logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran, What should we do?
nebraska29
post Jan 1 2006, 03:57 AM
Post #1


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



IPB Image

With his defeat of a somewhat pro-western leader in Rafsanjani, the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as leader of Iran, we've seen some interesting things occur these last months of 2005. The U.S. warned Iran not to resume efforts to perfect uranium enrichment. What did the government of Iran do?, they blew off the warning and have resumed nuclear activities. IAEA seals preventing the use of equipment in nuclear facilities and labs in Iran have been broken and there is a consensus that yes, Iran is up to something in conducting nuclear research. Ahmadinejad defends the resumption of nuclear research stating that Iran has just as much of a right to use nuclear energy as any western nation does. Ahmadinejad has also banned western music in Iran and has ratcheted up anti-Israel rhetoric and making controversial statements about the holocaust.

The Pope has criticized Iran in his new year's address. There are also trial balloons being floated out to the public from credible sources stating that the United States and NATO are moving to strike Iran. ermm.gif

Questions for debate:[B]

1.)What should the U.S. and NATO do to get Iran to stop nuclear production?

2.)Can Iran be monitored internationally to ensure that only civilian uses of nuclear technology be used?

3.)To what extent does any nation have a "right" to nuclear resources? By what right should the U.S. decide the matter for other countries?

hmmm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
moif
post Jan 21 2006, 12:46 AM
Post #41


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Vermillion)
And while as a historian and an academic, I have a special loathing for anyone who would deny the holocaust as Iran's leader did, Saudi has been doing that for decades.

[snip]


So while Iran's leader's anti-senetism certainly deserves our contempt, one has to wonder at those who look upon this with astonishment, as though such statements have not been comonplace for decades among some of Americas closest allies.
Who's astonished?

I think your sort of missing the point here Vermillion. The point is not that Iran is a nation filled to the brim with anti semitism. Nor is the point to single out Iranian anti semitism and raise it above that of Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

The point is, Iran's anti semitism + Iran enriching uranium.

To the best of my knowledge, Saudi Arabia does not have a nuclear research programme. It is, for wont of a better word, contained.

Iran is not, it is a dangerous loose cannon, thus Iran's anti semitism is become far more serious than that of Saudi Arabia.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Jan 21 2006, 01:02 AM
Post #42


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(moif @ Jan 21 2006, 12:46 AM)
I think your sort of missing the point here Vermillion. The point is not that Iran is a nation filled to the brim with anti semitism. Nor is the point to single out Iranian anti semitism and raise it above that of Egypt or Saudi Arabia.


Firstly, that may be your point, but judging by the post I was replying to, that does not seem to be Billy Jean's point.


QUOTE
It is, for wont of a better word, contained.

Iran is not, it is a dangerous loose cannon, thus Iran's anti semitism is become far more serious than that of Saudi Arabia.


Well, yes and no. Saudi, which was rumoured to have an atomic program a decade ago, has shelved it. However, Saudi Arabia is still the largest supplier of funds to the PLO, Hamas and anti-Israeli terrorist organisations around the Middle East, providing more funding than EVERY other nation in the middle East put together.

So I suppose it depends on how you define "contained"...



My point was, yes, there ARE good reasons to be concerned about Iran and the Iranian leader, no question. But there are also silly, hypocritical reasons, and I find that when the rhetoric gets up, the two tend to get mixed together far too often.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skeeterses
post Jan 21 2006, 03:50 AM
Post #43


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 794
Member No.: 5,233
Joined: July-7-05

From: Maryland
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



For those who are enthusiastically supporting military action against Iran, I encourage you to go down to your local military recruiter and sign up for some infantry duty, or encourage one of your family members to do the same thing.
After all, Iran is a bigger country than Iraq and a war with Iran is going to require the hawks to step up to the plate and carry out the fight. Otherwise, let's not be so enthusiastic about starting a war with such a country. They after all do have a real military.

What has Iran done to Europe, Russia, or America to be called such a threat to world peace? After the intellegence failures in Iraq, how can we be so sure that Iran is intent on starting a nuclear war? Have they ever attacked us? How do you know that the politicians are not looking for a slice of Iran's oil fields? Almost every oil field outside the Middle East has either reached a peak or is the depletion stage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bucket
post Jan 22 2006, 03:19 AM
Post #44


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,259
Member No.: 1,459
Joined: October-14-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None




QUOTE(Vermillion)
My point was, yes, there ARE good reasons to be concerned about Iran and the Iranian leader, no question.




