Steely Dan Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The USA did indeed misbehave badly with the Shah of Iran before the tragic Iranian Islamic revolution. That is history and no point in denying it. Not sure how that justifies bad behavior of Iran ... TODAY. It's a shame there is no flashing light font to use with the word TODAY as it would appear original sin trumps common sense in some quarters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 ... That is history and no point in denying it. ... But Iran does deny it. Isn't that curious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 This Goat Won't Scape: Why Attacking Iran Will Not Work in 2012 "Currently, the US is following a trajectory of past unsuccessful empires that were unable to sustain themselves resulting in an eventual collapse from within. Even the threat of an attack on Iran will automatically drive oil speculators to push up the price of oil futures, which will in turn raise the price of oil at the pump at a time when Western businesses and consumers can hardly afford it. And this series of events is already in motion. The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s busiest oil shipping lane, with 17 million barrels of oil per day passing through. Iranian announcements this week stating they will not only defend their territorial waters, but retaliate by closing the Strait’s shipping lanes if it’s attacked by the US or Israel – have already driven up the global price, with the price of Brent Crude jumping another $5 today to an eight-month high of $111.65 per barrel. " http://www.pacificfr...rk-in-2012.html I don't think Iran is really capable of closing the Straits, in other words they are not capable of fighting off who would fight them if they tried. I agree with the article that the cost of a war with Iran would be huge. I disagree about their predictable obsession with a translation controversy when there are hundreds of pieces of evidence over several years as well as actions such as support of Hamas that prove the toxic attitude of Iran towards Israel. I also disagree with their pathetic skepticism about the nuclear aspirations of Iran. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) this is total hypocrisy. You want regime change in iran etc so are we to assume you want to wipe out the people too? There are not much more war mongering people than Anglo-Americans! But of course it's hypocrisy, indeed why do the inmates of lunatic asylums get kitted out with straight jackets and the warders armed with tazers? Perhaps they should swap roles on alternate weeks to maintain a quid pro quo. As I did state though secular democracies don't tend to do the genocide thing and in the case of Iran I suspect that aside from a few leftist hand wringers and west hating fanatics few people would be sad to see the Iranian regime go, I'm certain the people of Iran would be for the most part delighted, especially women, gays, businesses etc etc. Edited January 5, 2012 by Steely Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkaew Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The USA did indeed misbehave badly with the Shah of Iran before the tragic Iranian Islamic revolution. That is history and no point in denying it. Not sure how that justifies bad behavior of Iran ... TODAY. it is relevant to how the west think and act. 99% of people in the west would think that the shah and gulf of tonkin incidents 'couldn't be' and will therefore believe our leaders when they say 'iran attacked first'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 ... That is history and no point in denying it. ... But Iran does deny it. Isn't that curious? Again Jingthing you are so far off the mark. They have never denied it. The exact words used were if the Holocaust is a historic event then why did Palestinians have to pay the price for the crimes of the Germans. Why was land not given to the jews in Germany or Poland etc etc, why was land taken from the palestinians when compensation should have been retrieved from the germans.. get the picture? They also said that if the Holocaust is a historic event why can it not be researched and spoken about so that more can be learned. You don't have to agree with what they say but for Gods sake at least get right what they did say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The USA did indeed misbehave badly with the Shah of Iran before the tragic Iranian Islamic revolution. That is history and no point in denying it. Not sure how that justifies bad behavior of Iran ... TODAY. it is relevant to how the west think and act. 99% of people in the west would think that the shah and gulf of tonkin incidents 'couldn't be' and will therefore believe our leaders when they say 'iran attacked first'. OK, lots of ignorance out there, all over on all sides, I'll have to give you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) ... That is history and no point in denying it. ... But Iran does deny it. Isn't that curious? Again Jingthing you are so far off the mark. They have never denied it. The exact words used were if the Holocaust is a historic event then why did Palestinians have to pay the price for the crimes of the Germans. Why was land not given to the jews in Germany or Poland etc etc, why was land taken from the palestinians when compensation should have been retrieved from the germans.. get the picture? They also said that if the Holocaust is a historic event why can it not be researched and spoken about so that more can be learned. You don't have to agree with what they say but for Gods sake at least get right what they did say. Considering the leader of the Palestinians in WW2 did propaganda to encourage Europeans to send their Jews to the Polish death camps, I wouldn't try to paint the Palestinians as so innocent in the matter. Also his relative Arafat succeeded him and never apologized for that, instead simply called him a HERO.You are also wrong about denying the Iranian holocaust denial rhetoric. Edited January 5, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkaew Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 this is total hypocrisy. You want regime change in iran etc so are we to assume you want to wipe out the people too? There are not much more war mongering people than Anglo-Americans! But of course it's hypocrisy, indeed why do the inmates of lunatic asylums get kitted out with straight jackets and the warders armed with tazers? Perhaps they should swap roles on alternate weeks to maintain a quid pro quo. As I did state though secular democracies don't tend