Iran General Discussion

[The_Pac_Mule]

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.

I forget how many times we asked them to surrender.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The Trinity nuclear test wasn't on public display.

 

[anitram]

A lot of people hate us, so why havn't any country (not state-sponsered terrorists) attacked us directly since Pearl Harbor? Because we have the strongest military in the world and we would walk all over them. It's not hypocritical at all, its just how the world works.

Yeah, it's how Rome used to function too.

Pax Americana?

 

[Diemen]

I forget how many times we asked them to surrender.

I can't believe you're using that as a legitimate excuse for dropping a nuclear weapon on innocent civilians.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

So what was the point of bombing cities in Germany?

Obviously it was a scare tactic, but again, I wouldn't have agreed with that, either. But even that, you could argue that's how we had to fight wars at the time, whether one agreed with the actions or not. In today's technological age, however, I find it very hard to believe we can't possibly find a way to target the people we need to deal with without dragging innocent people into the conflict.

And if you must get them involved, it also usually helps if you can get the citizens of a country on your side and have them fight alongside you. Doesn't seem the U.S. has really figured out how to do that very well, we usually wind up alienating everyone altogether. From what I've read about the Middle East conflicts, it seems the people there are in a lose-lose situation: they hate the radical terrorists or figureheads that wind up running their countries, but they aren't too crazy about us, either. So they pretty much have to choose between one or the other. Or they can form their own resistance, or flee, but those options are fraught with danger, too. So if the U.S., or Israel, is going to go and handle Iran, they might want to do well to get the civilians' full support and help beforehand. Maybe then we could actually make some headway and get these problems dealt with.

Well seeing as Obama is our president, no I don't.

No, he doesn't think that way (thankfully), but there are people in our government that have been known to see this as a "holy war", a "crusade", who would also say things of that nature, if they haven't already. There's some scary people in our current Congress. And any other politicians who could one day hold a position of power who think that way would be worth being concerned about.

Okay, I see what you're saying. But there's just never going to be that perfect world scenario. Even if the middle east was somehow completly disarmed, theres always the possibility of someone re-aquiring dangerous weapons and technologies.

This is true. But it still just seems strange to me that when they have the weapons, they're dangerous. When we have them, we're not. And besides that, haven't we given weapons to people in that part of the world before? Seems like a strange gesture for us if we're that distrusting of their use of weapons.

I think most people in Iran realize how bad of an idea having a nuclear arsenal would be. But other than that I don't really care what Iran has.

They may realize it's not a good situation, yes, but they may also understand the potential need for it as we do here. I'm pretty sure (I'm hopefully sure) that most Americans aren't too enthused about us owning weapons, either, but people such as yourself provide reasons why some may see our owning them as justifiable. Like I said, I'm no fan of Iran having weapons, either. I just wish nobody anywhere in the world had them. But that's just me being hopelessly idealistic again . I feel if we show we're willing to work on reducing our arsenal, other people will feel inspired to want to reduce theirs, too, and work to remove those who refuse to compromise. And it seems Obama and I are on the same wavelength in regards to that, which makes me happy.

Angela

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

The Trinity nuclear test wasn't on public display.

That's true, but Hiroshima was a pretty public display. And it was a lot more than a test. Did the Japanese surrender? No.

I can't believe you're using that as a legitimate excuse for dropping a nuclear weapon on innocent civilians.

You took what I said WAY out of context. My reasoning, or "excuse" is the simple fact that in the end more lives were saved. The total deaths from the two bombings was about 250,000 in the first few monthes that followed. An invasion of Japan would have caused a much higher body count, and were talking about millions.

Obviously it was a scare tactic, but again, I wouldn't have agreed with that, either. But even that, you could argue that's how we had to fight wars at the time, whether one agreed with the actions or not. In today's technological age, however, I find it very hard to believe we can't possibly find a way to target the people we need to deal with without dragging innocent people into the conflict.

Wars not pretty. Even today, with our superior technology, innocent people will still die. It's just the nature of war. We have certainly been able to reduce the number of civilians killed in war, but the number is never going to be 0. :/

They may realize it's not a good situation, yes, but they may also understand the potential need for it as we do here. I'm pretty sure (I'm hopefully sure) that most Americans aren't too enthused about us owning weapons, either, but people such as yourself provide reasons why some may see our owning them as justifiable. Like I said, I'm no fan of Iran having weapons, either. I just wish nobody anywhere in the world had them. But that's just me being hopelessly idealistic again . I feel if we show we're willing to work on reducing our arsenal, other people will feel inspired to want to reduce theirs, too, and work to remove those who refuse to compromise. And it seems Obama and I are on the same wavelength in regards to that, which makes me happy.

