrality? show me how iran violated the rules of neutrality. can you do that or are you going to continue shooting blanks? before you go on your google and wikipedia hunt, read the rules: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp Quote
M.Dancer Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 really.how is your comment proof that iran violated the rules of neutrality? show me how iran violated the rules of neutrality. can you do that or are you going to continue shooting blanks? before you go on your google and wikipedia hunt, read the rules: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp 1) No one has said they did violate it 2) They were prempted from violating the neutrality 3) Ha Ha! Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
kactus Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 Hi everyone, Am new here and just thought to share some thoughts on this topic. Frankly IMO whether Iran has a nuke or not does not make any difference to Israel or Knesset. Israel is playing a common intelligence game. They want to pretend that they're trying to keep the info secret but after all having some nuclear capability is pointless if your enemies don't know about it so while keeping it a secret they have to kind of give away some info at the same time. This report by FAS (relatively old but a reliable source) gives an indication on their capabilities: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke "By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated, and that Israel's nuclear weapons inventory may include less than 100 nuclear weapons. Stockpiled plutonium could be used to build additional weapons if so decided." And the article goes on: "Based on plausible upper and lower bounds of the operating practices at the reactor, Israel could have thus produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons." Anyways there was nothing in the report that tells me Israel has less than 200. Simply a guess based on how the intel community tends to work and report factored in with the need Israel has to keep these weapons safe, centrally located and reasonably ready. Also factor in how many missiles they would need, how many they have already armed "conventionally" and how many weapons (warheads and missiles) need to be replaced/repaired periodically and this would just end up being my guess. Quote
Chris in KW Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) Why is it stupid? Worked in Iraq....and if you are lucky, you not only disable the plants, you get to terminate the intellectual assets. Two things: 1. The US did not invade Iraq to take out nuclear plants or weapons. They used WMD as a red-herring excuse, and when it turned out that that was wrong, they came up with the Saddam-is-a-bad-guy excuse. 2. You're using the war in Iraq as an example of success?!?!? We (meaning the US, or the west) cannot arbitrarily attack any country we don't like, destroy its weapons capabilities, and somehow claim this is either a moral (or a practical) victory. There might be some countries that you hate enough to trick yourself into believing that a"pre-emptive military strike" is ok. But that doesn't make it right. It doesn't change the fact that this approach is morally, ethically, practically and in every other way, stupid. It fuels the extremist sentiments on both sides, and prolongs war, stifles economies, and basically creates hatred against the west. Edited February 11, 2009 by Chris in KW Quote The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. (Carl Jung)
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 11, 2009 Report Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) Two things: 1. The US did not invade Iraq to take out nuclear plants or weapons. They used WMD as a red-herring excuse, and when it turned out that that was wrong, they came up with the Saddam-is-a-bad-guy excuse. Actually, Saddam had been a "bad guy" long before that. See "Gulf War I". We (meaning the US, or the west) cannot arbitrarily attack any country we don't like, destroy its weapons capabilities, and somehow claim this is either a moral (or a practical) victory. Of course "We" can, and have done so on several occasions. Has nothing to do with morals. There might be some countries that you hate enough to trick yourself into believing that a"pre-emptive military strike" is ok. But that doesn't make it right. It doesn't change the fact that this approach is morally, ethically, practically and in every other way, stupid. It fuels the extremist sentiments on both sides, and prolongs war, stifles economies, and basically creates hatred against the west. Following such logic, Americans should still hate Japan? Edited February 11, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.