The USA should leave Iran in peace

Either one works.

 

Israel is ready to blow you up with or without US support, i guess your leaders want some sort of deterent through nuclear weapons, the worst thing that happened in your area is the US armed Israel with nuclear bombs like it arms other countries around the world.

And you think Israel and the US are trust worthy with nuclear bombs, what about WWII and the dropping of the atom bomb?

Where is the evidence that Iran supports terrorists, Iran is armed to the teeth with conventional weapons, yet the palestinian people are still armed with rocks and home made missiles if Iran supported the terrorists dont you think they would have the latest conventional weapons.

Ok so you are condoning another war in your country then, what do you want to happen another US invasion?

Lady you got rocks in your head and obviously dont love your country very much if you want to turn into another Iraq, stop listening to the oligarky media!

 

No country should have nuclear bombs, in my ideal world, but it`s too late to wish such thing. US less of all, since it has already used it. Twice.

You got nothing in your head and certainly don,t understand what I?m saying. I love my country and I hate the regime that is ruining it.
I said Many times? and here too? I don7t want a war and I don`t think it`s going to make anything right.

Iran is supporting Hezbollah and Sepah, is a terrorist organization itself. Get out of this forum and instead of writing stupid things about people you don`t know find the truth with a simple search.

Before giving a stupid reply at least read the posts till the end.

 

The regime is taking my countries wealth and spned it to get weapons for Asad to supress his people and Hezbollah and does other (*)(*)(*)(*) instead of spending it for the welfare of Iranians, and you say I don`t love my country for condeming such regime?

who the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you to say such thing? what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you know about Iranians pain and suffering in 33 years living under the tirany of a regime US and Europe support for their own benefits?

You are either really dumb, or a monsterous sinister person who don`t give a (*)(*)(*)(*) to lives of millions of people who are suffering and have suffered enough.

 

I vote for dumb.

 

I'm monstrously sinister.

 

If Iran is supporting Hezbollah why are they still using sling shots and rocks and home made missles or rockets.

Your arguement falls apart right here i'm afraid.

Is it just verbal support then?

Well sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.

 

Obviously the US is engaged in so much a broader magnitude of geopolitical and commercial interests it should be obvious that a numerical comparison of most all kinds to a country like Iran is a misuse of data. Recusant, I see though you like to focus on individual points where you think you have some traction against the US...

Really!? LOL. How far do you want to go back in time to ascertain who owns that area.... I mean Judaism existed long before islam ever existed and Jews where in that area thousands of years before a muslim ever existed..... so perhaps lets look at modern times perhaps, well Palestine was owned and occupied by the Brits in the beginning of the 20th century.. Palestine was British full stop. The Brits decided to split it into a Jewish state and an Arab state.. then they both fought each other since but what for, well the Arabs want the destruction of Israel completely and the Israeli's want security.... and you side with the Arabs!!!!? So lets focus on what you said, the West Bank... in 1967 when Israel had to preemptively attack the massed Arab coalitions forces poised to attack Israel they did not attack the West Bank which at that time was part of Jordan - until Jordan decided to join in the fight and attacked Israel forces on the border with the West Bank. At that time the IDF moved into the West Bank to stop the attacks on Israel from Jordanian forces in the West Bank..... and again you blame that on Israel!!!??? LOL @ u.

 

Assuming they are or aren't isn't really the point.

Why wouldn't/shouldn't they, when the USA does and 'should' support [insert dodgy characters or Iranian enemy here].

It's a double-standard on which our media almost never reflects.

I remember seeing a headline in 'The Australian' many months ago: "Iran Meddling in Iraq". Wow. No comparable headline saying "USA Meddling in Iraq", which would have been the understatement of the decade, but an accomplishment nonetheless for The Australian.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/228537-why-regime-change-wont-work-iran.html

Regime change has proven over and over again to be a lousy idea..

 

Ah yes, the coalition forces meddling in Iraq, trying to bring peace to a festering hell hole. BASTARDS!

 

Peace is probably an unrealistic goal, I mean even in the 'peaceful' west we have violant crime, so I dont thinks its a black and white as war v peace, and getting to peace doesnt mean it stays there. The real goal is security. Iraq used to have non-transperant militant dictatorship for security, and what some people hate the US for is trying to install transperant democractic and accountible security. It wasn't peaceful before, and it isnt peaceful now, but progress needs to be made in small steps and if anyone steps up and hates on the US for the direction they take then they are actually indicating their support for the alternative. They might as well be chanting 'bring back Saddam', or 'bring back Gaddafi' etc. I've come to the conclusion they are just sh^% stir$%rs who either agree but like to stir things up too much, or have developed a pathology of internet rebellion to get a buzz. I mean I'm open to the possibility of a better argument but they never bring it.