to do the genocide thing and in the case of Iran I suspect that aside from a few leftist hand wringers and west hating fanatics few people would be sad to see the Iranian regime go, I'm certain the people of Iran would be for the most part delighted, especially women, gays, businesses etc etc. you are missing the point, what we are saying is war is VERY rarely worth it. But you are drooling at the prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 you are missing the point, what we are saying is war is VERY rarely worth it. But you are drooling at the prospect. Hardly. I want Iran to cave into the sanctions pressure, which is obviously necessary because they won't make any change without pressure, and negotiate an internationally approved solution for their nuclear aspirations. It isn't my fault they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkaew Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The USA did indeed misbehave badly with the Shah of Iran before the tragic Iranian Islamic revolution. That is history and no point in denying it. Not sure how that justifies bad behavior of Iran ... TODAY. it is relevant to how the west think and act. 99% of people in the west would think that the shah and gulf of tonkin incidents 'couldn't be' and will therefore believe our leaders when they say 'iran attacked first'. OK, lots of ignorance out there, all over on all sides, I'll have to give you that. both 'sides' of this argument just want to avoid bloodshed i know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) both 'sides' of this argument just want to avoid bloodshed i know. Again, I'll give you that. There are too many people, on both sides, that will be too quick to go to war. But if there is going to be a war, there will be a real reason for it -- to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons. From the Iranian side their reasons are bigger. They aspire to totally dominate the middle east and with that oil power and their ties with China and Russia, much of the world. With nukes, that would be the trump card, as they are already much more powerful due to the American mistake in Iraq. People who simply see this as only being about Israel, Iran, and the US are very wrong. This has global implications, in a world war kind of way.Given the global division implications, it is hardly surprising that we have people here clearly taking sides. That doesn't mean nationality always determines this. There will be many Americans sympathetic to Iran and many Iranians wishing for their own regime to fall. Edited January 5, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Please stop making obviously false statements. (There is a tie in to Iran's holocaust denial later in the video and well as the historical background of radical fundamentalist Islamic antisemitism which of course we see in modern Iran.) The detail about the evidence of the Mufti's direct knowledge of the death camps and direct evidence he made BROADCASTS asking Europe to sent their Jews to Poland instead of Palestine I got from the BBC documentary, Nazi Collaborators. Sadly, that wasn't enough to have this villain executed as he was not DIRECTLY involved in the atrocities, only promoting them with speech. Edited January 5, 2012 by Jingthing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 this is total hypocrisy. You want regime change in iran etc so are we to assume you want to wipe out the people too? There are not much more war mongering people than Anglo-Americans! But of course it's hypocrisy, indeed why do the inmates of lunatic asylums get kitted out with straight jackets and the warders armed with tazers? Perhaps they should swap roles on alternate weeks to maintain a quid pro quo. As I did state though secular democracies don't tend to do the genocide thing and in the case of Iran I suspect that aside from a few leftist hand wringers and west hating fanatics few people would be sad to see the Iranian regime go, I'm certain the people of Iran would be for the most part delighted, especially women, gays, businesses etc etc. you are missing the point, what we are saying is war is VERY rarely worth it. But you are drooling at the prospect. Drooling? Well I make no bones about wanting rid of the Iranian regime, but I do believe this would likely save more lives and human suffering than it causes, I agree this is a very rare situation, but Iran is the exception that proves the rule. I was against the Libya intervention and with the benefit of hindsight Iraq probably caused more problems than it solved. My judgement is that an insane theocracy is the worst of all worlds even behind a pragmatic but insular tyrant. I honestly believe the end of the Iranian regime would bring great benefits to it's people and the world in general, indeed the mythical Arab spring could have in the fullness of time have come to fruition if the Iranians set an example by deposing their tyrants in favour of democracy, I suspect their people are ready for it after what they have been through. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myfriendu Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 iran should have nukes,whats good for the goose is good for the gander. its been said before only one country has used them in war,and invades others,and now the race is on for the pipeline through iran to russia,and not afganistan. im sure you will get your war,in the cry for democracy democracy when two wolves and a sheep sit down at the table and decide whats for dinner. peace for 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 iran should have nukes,whats good for the goose is good for the gander. its been said before only one country has used them in war,and invades others,and now the race is on for the pipeline through iran to russia,and not afganistan. im sure you will get your war,in the cry for democracy democracy when two wolves and a sheep sit down at the table and decide whats for dinner. peace for 2012 I appreciate honest posters. At least you are not saying that Iran doesn't want nukes or is not working on nukes. Like I said before, people and countries are taking sides as the conflict brews. I would expect people ultra-critical of the USA would be more sympathetic to Iran. I am happy that the west is united now in putting strong sanctions on Iran. Too bad about Russia and China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Since people cannot be civil, cannot stay on-topic and cannot discuss a topic without personal arguments, I will close this now. //Closed// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts