Iran, a Real Look at the Country's Peoples

[Argus]

If they use nukes, it will not only be another peoples, and country, destroyed, but as considerable area in the ME as well. And it will affect the whole globe, and more than just environmentally.

People should look at the links in the first page to the pictures of the peoples and cities after the one and only prior atomic bomb drop on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and then go look at the pictures of Iranians.

Again the youth, who are a majority in Iran, are struggling for a democracy, they want the Mullahs and the President gone. We should be supporting them, NOT supporting those who want to nuke them.

At this point in the thread, 23+ percent of the people believe that nuking Iran is fair game. That means these 23+% of the people don't feel either way about killing thousands of people given the claims made by the same people who brought you the farce of WMD's.

Then they wonder why the rest of world has reached a point of nuclear arms race.

This is the Left's reflexive "it comes from the great satan, so I instantly don't believe it" argument. However, a little thought and investigation would show you there really isn't any notable doubt about Iran's intentions with regard to nuclear weapons. Even the Europeans are accusing them. Those nice Europeans. They're socialists! Surely you can trust them!

[Argus]

Of course Israel has plans on nuking Iran - and plans on nuking every other Muslim state too. Those are the kinds of plans every nation's military has in place in case of emergencies. But I highly doubt Israel will be the first to use nukes. Much more likely will be raids with very powerful conventional explosives to wipe out key components of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

And I'm supposed to disregard all the international figures who are saying otherwise and believe you because.... you said so?

All the international figures? The ones with tinfoil caps, you mean? Yes, you can disregard them as nobody sane is worrying about Israel nuking Iran.

[Argus]

So what, you are saying that Iran should be nuked because of these articles? What is your point of posting inposting them they are not in anyway pertinent to the US pplans to nuke Iran.

Oh now it's US plans to nuke Iran. How about the German's plans to nuke Iran? Aren't you worried about that? And the Swiss plans for nuking Iran? And the Nigerian plans for nuking Iran? What is your obsession with Iran being nuked? Did you have a bad dream and your nurse didn't wake you?

I posted them in response to you idiotic cites about "life in Iran, a real look at the country's peoples" or had you already forgotten the title of your own thread?

Again, the Iranian youth, who are the largest demographics in IRan are trying to get rid of the mullahs, who actually conrol the country and get rid of the figure head president.

I'm sure some are. I'm equally sure some would slit their own mother's throats rather than see that happen. I'm also sure nothing is going to change in the foreseeable future.

[Argus]

I'm not surprised that your ignorance of criminal law is as vast as your ignorance about international politics. In point of fact such kinds of defenses have been successfully used before in many courts in Canada. In particular, it has been used in cases where husbands have been murdered by their wives.

Speaking of ignorant.... A woman in an abusive relationship is not in a position of power. Israel has the world's fourth largest army. But nice try.

Do you have a cite that doesn't come from the tinfoil brigade that says Israel has the world's fourth largest army? Because I happen to know that, when this claim was last made by a member of the tinfoil brigade, he was shouted down by almost everyone.

And what does your excuse have to do with the point of law? You said that such an argument would never be accepted in a court: I pointed out that, as with almost everything else you post, you were again wrong.

Now let us suggest that your neighbour, a religious wacko - one you can identify with, say, a "eek!" Christian fundamentalist - had repeatedly threatened you, told you he was going to wipe you and your family out as soon as he got a gun, that God had told him to cleanse the earth of your ilk, and then, day after day, told you how he was shopping for a gun, applying for his paperwork, waiting his days, and then, on the last morning says "It's ready! I'm going to get my gun now, scumbag!"

More like your neighbour is the only person on the block who won't turn a blind eye to you beating your step-child and you're starting a smear campaign full of non-sequitur arguments about your life being in danger so you and your thugs can go and do to him what you did to the last guy on the block who spoke out against your child-abuse.

Are you trying to suggest Iran, which hangs teenage girls for being raped, is an innocent, caring neighbour who only wants to help everyone to live in peace? Could it be possible that anyone could make that dumb an argument and not have their face burst into flames from embarrassment?