 

Are you saying that us "geopolitical and commercial interests" trump anyone elses?

How can you say that the grossly disproportionate causal affect of US power on other nations is a "misuse of data"? Please explain.

I don't believe i apportioned any blame. I merely stated that Israel occupies territory that is recognised by international law (and the Israelis themselves) to be Palestinian territory. Some of what they don't occupy, they blockade. This isn't about the land grabs. It's also not about religion except that some Jews believe that God gives them the right to it.

It's about universality.

Imagine, if you will, if New York was given to an ethnic populace. Let's say the Indians (Native Americans): a minority people often oppressed and nearly wiped out. How do you think the locals would react? Some would peacefully object, others with arms. Some would just leave. I wouldn't imagine an easy transition. Now imagine Russia backs the Indians, and allows them to grab more land, often the best stuff - the stuff where there is water, and where things will grow. Where they somehow have trouble taking the land through 'encouraging' practices like daily checkpoints and unchecked intimidation by the local Indian population upon the remaining Americans, the Indians implement polices like refusing postal service, electricity and sewerage infrastructure to towns much older than new settlements built nearby. The rest of the world doesn't do much, because Russia, whose military and economic power dwarfs anyone else says "back off, we want an ally there". While this is happening, sympathetic non-NY Americans are fighting back, but only at the fringes because America is divided and weak thanks to the splintering of the states by Russian and South American partitioning done a few decades earlier. In response to the American attacks, the Indians begin to occupy what everyone knows is outside the borders of NY. It's still America, but the areas right around NY have been broken up into dozens of small areas where transport requires Indian approval. One of the local American population more resistant to the occupation decide that ~30 years of mostly passive resistance to take up a more violent approach. In response, the Indians take it up a notch and completely isolate a small section, lets say Governers Island. Preventing any access, the Indians completely control the Island's capacity to function and get access to the valuable gas fields in the waters around it, that belong to America, but are now essentially annexed. The Americans resist again, more strongly when they can, but die at a rate something like 40:1 in conflict, and of course incalculably more suffering by any other measure.

Continue the stalemate...

It's an imaginary scenario i put 5 mins thought and typing into. Every time you read about Israel/Palestine/Jordan/USA, try replacing some of the names with US states and an essentially forced creation of a 'foreign' state on US land, on what was your friends, or brothers (or whatever) land. Also imagine the only justification for it is that they needed somewhere safe, they were there a couple of thousand years ago (and a few never left). God made it theirs (not your God, theirs, your God is a fake). It's hard to deny some basic principals of universality when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

Wow. I don't wish to presume you believe that was their mission. Do you believe that?

 

Exactly right.

How many wars do these clowns need to lose before they finally realise that they are really crap at them?

 

Nope, I was commenting on your last sentence to me... I should have quoted it;

"I'm afraid your opinion isn't worth much against the enormous documented (even by the USA government itself) evidence demonstrating US aggression, particularly in the Middle East and South/Central America. When you compare it to Iran, i think you'll find the comparison very one-sided."

So thats what I was referring too.

They blockade some shared borders as a security measure, they do not blockade the entire areas.... unless we have different definitions of blockade. The West Bank was only invaded by Israel when Jordan decided to join in the 67 war and Israel took it.... decades later Israeli gave Palestinian authorities control over parts of Israel - provided Palestinian authorities ensured security.... which they have not and therefore Israel has had to move to take over those responsibliities more and more which has broader implications.

Your example is for Israel and looks like you spent a bit of time doing it!!! I disagree with the example though. Israel was nowhere near as heavily populated as New York and many of the 'residents' were nomadic. In fact it was quite sparsly populated except for the villages and few cities. Israel/Palestine was owned and administered by the British Commonwealth already and the area was divided and the locals were and still are AFAIK completely free to stay and become citizens. Your also wrong about 30 years of passive resistance - very wrong. Israel has many times gave up land it won fighting back massed Arab coalitions in exchange for promises of peace which never transpired. I imagine Israel is sick of being taken advantage of and will eventually try to reach a geographic border which provides it security. Wheras the muslim organisations who are openly working to the destruction of Israel and backed by Iran and other muslim countries seek death and destruction.... if universality is what your trying to discuss then the Israeli position is much more universally acceptable.