I can completly agree with you here. I don't mind pretty much any country having conventional weapons for it's own protection. But nuclear weapons, are just a terrible thing, and I want to see our stockpile, and everyone elses reduced to as close as zero as possible.

 

[maycocksean]

I tend to agree with Pac_Mule on this one.

I don't rejoice in it. It was a terrible thing. But I tend to feel it saved more lives in the long run.

 

[Diemen]

I don't rejoice in it. It was a terrible thing. But I tend to feel it saved more lives in the long run.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But to say that Japan brought it on themselves, and that Japan made us nuke them twice is going too far.

 

[PhilsFan]

Civilians. End of story.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

I don't rejoice in it. It was a terrible thing. But I tend to feel it saved more lives in the long run.

I think some people got the idea that I was somewhat indifferent to the massive loss of life in the two cities, however that is far from how I feel and I just what to emphasize that it was an incredibly tragic and terrible event.

 

[financeguy]

Year after year – since 1998! – several times a week I have pointed out the mendacity, hypocrisy, and immorality of our foreign policy of global intervention, and I’m sure you’ll pardon me for complaining, but after a while a certain weariness sets in. How many times does it have to be proved that military means cannot solve socio-political questions? One might have thought we’d have learned after our stinging defeat in Vietnam – and, if not, then soon after we invaded and failed to pacify Iraq. And if we still didn’t absorb this much needed lesson, then perhaps the ongoing failure in Afghanistan might have given us a clue.

But oh no: the people who run American foreign policy – our rulers – don’t recognize the concept of objective limits. They think they create reality, and not the other way around.

We warned that Clinton’s Balkan wars would create a running sore disfiguring the face of Central Europe. One has only to look at the "state" of Kosovo today, where Serbs are routinely killed and the remnants of their community are in a state of perpetual siege, to verify the accuracy of our prediction.

We said that the proper response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks was to "kill ‘em – and get out." Nearly a decade later, America is being sucked into the Afghan quicksands, fighting the longest war in our history, with fast-vanishing hope of "success."

Very early on, we reported to our readers what became apparent to the rest of the world after the "victory" in Iraq: that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" anywhere in Iraq, and that we had been lied into war. In this space, I predicted the invasion would lead to a prolonged occupation, that the "dead-enders" of Donald Rumsfeld’s Panglossian imagination would prove a persistent foe, and that when the dust cleared Iran would come out the chief beneficiary of it all.

And so it came to pass.

A Credit Score for Pundits by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com

 

[maycocksean]

A Credit Score for Pundits by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com

Strongbow would make quick work of this punk.

He'd begin by pointing out that no, we did not "lose" in Vietnam. Indeed we won a striking victory there!

 

[maycocksean]

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But to say that Japan brought it on themselves, and that Japan made us nuke them twice is going too far.

Agreed.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Wars not pretty. Even today, with our superior technology, innocent people will still die. It's just the nature of war. We have certainly been able to reduce the number of civilians killed in war, but the number is never going to be 0. :/

Indeed, all that is unfortunately true. I guess what I meant to say was that in today's age, do we really have to wage "wars" anymore? Aren't there other ways, perhaps more diplomatic but still strong in tactic, that we can utilize our technology and supposed superior intelligence and whatnot to deal with people who are causing problems?

I can completly agree with you here. I don't mind pretty much any country having conventional weapons for it's own protection. But nuclear weapons, are just a terrible thing, and I want to see our stockpile, and everyone elses reduced to as close as zero as possible.

Glad we're in agreement on this note .

Fascinating article there, financeguy, and one I don't disagree with at all. Couple comments, though-first off:

These dissidents – who were given a platform on this web site, even as they were excluded from the "mainstream" media – have a credit rating of excellent-plus. Their predictions of impending disaster proved to be all too true

Speaking as one of those dissidents, we can sit here and talk about accurate predictions and expert knowledge and stuff of that nature as the reason why this group of people was right about the problems these coming wars would bring. However, I'm certainly no psychic, I'm no expert of any sort, and I don't think many of the other anti-war people are, either. I just based my view on the simple "no duh" fact that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that going into another country, causing chaos, and leaving behind a bunch of dead people generally doesn't bode well for anybody on either side in a war. One side may "win" in terms of who has less of a body count, or on a military level, or something of that nature, but people constantly forget to take in the emotional factor of such actions, what it does to human beings mentally and physically, and the grudges that can come from that. We never notice that aspect of it all until it's too late and the dust has settled, and then we act all surprised when the vicious cycle starts up again-well, what the hell did you expect? And then there's the financial burden as well, but that's another story.