Maybe you'd like to explain why every other neighbour on the street and in the neighboorhood is also afraid of the crazy religious wacko neighbour and his love of ever larger guns and missiles.

[scribblet]

Iraq according to Al J was once said to be the fourth largest army in the world,

CHANNELS

Life and death of Iraq's military

By Ahmad Amrawi

Answering this crappola about nuking Iran only gives the accusation more space, the continuing repetition of such untruths does give them more impact and readership.

[Catchme]

It seems some are still failing to see the reality of this situation.

1. Iran does not have nuclear capabilities, and may not have nuclear capabilities for up to a decade, if then

2. Iran's population is young and it does not want the Mullahs control over their lives and futures and they are actively seeking to be rid of it. They want a democracy. They are not radical in anyway shape or form.

3. Iran is NO threat to Israel or anyone else.

4. You do not destroy a peoples and a country because someday they may be a threat, or because they may try turning the nuclear capabilites for hydro purposes into other, at some alleged point in the future.

5. Nuclear weapons should never be used upon others, or indeed used at all.

6. Historonics and spurious accustions towards ALL Muslims and broad brushing them into 1, is racism.

7. North Korea actually has nuclear weapons, why would some be agitating to destroy a nation and peoples who do not have that capability and may never? They are because they have another motivation, or several.

8. Why do some wish so strongly to turn the world into chaos, and I am talking here about the western world namely the US admin and its supporters?

9. Iran would never ever nuclear attack Israel, it is where one of their most sacred places is.

10. This nuclear air attack by USA/Israel would be only about money, power and oil and it is being done with the help of those whose religious fervour has been co-opted by ego. And perhaps even evil.

11. No society/country have the right to destroy another country and innocent people so that their standard of life is supposedly maintained.

12. There will be no more safety in the world if Iran, full of innocent people, is destroyed. There will be less.

[Catchme]

More news out today regarding the USA's complicite actions in bringing about tensions with Iran. So then just what are Israels and the USA administrations motives in inciting nedless tensions?

2003 Memo Says Iranian Leaders Backed Talks

"

I got the clear impression that there is a strong will of the regime to tackle the problem with the U.S. now and to try it with this initiative," Tim Guldimann, the ambassador, wrote in a cover letter that was faxed to the State Department on May 4, 2003. Guldimann attached a one-page Iranian document labeled "Roadmap" that listed U.S. and Iranian aims for potential negotiations, putting on the table such issues as an end to Iran's support for anti-Israeli militants, action against terrorist groups on Iranian soil and acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

The cover letter, which had not been previously disclosed, was provided by a source who felt its contents were mischaracterized by State Department officials. Switzerland serves as a diplomatic channel for communications between Tehran and Washington because the two countries broke off relations after the 1979 seizure of U.S. Embassy personnel.

Guldimann's two-page fax prompted a debate among foreign policy professionals on whether the Bush administration missed an opportunity four years ago to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran at a time when Washington appeared at the height of its power after the invasion of Iraq and Iran had not mastered uranium enrichment..

The supreme leader had reservations on some points but agreed with 85 to 90 percent of the road map, and "everything can be negotiated," Kharrazi said, noting any reservations could be discussed at the first bilateral meeting. Kharrazi added: "There is a clear interest to tackle the problem of our relations with the U.S. I told them, this is a golden opportunity." Guldimann noted that the "lack of trust in the U.S. imposes them to proceed very carefully and very confidentially." Kharrazi proposed that Armitage represent the United States at the first meeting because he had made positive comments on Iranian democracy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7021301363.html

and then this:

Imagine dealing with Iran when few Americans had heard of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Imagine the kind of "Nixon Goes to China" move that would have 'possibly' taken America's engagement in the Middle East in a new, constructive direction rather than towards the precipitous decline in perceived power it's facing now.

There may have been a radically different future with Iran -- if there had been serious 'experimentation' with an Iranian proposal to change the contours of US-Iran relations -- on subjects ranging from Iran's support of terrorism to recognizing the State of Israel to America to America's de facto protection of the Iranian mullah-harassing MEK.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001941.php

[madmax]

It seems some are still failing to see the reality of this situation.