Its a model built to express one side and not the other, thats what models do, represent a simplified and reduced portrayal of reality. Your model is too one sided for me to fit my other foot into.

 

Your argument is essentially: There weren't many, so it was ok. Fine, change the location away from NY to somewhere less populated. Hmm, "sparsly populated except for the villages and few cities". How many people before you consider it a problem?

There is no need to go back to the "who started it" argument. Just paint a similar scenario in reverse and see where it leads you. Think outside the box for just one moment. You appear to have no concept of universality because to you, one action committed by one side is excusable whilst the same by another is not. You appear to think that "If we back terrorists, that's because we have a good reason to, but we don't back terrorists" (i doubt you can admit to yourself that your government has backed terrorists). If "they" [insert favourite bad guy here] back terrorists, then that is just plain wrong.

Make some moderate changes to the scenario i painted and think about it. As i said, it took about 5 minutes and is a poor allegory, not a precise re-imagining of all the complex historical events in/around Israel and Palestine.

Actually, instead - keep it simple. I presume you live in a house: try imagining someone else just giving half of it away and your reaction. Increase the scale to everyone's house in your suburb. See where your imagination leads you.

Oh, and never, ever heard this from even the most pro-Israeli. Where does this come from?

It's interesting how even though Palestinian dead is SO much greater, and that parts of internationally recognised Palestine being occupied, cordoned off, or just taken, that Israel is the one with the perceived security problem. Do you think that perhaps Palestinians can also lay claim that they too have a security problem?

 

The US should turn Iran's nuke plants into ash....and the sooner the better, it's 5 minutes to midnight.

 

If its 5 minutes to midnight its because the US just keeps pushing smaller nations closer to the edge.

Ever thought about it that way!

 

If I dont own the house then it doesnt really matter!!! How I "feel" is irrelevant, about the owner deciding to change the occupants of half of it. In this example the owners and operators (British Empire) of that area decided to create two states, one for the Jews and one for the those that didnt want to join the Jewish state because of religious reasons. That is the starting point right there....

.....the problems occured because both sides clashed immediatly on a small scale, and then the Arab world united in uproar about the decision, and for the next 50 years tries repeatidly to drive Israel into the sea. That is why for Israel the issue is security. The Arab coalition's decided after several failed united attempts to destroy Israel to back off and use terrorism as their technique to kill Israel by a million small cuts. Israel has tried peaceful means like entering agreements for peace in exchange for giving them land but the peace never lasts because the Palestinians have been bred by the Arab nations to hate and have a victim mentality. Given the small distances in that part of the geopolitical landscape we inevitably have Israel needing to reclaim strategic land for security reasons when it is faced with basically low rate, irregular but consistent terrorism from all land borders. Since this has been going on for so long now we also have the problem of population growth from Israel's success over the last 60 years starting to squeeze into disputed territories where Israeli forces are required by a lack of capability or willingness by Palestinian security to actually provide security.

Then we get the Arab sympathizers who whinge and cry about the 'lot' of Palestinians, who themselves decide to live this life of a victim, ignoring that its always the Palestinian terrorist who attacks indiscriminatly and its always the IDF who tries to use proportionate retaliatory force against the attackers only to try and create security. Why don't those Palestinians become Israeli citizens and live a normal lawful life, or why don't they to nearby Jordan or Egypt to make a better life for themselves. Palestinians are living in the past and hoping for a promise that is being fed to them by radical and wealthy Arabs from afar who have religious hatred for the existence of Israel.... the Palestinians are the pawns of muslim hatred, and people who sympathize blindly like you seem to here, are just sheep to the radical muslims agenda, IMO.

Depends on how accurate the data is of course, its not unusual for data to be wildely inaccurate, but I can say its pretty normal tactics for Palestinian terrorists to use civilian facilities as cover for launching attacks and trying to use human shields to protect themselves. What's important here is the intent of the IDF is to minimize civilian casualty wheras the Palestinian attacks are indiscriminate and often deliberatly targetting civilians including school buses etc.

But this thread is of course about Iran, and if Israel had wanted to nuke Iran it could have done it several times, over many years.... and it hasnt. So Iranian nuclear weapons do not serve as a deterrant to any new threat because their is no new threat to deter. This is purely the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East started by Iran. Next countries like Saudi Arabia will 'have' to get nuclear weapons to counter Iran. It's just the escalation of the inherint conflict which seems to exist in Islam as a result of the language used in the Quran to fear outsiders.... and when these violant muslim's dont have non-muslim's to fight, they end up fighting each other. Terrorism funded by Iran and others against Israel for decades has been trying to prompt Israel into more serious action so the muslim world could unite in conflict against Israel.... but that hasnt worked and Israel has only kept its responses proportionate and retalitory, and Osama Bin Laden tried to stir up the USA by attacking NY which succeeded in small way but truth of democractic transperancy and freedom as introduced in Iraq proved to the muslim world the US were not hell bent on world domination as had been peddled to them, but rather world security.