If war worked, all our problems would've been solved eons ago.

"As to what they’ll do when the insurgency starts to rise again, not to worry: no one will notice but the soldiers in the field. Surely the American media won’t be so rude as to point it out, unless the Green Zone goes up in flames and they have to evacuate stragglers by helicopter as they did in Vietnam. In that case, the visuals would be too good to pass up."

The last line in that comment disturbs me greatly-I literally have chills reading that. Unfortunately, I can't say that that wouldn't be true .

Angela

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

US walks out on Ahmadinejad's UN speech

UNITED NATIONS – The U.S. delegation walked out of the U.N. speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday after he said some in the world have speculated that Americans were behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks, staged in an attempt to assure Israel's survival.

He did not explain the logic of that statement that was made as he attacked the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel and is deeply at odds with the United States and European allies over its nuclear program and suspicions that it is designed to produce an atomic bomb. Iran says it is only working on technology for electricity generation.

The U.S. delegation left the hall after Ahmadinejad said there were three theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:

_That "powerful and complex terrorist group" penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses.

_"That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view."

The Americans stood and walked out without listening to the third theory, that the attack was the work of "a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation."

Mark Kornblau, spokesman of the U.S. Mission to the world body, issued a statement within moments of Ahmadinejad's attack.

"Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people," he said, "Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable."

Ahmadinejad, who has in the past cast doubt over the U.S. version of the Sept. 11 attacks, called for establishment of an independent fact-finding U.N. body to probe the attacks and stop it from turning into another sacred issue where "expressing opinion about it won't be banned".

He said the U.S. used the attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq that led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of people, saying the U.S. should have "designed a logical plan" to punish the perpetrators while not sheding so much blood.

Ahmadinejad boasted of the capture in February of Abdulmalik Rigi, the leader of an armed Sunni group whose insurgency in the southeast of Iran has destabilized the border region with Pakistan. He said authorities did not resort to violence, but captured the suspect after trailing his movements in an operation by Iranian secret agents. Rigi was later hanged.

The Iranian leader spoke of threats to burn the Quran by a small American church in Florida to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Although that church backed down, several copycat burnings were posted on the Internet and broadcast in the Muslim world.

"Very recently the world witnessed the ugly and inhumane act of burning the holy Quran," Ahmadinejad said.

He briefly touch on the four sets of sanctions imposed on his country by the United Nations over Tehran's refusal stop enriching uranium and to prove Iran is not trying to build an atomic bomb.

Some members of the Security Council have "equated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs," Ahmadinejad said.

He accused the United States of building up its nuclear arsenal instead of dismantling it and reiterated his call for a nuclear-free world.

"The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon which must totally be eliminated. The NPT (Nonproliferation Treaty) prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear disarmament," the Iranian president said.

Ahmadinejad hinted that Iran is ready for talks on its nuclear program provided they are based on "justice and respect", suggesting that the U.S. and its allies must stop pressuring Iran through sanctions before Tehran will sit at the negotiating table.

He again rejected the U.N. Security Council sanctions as "illegal," blaming the U.S. as the power behind the measures.

"Those who have used intimidation and sanctions in response to the clear logic of the Iranian nation are in real terms destroying the remaining credibility of the Security Council," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad has in the past called the Security Council a "satanic tool" and has called its anti-Iran resolutions "not worth a cent."

What a fucking assclown. I hope one day the people of Iran rise up and overthrow him and his fucking anti-semite thugs.

If I was there I would have thrown my shoes at him.

 

[BVS]

If I was there I would have thrown my shoes at him.

 

[Achtung11]

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But to say that Japan brought it on themselves, and that Japan made us nuke them twice is going too far.

You're questioning the rightfulness of us killing millions of Japanese and severely harming tens of millions of others through the use of nuclear weapons. How can you be so unpatriotic?!?!

We are America. If we use nuclear weapons it is for peaceful purposes. Yet only we can have nukes, nobody else can. How dare can Iran even think about acquiring a nuke???