1. Iran does not have nuclear capabilities, and may not have nuclear capabilities for up to a decade, if then

Iran does not have Nukes, but will be nuclear capable in far less then a decade, if left to their on devices.

2. Iran's population is young and it does not want the Mullahs control over their lives and futures and they are actively seeking to be rid of it. They want a democracy. They are not radical in anyway shape or form.

Iran has a democracy, they have voted for change, and then the Iraq war occurred and the majority went back towards supporting a tougher leader. Iran will always have a Theocracy and it will take many decades or a century before it is watered down like the British Monarchy.

3. Iran is NO threat to Israel or anyone else.

Iran is a threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and is a destabilizer in Iraq. They are moving into big dog territory.

4. You do not destroy a peoples and a country because someday they may be a threat, or because they may try turning the nuclear capabilites for hydro purposes into other, at some alleged point in the future.

There are better sources of power then Nuclear. I see no need to destroy Iran but they cannot be allowed to join the nuclear club. Infact the proliferation during the Bush administration has been terrible.

Obviously the Bush doctrine of Pre-emptive strikes has been proven foolish and stupid and strikes fear into no one.

5. Nuclear weapons should never be used upon others, or indeed used at all.

Been lucky so far. None since WW2.

7. North Korea actually has nuclear weapons, why would some be agitating to destroy a nation and peoples who do not have that capability and may never? They are because they have another motivation, or several.

More reason for Iran to obtain Nukes. Bush actually talks and deals with countries that have nukes. North Korea he cuts a deal. Pakistan sells the technology to American enemies and he cuts a deal. But if you don't have nukes, Bush invades.

Obviously, there will be another administration soon, but the years of incompetence and ludicrous foreign policy of the Neo cons makes crazy people like Kim Jong Ill appear as great deal makers.

8. Why do some wish so strongly to turn the world into chaos, and I am talking here about the western world namely the US admin and its supporters?

Because not listening to criticism is a good for foreign policy. Attack Cambodia, create a Khmer Rouge. Attack Iraq, start a recruitment drive for Al qaeda.

Bush senior started a "New World Order" while all foreign policies have their problems, there was an element of stability behind the policy.

Bush Jr just wasn't up to the job. He still isn't.

9. Iran would never ever nuclear attack Israel, it is where one of their most sacred places is.

It certainly would, particularly if Israel launched their nukes. Iran would also use its Nukes like all other countries in the region, as the US and USSR used theirs. As a deterent.

10. This nuclear air attack by USA/Israel would be only about money, power and oil and it is being done with the help of those whose religious fervour has been co-opted by ego. And perhaps even evil.

Israel will always protect its interests, regardless of the position of the US government. Israels #1 interest has always been about self preservation. They will attack anyone, including Americans if there is any weakness towards Israeli security.

11. No society/country have the right to destroy another country and innocent people so that their standard of life is supposedly maintained.

I remember Iraqi intellectual and University students, claiming just that. Unfortuneately today Iraq is regressing similar to Afghanistan did when the USSR invaded.

Many countries will attack other countries and kill innocents. Iraq did so against Kuwait. And the US continued to bomb Iraq right up until the invasion of 2003.

12. There will be no more safety in the world if Iran, full of innocent people, is destroyed. There will be less.

That's why there won't be a nuclear strike. But threats of a nuclear strike are nothing new. Israel will take out the nuclear plant if threatened, regardless of the US foreign policy for the near future.

[madmax]

Iraq according to Al J was once said to be the fourth largest army in the world,

That was quoted often. It was with regards to conscripts in the standing army.

Certainly not the fourth most powerful army in the world. That was all during the Iran/Iraq war and then the Gulf War shortly after.

[Black Dog]

madmax:

More reason for Iran to obtain Nukes. Bush actually talks and deals with countries that have nukes. North Korea he cuts a deal. Pakistan sells the technology to American enemies and he cuts a deal. But if you don't have nukes, Bush invades.

Obviously, there will be another administration soon, but the years of incompetence and ludicrous foreign policy of the Neo cons makes crazy people like Kim Jong Ill appear as great deal makers.