And so again we have Iran and the Arab world demonizing Israel as being behind the diplomatic and economic reactions to the Iranian refusal to have transperancy about its nuclear program, but if things go as usual, the western world will try to do the right thing as best it can and the muslim world will fall onto killing themselves over petty differences in religious tradition.

 

I personally believe that Israel is not just being demonised by the Arab world, but many Israelites are demonising the Arabs also.

I’m really sorry about the atrocities that happened to the Jewish people during WW2, but not every Jew can be considered holier than now, and perfect in every way.

Putting everyone of these people on a constant pedestal as if they can do no wrong is simply stupid, arrogant and begs the question, and its time the past was put to bed once and for all.

Maybe its time the USA backed off and let Israel defend itself if it wants to be an aggressor in a conflict. Maybe the USA should not be talking sides in every conflict, unless for some reason Israel has something over the USA…

 

i dont know if you guys have heard or not but Israel wants to bomb Iranian nuclear installations on its own without the US.

The US has told them not to do it, but they are still deciding.

Iran has pledged to send over 150000 missles if they do, i dont know whether to belive that they have so much missles.

The point being if Iran responds in this way then for sure the Israelies will nuke them and then Russia and the US will go at.

Israel is prepared to start world war 3 just so they can sleep easy at night knowing the Iranians have no nuclear bombs, what a bunch of turds.

If they were the victims of world war 2 they will be the instigators of WW3.

And btw who armed Israel with nuclear weapons?

 

The Israeli logic on Iran is solid though.

Thats one of the problems with Iran being secretive about its nuclear program and undertaking development of technologies that have no peaceful use.... it means Israel HAS to assume they have a nuclear weapon intention, but also that they are hiding it for some reason. Consider that Iran funds, arms and probably even trains active terrorist groups against Israel it is logical that they will use those groups to deliver a nuclear device by proxy and then deny responsibility PLUS a nuke first strike on a small country like Israel could defeat its capacity to counterattack..... and therefore this means Israel logically HAS to seriously consider a preemptive attack to deny Iran a nuclear device. If Iran wasn't funding and supporting terrorism against Israel, and if Iranian leaders didnt vocally attack Israel's existence, then Israel probably wouldnt care in the slightest if Iran had nuclear weapons.

Iran knows this, and so it seems its just another attempt to provoke Israel into an action which will again unite the islamic world to an external enemy. Unfortunatly for everyone, Israel is faced with no other option if evidence continues to surface of Iranian nuclear weapons.

 

The same instigation for starting a war that the Israelis are claiming or by using military action against another country to further your own agenda can be said when the USA deployed the same flawed argument when it attacked Iraq accusing them of harbouring weapons of mass destruction that to this day has never been found.

We simply cannot allow Israel the same convenience to simply destroy Iran using the same flawed methodologies and arguments, just because Iran will not allow biased UN inspectors into their country in inspect their nuclear facilities - just remember Iraq did the same.

I simply don’t believe Israel anymore.

 

Israel doesnt want to destroy Iran, and it probably wouldnt use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear weapon capabilities anyway..... wheras Iran could be seen to want to destroy Israel, for the reasons stated above.

The US didnt destroy Iraq anyway either, that was the foreign islamic fighters coming in and stirring up religious conflict. The tide turned in Iraq when the Iraqi's realised the US were actually the good guys and when they stopped supporting the islamic fighters. Iraq was a pivotal strategy in dealing with an upsurge in radical islamic militancy as a result of 9/11 and Afghanistan... its called shifting the center of gravity and refixing the islamic militants cross hairs onto a target that can shoot back. It's like a bait and trap. Plus, they probably had sufficient intel to be worried about Saddam getting nukes since we know how that Iran and Syria were both running covert nuke programs (both neighbours of Iraq) and double plus given Saddam's brutal regime and persistant denial of UN monitoring etc.... its unreasonable to harass the US for what they did - but hey, I'm just trying to be realistic, if you want to hold onto the one sided position supporting the anti-US agenda of terrorists and hippies then go ahead but in my opinion its a weak and biased argument.