Martlet on 27/2/2007 at 18:18
Of course countries which have gone some way towards having a nuclear capability, ambitions for regional power greater than it currently has, a fundamental Muslim government where the leader has promised to wipe the only democratic nation in the region off the map, are completely harmless, and should be ignored and allowed to continue with their nuclear programmes.
Hitler said bad things about the Jews in 1933, so I must be batshit insane to think that intervention would have been a bad thing then, and that intervention is a bad thing now.
You've managed to completely misread that whole situation, concluding very specifically that I am in favour of military action any time, whereas I meant that I am in favour of action against one specific country.
R Soul on 27/2/2007 at 18:30
Quote Posted by Martlet
I meant that I am in favour of action against one specific country.
Even though it won't actually make things any better, and will probably make them worse?
Nuclear bombs are so 1980s. Dressing up as a civilian and murdering other civilians is all the rage (so to speak) these days.
Kolya on 27/2/2007 at 18:34
Quote Posted by Dr Sneak
people who obviously hate us
Who is "us"? The US? You're making the same mistake that Ko0K rightfully pointed out to Non-Americans.
And Martlet, Hitler had not only said bad things about Jews, but started war on several countries, before other nations decided to enter the war. If you have to make a far fetched comparison, make it right, yo.
Martlet on 27/2/2007 at 18:42
Quote Posted by Kolya
And Martlet, Hitler had not only said bad things about Jews, but started war on several countries, before other nations decided to enter the war. If you have to make a far fetched comparison, make it right, yo.
quote me right, yo
I said he said bad things about the Jews, comparable to what Ahmadinejad has said (so not that far fetched really). And then 12 years later 6 million had died in concentration camps.
I said that I agree with intervention based on the precedent of what happened in Nazi Germany.
Nothing about other nations entering the war, as I believe they entered the war too late.
Rug Burn Junky on 27/2/2007 at 18:49
Quote Posted by Martlet
I said that I agree with intervention based on the precedent of what happened in Nazi Germany.
You just accelerated from 0 to Retarded in 3 posts.
Kolya on 27/2/2007 at 19:19
The same nazi comparisons were made before the war on Iraq. Turns out just because a country has a crazy as batshit leader doesn't make it nazi Germany. A country is a bit more than that, the society, culture, history play a much more important role than one leader.
And while Ahmadinedshad might like to think of himself as little Adolf you can see right away that the comparison is BS again when you look at the land.
Martlet on 27/2/2007 at 19:31
Quote Posted by Kolya
The same nazi comparisons were made before the war on Iraq.
Did Saddam Hussein ever say in public that he intended to wipe Israel off the map? Because if he didn't that sounds a lot like propaganda, not factual evidence.
Iraq didn't turn out to have chemical and biological weapons that could attack London in 45 minutes. Iran's nuclear programme and missile programme is far more advanced than Iraq's ever was, and therefore has the potential to cause a greater threat. It also has a higher birth rate than the Westenr World, and a disproportionate bulge in the number of men of military age. It poses a far greater threat than Iraq ever did.
Iran's anti-Semitism is far more sincere than any that Iraq may or may not have demonstrated.
However I believe that military action is impracticable against Iran; I'm not saying that war is the solution to anything and everything, merely making a case for interventionism.
EDIT: a country is far more than it's government, but unfortunately a government decides what to do for it's people. I haven't seen protests on the streets of Tehran against it's nuclear program or foreign policy.
I get the impression, correct me if I'm wrong that you're assuming that Iran is a fully representative democracy which has elected a fundamentalist leader as it's prime minister or that it's subjects would embrace democracy if it were enforced upon them. Both of those are batshit crazy.
The society and history of Iran both point to an expansionist, aggressive Iran. Persia has historically been more powerful than it is now in the Middle East. Although Iran may have the reputation of being cultured etc. it is also the only country to be Shia dominated, and is therefore generally in conflict with it's neighbours.
Pyrian on 27/2/2007 at 20:08
Quote Posted by Martlet
I haven't seen protests on the streets of Tehran against it's nuclear program or foreign policy.
Have you looked? :p The President of Iran is not particularly popular in his own country these days.
Kolya on 27/2/2007 at 21:04
Quote Posted by Martlet
Did Saddam Hussein ever say in public that he intended to wipe Israel off the map? Because if he didn't that sounds a lot like propaganda, not factual evidence.
Yes it was propaganda of course but you miss the point.
Quote Posted by Martlet
Iran's nuclear programme and missile programme is far more advanced than Iraq's ever was, and therefore has the potential to cause a greater threat.
If you have some evidence I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in that. Otherwise it's no grounds on attacking a country.
Quote Posted by Martlet
It also has a higher birth rate than the Westenr World, and a disproportionate bulge in the number of men of military age. It poses a far greater threat than Iraq ever did.
You got to be kidding me.
Quote Posted by Martlet
I get the impression, correct me if I'm wrong that you're assuming that Iran is a fully representative democracy which has elected a fundamentalist leader as it's prime minister or that it's subjects would embrace democracy if it were enforced upon them. Both of those are batshit crazy.
No, didn't think that Iran was a democracy. But that is the point. Germany used to be one before the rise of the nazis. And that is a reason why establishing democracy here again was far more successful than it is in Iraq currently. So I'm talking what would happen after a war on Iran. Because starting a war without a plan for what will happen afterwards is kinda silly don't you think?
Kaleid on 27/2/2007 at 21:06
It's not certain that the Iranian president has said that Israel should be wiped of the map, as Juan Cole explained on his webpage. The Iranian president supposedly said that the zionist will one day fly of the pages of history pretty much like the Soviet communists did, and no one had to bomb/nuke them away.
Besides, it doesn't really matter what the president says, he doesn't have that kind of executive power over the military and certainly not the nuclear policy.
Neither CIA nor AEIA have been able to produce any evidence of a weapons program, and from what I'm reading it's the same kind of guys that put the Iraq intelligence together that are working, emh, cooking intelligence together in their office of special plans offices for another step closer for dominance in the middle-east. The media is full of propaganda to beat the war drums. Here's an example:
(
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17312636/site/newsweek/) New York: Targeted By Tehran?
Ritter usually get's it right.
Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector and author of Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change, says it is a deception that the U.S. government is concerned about Iran's nuclear program or that they mean to use diplomacy to put an end to it, but instead is determined to have regime change in that country regardless. He also discusses some of the likely consequences if America does attack.
MP3 here. (60:45)
(
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/02/20/scott-ritter/)
A good rather recent speech (25 min):
(
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/154/47)
No, Iran is not a threat.
"The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran." Ron Paul (R)