I don't really buy that. No one is going to sink a lot of money and time and risk international condemnation to start a nuclear program just to wring some concessions from the west. At best, that's a unintended consequense.

Other than that, good post.

[madmax]

I don't really buy that. No one is going to sink a lot of money and time and risk international condemnation to start a nuclear program just to wring some concessions from the west. At best, that's a unintended consequense.

You are correct. It is an unintended consequence.

[gc1765]

Iran has a democracy, they have voted for change, and then the Iraq war occurred and the majority went back towards supporting a tougher leader. Iran will always have a Theocracy and it will take many decades or a century before it is watered down like the British Monarchy.

Iran is not really a democracy. The president has very little power, and the country is essentially run by the unelected Supreme Leader (Ayatollah) & Council of Guardians. Iranians overwhelmingly want democracy, they proved that in 1997 and 2001. After being labelled part of the "axis of evil" and the U.S. invasion of another "axis of evil" partner, you can imagine Iranians are probably not going to want a pro-U.S. government. Instead, they chose a hardliner. This is why talking about war with Iran is such a bad idea, as it just encourages the Iranians to become defensive. When Iranians stop feeling threatened, perhaps they will re-enter the path to reform, and maybe even someday we will see a democratic, pro-western Iran.

[madmax]

Iran is not really a democracy. The president has very little power, and the country is essentially run by the unelected Supreme Leader (Ayatollah) & Council of Guardians.

I understand this.

Iranians overwhelmingly want democracy, they proved that in 1997 and 2001. After being labelled part of the "axis of evil" and the U.S. invasion of another "axis of evil" partner, you can imagine Iranians are probably not going to want a pro-U.S. government. Instead, they chose a hardliner. This is why talking about war with Iran is such a bad idea, as it just encourages the Iranians to become defensive.

It is a very stupid idea. If feeds the ambitions of the Mullahs.

When Iranians stop feeling threatened, perhaps they will re-enter the path to reform, and maybe even someday we will see a democratic, pro-western Iran.

The engagement of the US keeps throwing Iranian Democracy backwards.

I am sure you know the story from 1950 onwards.

[Catchme]

Iranians overwhelmingly want democracy, they proved that in 1997 and 2001. After being labelled part of the "axis of evil" and the U.S. invasion of another "axis of evil" partner, you can imagine Iranians are probably not going to want a pro-U.S. government. Instead, they chose a hardliner. This is why talking about war with Iran is such a bad idea, as it just encourages the Iranians to become defensive.

It is a very stupid idea. If feeds the ambitions of the Mullahs.

When Iranians stop feeling threatened, perhaps they will re-enter the path to reform, and maybe even someday we will see a democratic, pro-western Iran.

The engagement of the US keeps throwing Iranian Democracy backwards.

I am sure you know the story from 1950 onwards.

A couple of really good posts madmax thank you!

[geoffrey]

5. Nuclear weapons should never be used upon others, or indeed used at all.

Dangerous, never deal with absolutes.

The possibility of using nukes has prevented anyone from actually using them. As soon as we all agree to destroy the nukes, the last man with one has emmense power.

What about to divert an asteroid or something like that?

[Catchme]

5. Nuclear weapons should never be used upon others, or indeed used at all.

Dangerous, never deal with absolutes.

The possibility of using nukes has prevented anyone from actually using them. As soon as we all agree to destroy the nukes, the last man with one has emmense power.

What about to divert an asteroid or something like that?

No, it has not prevented anyone from actually using them, the USA remains the only country to have used them upon other peoples.

That is a subjective point eh?

Asteriod = red herring

Using them against peoples, because someday said peoples who may or may not have nuclear weapons someday, is immoral, illegal, and a crime against humanity.

[Catchme]

So, the USA is trying to prod Iran into something by arming people who are conducting terrorist attacks.

Weapons used in attack in Zahedan, Iran come from U.S.

www.chinaview.cn 2007-02-17 18:59:10

TEHRAN, Feb. 17 (Xinhua) -- Explosive devices and arsenals used in a terrorist attack in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan on Wednesday came from the United States, the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Saturday.

Relevant documents, photographs and film footage, which show that the explosives and arsenals used in the attack were American, would soon be made public, an "informed source" was quoted as saying.

On Wednesday morning, an explosive-laden car exploded in Zahedan as a bus, belonging to ground forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, passed by, killing at least 11 people and injuring 31 others.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-02/...ent_5751122.htm

[marcinmoka]

Nukes against Iran as a whole, hell no. Not unless they struck first.

The Iranian population is a completely different beast than the ruling theocracy. They are young, they are progressive and don't give care for the theocracy imposed on them by force.

[myata]

Perhaps you can clarify, who exactly it was imposed by? The last government that was imposed on Iran was that of Shah, "imposed" by CIA sponsored coup in 1953. His reing was famous for brutality of his secret service, Savak, set up under guideance of CIA, and total submission to the US interests - until he was finally deposed in a popular uprising in the end of 70s.

Doesn't it look like a familiar story that played itself again and again - so that even a specific term, "blowback", was invented to signify these repeating episodes when US is haunted by the effects of its foreing policies?

[gc1765]

Perhaps you can clarify, who exactly it was imposed by?

By Iranians back in the 70's, when most Iranians today weren't even born or were too young to have any influence....and only because they disliked the Shah so much.

[myata]

You mean, the conflict of generations, right, that "sons and farthers" thing? In the same way as Charter of Rights and universal health care is imposed on us by the Canadians of the 60s?

[Argus]

So, the USA is trying to prod Iran into something by arming people who are conducting terrorist attacks.

Weapons used in attack in Zahedan, Iran come from U.S.

www.chinaview.cn 2007-02-17 18:59:10

TEHRAN, Feb. 17 (Xinhua) -- Explosive devices and arsenals used in a terrorist attack in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan on Wednesday came from the United States, the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Saturday.

Relevant documents, photographs and film footage, which show that the explosives and arsenals used in the attack were American, would soon be made public, an "informed source" was quoted as saying.

On Wednesday morning, an explosive-laden car exploded in Zahedan as a bus, belonging to ground forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, passed by, killing at least 11 people and injuring 31 others.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-02/...ent_5751122.htm

I like how the ulta left sneers contemptuously at the quite likely, quite logical American complaints about Iran supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq, then treats every claim by Iran as the absolute, undeniable truth.

The hatred the ultra left feels for the Americans allows them to vastly prefer whatever murderous regime they can find which opposes the US. I think many of them would be more content living as an Iranian in a mud hut so long as they could indignantly shake their fists at the Americans.

[Argus]

Perhaps you can clarify, who exactly it was imposed by? The last government that was imposed on Iran was that of Shah, "imposed" by CIA sponsored coup in 1953. His reing was famous for brutality of his secret service, Savak, set up under guideance of CIA, and total submission to the US interests - until he was finally deposed in a popular uprising in the end of 70s.

Doesn't it look like a familiar story that played itself again and again - so that even a specific term, "blowback", was invented to signify these repeating episodes when US is haunted by the effects of its foreing policies?

Actually, the coup was sought by the British after the previous government nationalized British oil company assets without compensation. It took years before they could persuade the Americans to go along with it. As for the Shah's brutality - it was in keeping with the neighbours. He was no better or worse than the dictators of Iraq or Syria or most other Arab states, and certainly no worse than the theocracy which followed.

[myata]

So, it'd be fine (and you wouldn't object to it at all) for a foreign power (or organization) to consipire and execute a violent coup d'etat in the US, to install a puppet regime as long as it'd be "in keeping with its neighbours" (like e.g. Mexico, Guatemala, Haiti)? Or only one player in the world is entitled to the role?

[gc1765]

You mean, the conflict of generations, right, that "sons and farthers" thing? In the same way as Charter of Rights and universal health care is imposed on us by the Canadians of the 60s?

Universal health care and the Charter are not imposed on us. We can vote for a Government to get rid of them anytime, although I"m pretty sure that greater than 50% of Canadians believe in them. Iranians can not vote to get rid of their supreme leader, even though the majority of the country does want reform.