Why do you keep referring to Ahmadinejad as Iran's leader? He isn't.

He isn't the the leader of Iran, he isn't Commander In Chief of the armed forces, he isn't the head of all intelligence and security forces, he doesn't have the power to declare war and the mobilization of the armed forces, and he most certainly does not set or determine foreign policies for Iran.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei does all this as he is the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Who cares if this puppet was elected, all the president is is a mask. And nothing in Iran has changed, all that has changed is the world isn't as receptive to this ugly mask Iran now wears.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cyan
post Jan 22 2006, 09:47 PM
Post #45


Group Icon

********
Girl Anachronism

Sponsor
April 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,207
Member No.: 138
Joined: October-2-02

From: Denver, Colorado
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(skeeterses)
After all, Iran is a bigger country than Iraq and a war with Iran is going to require the hawks to step up to the plate and carry out the fight.  Otherwise, let's not be so enthusiastic about starting a war with such a country.  They after all do have a real military.


Indeed. A war with Iran would be far more difficult and bloody than the war in Iraq, and those who are talking about military action should take a step back and examine diplomatic efforts first. They haven't been exhausted.

QUOTE(skeeterses)
What has Iran done to Europe, Russia, or America to be called such a threat to world peace?  After the intellegence failures in Iraq, how can we be so sure that Iran is intent on starting a nuclear war?  Have they ever attacked us?  How do you know that the politicians are not looking for a slice of Iran's oil fields?  Almost every oil field outside the Middle East has either reached a peak or is the depletion stage.


Honestly, even amidst all of the anti-Israel/anti-US talk, I don't think that Iran is presently intent on starting a nuclear war. What would that accomplish other than ensuring that their regime is removed by force?

I think that they want to be in possession of a nuclear weapon (or at least "bomb ready") so that they have more leverage in world affairs. It's certainly a good way to cause other countries to stop and listen to what you have to say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Jan 23 2006, 03:13 AM
Post #46


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
What has Iran done to Europe, Russia, or America to be called such a threat to world peace?  After the intellegence failures in Iraq, how can we be so sure that Iran is intent on starting a nuclear war?  Have they ever attacked us?  How do you know that the politicians are not looking for a slice of Iran's oil fields?  Almost every oil field outside the Middle East has either reached a peak or is the depletion stage.


With third rate equipment left over from the Shah's reign and no nukes, they haven't been able to do a darn thing. Nuclear weapons changes that completely. Does anyone seriously believe that they have nothing but good intentions here? ermm.gif Do you really trust the leaders of Iran to only use them for domestic powering purposes? I would be interested in hearing how and why we should believe these leaders to be honest and sincere in their intentions. When it comes to this situation, the Israelis and even the president, are more trustworthy.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Jan 23 2006, 06:25 AM
Post #47


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
(Nebraska29)
With third rate equipment left over from the Shah's reign and no nukes, they haven't been able to do a darn thing. Nuclear weapons changes that completely. Does anyone seriously believe that they have nothing but good intentions here? ermm.gif Do you really trust the leaders of Iran to only use them for domestic powering purposes? I would be interested in hearing how and why we should believe these leaders to be honest and sincere in their intentions. When it comes to this situation, the Israelis and even the president, are more trustworthy.


Who has implied that they were honest or sincere in their intentions? If that were the test for which countries we attack, we would be attacking them all. The truth is that we have wronged Iran a great deal and Iran has wronged us only moderately. Britain and the US helped overthrow the elected government of Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah. We stood by while he constructed a police state. The Savak was established with the assistance of the CIA and the Mossad. It routinely engaged in torture such as roasting people over hot coals. It is true that during the revolution radical students seized the US embassy and held its occupants as "a nest of spys" (not too far from the truth for some of occupants). The revolutionary government used the hostage crisis in its own interest. In turn the US froze Iranian assets and started the sanction program that continues to this day. The US and its Sunni Arab allies quietly supported Saddam Husseins invasion of Iran. When it appeared that he was losing, the US removed him from the terrorist state list and gave him material support including biological and chemical warfare precusors. When he used poison gas and nerve agents against Iran, our government remained uncritical and continued its support. When he used them against his own population of Kurds, the CIA even when so far as to plant information falsely implying that the Iranians were responsible. The MEK, a group of Iranians terrorists opposed to the revolutionary government and supported by Iraq planted bombs and otherwise assassinated a significant part of the Iranian parliament and other high official during the Iran/Iraq war. Our government is using this very same "terrorist group" to spy and promote incidents in Iran today. When Iraq continued to lose the war, it started to try to strangle Iran by attacking international ships picking up Iranian oil. The US winked at this behavior. Iran retaliated by beginning to attack vessels picking up Iraqi oil. The US and other countries responded by initiating a patrol of the Persian Gulf protecting vessels picking up Iraqi oil but not Iranian oil. In the course of this activity, an over aggressive US commander shot down an Iranian Airbus killing 290 civilians and our country hardly offered an apology. The Iran/Iraq War lasted for eight years and killed 1 to 1-1/2 million people on both sides. For the two countries involved it was akin to the terrible struggle of the First World War or our own Civil War. Throughout its duration we supported the aggressor, Saddam Hussein.

Its true that the Iranians fund several terrorist group that are active in the Middle East. On the other hand they supported the US in Afghanistan and have been reasonably cooperative in Iraq. (Perhaps because the are the big winners from our invasion). In return, we have refused to participate in negotiations with the E3 and Iran or even to offer sanction relief and security guarantees through the Europeans. Given this history, if you were an Iranian nationalist, just how would you feel about the United States?

Iran may have enough centrifuges to produce one bomb in 3 years although it is uncertain that is the government's intention. Israel has at least 100 bombs and probably 200. The US has 10,000 active war heads and other inactive ones. Given this equation, do you seriously think that Iran would use a nuclear weapon for any purpose other than in deperation retaliating for an attack?

This post has been edited by TedN5: Jan 23 2006, 03:15 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jan 23 2006, 09:22 AM
Post #48


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



1.)What should the U.S. and NATO do to get Iran to stop nuclear production? Speak softly and use a big stick. Press forward aggressively on the diplomatic front, with the clear understanding that we will use any conventional means necessary to eliminate any nuclear weapons program, as well as any dual use nuclear program.

2.)Can Iran be monitored internationally to ensure that only civilian uses of nuclear technology be used? The only way that is possible is if the threat of force is sufficient to convince Iran that allowing monitoring is the wiser option. It must be noted though that there is no rational civilian use for nuclear technology in Iran. (With the exception of medical use.) Sitting on 10% of the world's known oil reserves, as well as even more natural gas, any argument that they "need" nuclear power plants is specious.

3.)To what extent does any nation have a "right" to nuclear resources? By what right should the U.S. decide the matter for other countries? A nation's "right" to nuclear resources is limited by their belligerence. Iran's rhetoric, their vigorous support of terrorism for the last quarter century, both limit their "right." As for what "right" the U.S has in deciding for other countries, our sovereignty gives us the "right" to take whatever steps we feel are necessary to protect ourselves.

The question is: What steps are necessary in this case? If we use more force than necessary, we look bad, hundreds, perhaps thousands die. If we use insufficient force, then if the ayatollahs are to be believed, mushrooms will walk and millions, probably tens of millions will die.

It is a very simple question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Jan 23 2006, 10:41 AM
Post #49


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



As I have stated ad nausium, Iranian support for 'terrorism' has been less than most countries in the Middle East, and FAR less then Saudi Arabia, Bush Jr.'s good buddy and ally.

As for their beligerance, well the current leader of Iran certainly does not know how to keep his mouth shut, and certainly there are a lot of valid reasons why we should be very cautious about Iran. But as to actual beligerance, who have they attacked in the last 40 years? Anyone? Their leader is democraticaly elected and the nation has not been expansionist since back when it was called Persia.

So while there are reasons to be suspicious, such as the anti-semitic vitriol of the current leader (which is no worse than in any other middle eastern state), there is no actual evidence of any aggressive intent.

So, flip the coin. Do we have any evidence of defensive intent? Any valid REASON why they might want advanced weaponry for their own defence?

Well, the United States stupidly put them on the Axis of Evil list, and then proceeded to invade one of the other two countries on the list, a country right beside Iran. Given the history of US meddling in Iranian affairs, perhaps they have the right to be nervous, and look to their own defence?

The Iranian military is NOT cast-offs from the Shaw period, it is actually quite advanced, but no matter how advanced they are, nobody in Iran is kidding themselves that, before a full assault by the US military, the US military would certainly get a bloody nose and take a lot of casualties, but there is no way Iran could possibly win in the end. So it seems the ONLY way to see to their defence is by developing deterrent weapons. And given that they are under ACTIVE threat of invasion, is that so strange?


As I have said, I too am suspicious of Iran to be sure, and the comments of their leader make me seriously doubt his intelligence, but this idea that 'Iran can ONLY be planning on nuking people if they get the bomb' is just silly. There is no evidence of aggression, and enormous evidence of deterrence as a motive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Jan 23 2006, 04:01 PM
Post #50


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Vermillion
As I have stated ad nausium, Iranian support for 'terrorism' has been less than most countries in the Middle East, and FAR less then Saudi Arabia, Bush Jr.'s good buddy and ally.


Come on please. You are surely not speaking od government (STATE) support as in Iran – are you? If so you are not correct.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/f...man20050908.htm

I am speaking today as a Professor in the Georgetown University Security Studies Program and as a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings' Saban Center for Middle East Policy. My remarks are solely my own opinion: they do not reflect my past work for the intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission, the U.S. Congress, or other branches of the U.S. government.
Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been one of the world's most active sponsors of terrorism. Tehran has armed, trained, financed, inspired, organized, and otherwise supported dozens of violent groups over the years. Iran has backed not only groups in its Persian Gulf neighborhood, but also terrorists and radicals in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Bosnia, the Philippines, and elsewhere.1 This support remains strong even today. It comes as no surprise then, twenty five years after the revolution, the U.S. State Department still considers Iran "the most active state sponsor of terrorism."2


http://www.meforum.org/article/619

In April 2004, the U.S. Department of State issued its annual Patterns of Global Terrorism, covering the year 2003.
Iran
Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.
Iran's record against al-Qaida remains mixed. After the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, some al-Qaida members fled to Iran where they have found virtual safehaven.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=14

Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran views terrorism as a legitimate means to further its ideological and strategic aims - to “export the Revolution”. Iran assists Islamic groups and organizations worldwide, especially in the Middle East - in striving to attack Israel, whose existence is not recognized by Iran; and in attempting to sabotage the political process and destabilize the regimes of the more pragmatic Arab countries. Terrorism is also a means of eliminating the Iranian regime’s opposition

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=1510


http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rm/24494.htm

U.S. policy toward Iran on this subject is firm. The regime must end its support of international terrorism. Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security continue to be involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continue to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Iran's support includes funding, providing safe haven, training, and weapons to a wide variety of terrorist groups including Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Liberation Front for Palestine-General Command. Its support of HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is of particular concern, as both groups continue their deliberate policies of attacking Israeli citizens with suicide bombings.

This post has been edited by Ted: Jan 23 2006, 04:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jan 23 2006, 06:23 PM
Post #51


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Is the government of Iran a major supporter of terrorism? Yes, as Ted clearly demonstrates. Or, you could just do a review of the "activism" of Hezbollah.
Iranian President meets with leaders of Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and PFLP

Has the government of Iran stated that its intention is to annihilate Israel? Yes.

Has this intention been reiterated by both the democratically elected figurehead (Ahmadinejad), and the council of ayatollahs who actually control the government? Yes.

Does Iran have a rational need for peaceful nuclear energy? No.

Does Iran need nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent against Israeli agression? Not in the real world, mayhap in one where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are considered to be a legitimate Jewish policy document. Do they need it against us? Well, that's an interesting question, because there's some confusion as to whether or not the US could successfully invade Iran. Some here think its too tough of a nut to crack, we're overextended, etc, etc. If that is so, then we don't pose a threat. (anybody see the paradox developing here?) If it is not the case, then we move to the next question: Are we likely to invade Iran?

Well, why should we? Because they have lots of oil? So do Venezuela, Indonesia, Norway, Canada, and Mexico. None of those nations seem to be intent on developing nukes.

Perhaps because we want to resume the Crusades? Yeah, that must be why we've withdrawn all of our forces from the land of Mecca, because we want to impose a Christian theocracy on the Middle East. Bethlehem is now under the protection of the 82nd Airborne, and mosques are being blowed-up by Navy Seabees across the Arabian Penninsula and Southwest Asia. rolleyes.gif

Because we're still hoppin' mad about the Tehran hostage taking? No. We remember it, but that's all.

Its because they make extensive use of terrorism as a tool of statecraft, they are a theocracy that embraces matyrdom, and they are bent on developing nuclear weapons. It is in order to protect the combination of these three that they feel a need for a deterrent. Frankly, if they want a theocracry based on the Koran, bully for them. Once they decide to export their theocracy by force of arms, whether via conventional or asymmetrical means, then we have the right to put a stop to it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Billy Jean
post Jan 23 2006, 08:52 PM
Post #52


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Member No.: 805
Joined: June-16-03

From: Athens, Georgia
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Just thought I'd share this:

http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=1696

QUOTE
Tehran plans a nuclear weapons test before March 20, 2006 – the Iranian New Year, moves Shahab-3 missiles within striking range of Israel

Reporting this, the dissident Foundation for Democracy in Iran, a US-based watch group, cites sources in the US and Iran. The FDI adds from Iran: on June 16, the high command of the Revolutionary Guards Air Force ordered Shahab-3 missile units to move mobile launchers every 24 hours instead of weekly. This is in view of a potential pre-emptive strike by the US or Israel.

Advance Shahab-3 units have been positioned in Kermanshah and Hamad within striking distance of Israel, reserve launchers moved to Esfahan and Fars.

The missile units were told to change positions “in a radius of 30-35 kilometers” and only at night.


hmmm.gif
You can read the rest on the above link.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Jan 23 2006, 09:28 PM
Post #53


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Jan 23 2006, 03:52 PM)
Just thought I'd share this:

http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=1696
*



Debka.com is notorious for publishing unconfirmed, insider tips. Most of the time, they are wrong. They have gotten a few items correct and ahead of other sources.

For the most part, however, they are unreliable. I guess we'll know in March...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Billy Jean
post Jan 23 2006, 09:45 PM
Post #54


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Member No.: 805
Joined: June-16-03

From: Athens, Georgia
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Yeah... Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. blush.gif
You're right, I guess we'll see. March should be very interesting... blink.gif




This post has been edited by Billy Jean: Jan 23 2006, 09:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bucket
post Jan 24 2006, 02:52 PM
Post #55


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,259
Member No.: 1,459
Joined: October-14-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I can't believe I just read in here that Iran's "support for 'terrorism' has been less than most countries in the Middle East"

I am so amazed that some feel so obligated to prove any policy or intentions America may have on the international stage wrong that they will down play the human rights atrocities in Iran, they will continuously misrepresent the current American gov's position on Iran, they will pretend that the Iranian president is the democratic "leader" of Iran and that they will even go on to assert time and time again that Iran's role in the ME as a supporter and financier of terrorism is minor in the region...I would like to see you go tell that to the people of Lebanon.

Never mind Hezbollah. Ignore Hamas, or the Islamic Jihad. Forget the Beirut bombings, the suicide bombings and kidnappings, and the murders. Disregard the bombings and killings in Israel, London, Saudi Arabia and Argentina. Overlook the violations of numerous UNSC resolutions. Discount their opposition to the Cedar Revolution and their support in covering up the investigation into the assassination of Hariri, even against UN demands.

How can you debate or even discuss an issue when those opposed to it are mostly opposed to it on the basis of denying it's existence? It gives you some insight to what it must have been like during the flat earth debates.

This post has been edited by bucket: Jan 24 2006, 02:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Billy Jean
post Jan 24 2006, 03:04 PM
Post #56


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Member No.: 805
Joined: June-16-03

From: Athens, Georgia
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...3442.shtml?s=lh

QUOTE
Iranian President Sees End of World Order

In a country of religious zealots, the extremism of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has even his own countrymen sounding alarms

Dissidents within Iran say their country's president is such a crazed fanatic that he will try to usher in the end of the world as we know it.


Yeah, if you read the entire article, you'll see how others in his country don't necessarily disagree with Ahmadinejad, just the way he's drawing attention.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Jan 24 2006, 06:58 PM
Post #57


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(bucket @ Jan 24 2006, 02:52 PM)
I am so amazed that some feel so obligated to prove any policy or intentions America may have on the international stage wrong that they will down play the human rights atrocities in Iran, they will continuously misrepresent the current American gov's position on Iran, they will pretend that the Iranian president is the democratic "leader" of Iran and that they will even go on to assert time and time again that Iran's role in the ME as a supporter and financier of terrorism is minor in the region...I would like to see you go tell that to the people of Lebanon.   


That was quite the rant. Most of it entirely untrue of course, but still an excellent rant.

Nobody is playing down human rights abuses in Iran, they are continuing and terrible to be sure. However my point was not to make light if them, but to ask why exactly they are cause for action, when Saudi Arabia, Bush Jr's friend and ally, Is worse?

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/2md-index-eng

Next you say, people are 'pretending' that there is a democratic leadership in Iran. Again, nobody is overstating the level of democracy, I and others have stated several times that the substantive power of the president, while large, is seriously limited by the VETO ability of the Ayatollah. It is certainly no free democracy by US stabdards, but the we were never comparing it to US standards. Again, let us look at the REST of the Middle East and see how Iran compares: In fact it is one of the most democratic states in the Middle East, certainly far above the dictatorship in saiudi. In Iran women even get to vote.

QUOTE
Never mind Hezbollah.  Ignore Hamas, or the Islamic Jihad. Forget the Beirut bombings, the suicide bombings and kidnappings, and the murders.  Disregard the bombings and killings in Israel, London, Saudi Arabia and Argentina.


Now your rant goes a little bit unfocussed here.

Over 50% of Hamas' funding comes from agencies and individuals within saudi Arabia, that is more than every other source of funding combined.

Organisations and individuals within saudi also supply the PLO with about 70% of its money.

Nobody is claiming Iran does not have links with terrorism, after all Iran created Islamic Jihad, though the organisation now draws funding from all over the Gulf. But again, not compared to saudi, for example.

Then, what does the Al qaida attacks on London, Saudi, madrid and so on have to do with Iran?

QUOTE
How can you debate or even discuss an issue when those opposed to it are mostly opposed to it on the basis of denying it's existence?  It gives you some insight to what it must have been like during the flat earth debates.


Then your rant goes off the deep end. If you really feel this way about this interesting and productive debate which has lasted thee pages of solid back and forth, then I have a suggestion for you: Don't contribute.

The 'kill Iran' group here needs to take a step back and realise that nobody here is saying that Iran is a shiny happy state with flowers and candy for all. The state is worrying, it does have some links to terrorism, and it has a semi-islamicist government. Furthermore, even to me the possibility of ANY religious givernment in the world having nukes is worrying.


But it is not THIS side of the debate which is denying reality. We are just pointing out that Iran has NEVER attacked anyone, that Iran decided to pursue nuclear power in violation of the UN AFTER the US labeled it on a public 'To be invaded' list, and then overthrew its neighbour on questionable, if not false, pretenses.

We are just pointing out what the ultra-hawks seem desperate to ignore, that YES Iran is a worry, and YES we should be keeping an eye on them, but most of their actions recently as a state have some justification, and some of them are in direct response to aggressive actions taken by the United Sates. Furthermore, most of the things Iran is accused of (with the sole exception of developing nuclear power) can all be applied, with even greater legitimacy, to longtime US ally Saudi Arabia.


And that I suppose is the final target of my own rant. Some may noticed that I make this point a lot, but to me the worst form of hypocracy is that os the US towards Saudi as compared to the rest of the Middle East.

Al Qaida was created and financed by Saudi. Bin Laden is Saudi. Saudi Royal family still is the single largest contributor to Al qaida in the world. Almost all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi. The single largest contingent of captured foreign fighters in Afghanistan are Saudis. Saudi provides more money to the PLO, Hamas and dozens of other terrorist groups then every other nation in the Middle East combined. Saudi is a total dictatorship which is probably the worst place in the Middle East to be a woman now that the Taliban (another Saudi invention) are gone. Saudi is one of the few nations in the world to still practice judicial amputations and public beheadings. Saudi still practices unofficial slavery in the form of 'forced migrant workers'. Saudi state newspapers DAILY call for the destruction of Israel and spread lies and hate against jews such as their need to 'kill children and bake them into bread'. And so on.

So to me, you want to invade (or whatever) a Middle Eastern country because they are 'bad', you need to explain to me why they are worse than Saudi Arabia, personal friend and ally of Bush Jr. Otherwise all this talk of Iran being 'not very nice' (while true) is pure hypocricy.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bucket
post Jan 25 2006, 02:58 PM
Post #58


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,259
Member No.: 1,459
Joined: October-14-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Vermillion)
Now your rant goes a little bit unfocussed here. 
 
Over 50% of Hamas' funding comes from agencies and individuals within saudi Arabia, that is more than every other source of funding combined. 
 
Organisations and individuals within saudi also supply the PLO with about 70% of its money. 
 
Nobody is claiming Iran does not have links with terrorism, after all Iran created Islamic Jihad, though the organisation now draws funding from all over the Gulf. But again, not compared to saudi, for example. 
 
Then, what does the Al qaida attacks on London, Saudi, madrid and so on have to do with Iran?


I am unfocussed? I never mentioned the PLO, it was not a part of my "rant." But Hezbollah was, in fact the main piece of it. It is Hezbollah who has murdered hundreds in London, Lebanon, Argentina and Saudi Arabia and yet you did not even bother to address them. It is Hezbollah who with Iranian money and Iranian training has killed, murdered, bombed, hijacked, and yes terrorized the world , and again you just seem to have forgotten about them. Why did you not address Hezbollah?

I also mentioned PIJ again why did you not address this group either?

Both of which receive funding, support and training from the Iranian government

And it has already been pointed out previously by another poster, I can say the same for individuals in Europe, the US and Canada what you say for those living in Saudi Arabia. What makes Iran such a concern is it is State sponsored. It is a the State of Iran's foreign policy to support these groups, I dunno I always felt government policies were a wee bit more encompassing and concerning then that of individuals.

QUOTE(Vermillion)
Next you say, people are 'pretending' that there is a democratic leadership in Iran. Again, nobody is overstating the level of democracy, I and others have stated several times that the substantive power of the president, while large, is seriously limited by the VETO ability of the Ayatollah. It is certainly no free democracy by US stabdards, but the we were never comparing it to US standards. Again, let us look at the REST of the Middle East and see how Iran compares: In fact it is one of the most democratic states in the Middle East, certainly far above the dictatorship in saiudi. In Iran women even get to vote.


I feel you do overstate it. I asked you to explain to us why you keep calling the president the leader of Iran and keep highlighting him as the man we should be concerned with as the Iranian nuclear crisis continues when in fact the real leader of Iran is Khamenei, and has been for some time now. What changed in Iran? Since 1979 what has changed? Nothing. So acting like the situation or the government in Iran democratically has evolved or grown into something else than what it was in 1979 or what it was in 1983 when diplomats were slaughtered at the American Embassy really is a farce.

I pointed out earlier...
He isn't the the leader of Iran, he isn't Commander In Chief of the armed forces, he isn't the head of all intelligence and security forces, he doesn't have the power to declare war and the mobilization of the armed forces, and he most certainly does not set or determine foreign policies for Iran.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei does all this as he is the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Would you care to address this point or comment on it? I think if you keep ignoring who is in true control of Iran and her military you are not addressing the true situation with Iran.

QUOTE
The 'kill Iran' group here needs to take a step back and realise that nobody here is saying that Iran is a shiny happy state with flowers and candy for all. The state is worrying, it does have some links to terrorism, and it has a semi-islamicist government. Furthermore, even to me the possibility of ANY religious givernment in the world having nukes is worrying.


Remember in my rant when I said this: they will continuously misrepresent the current American gov's position on Iran, Well your above statement is the perfect example of this. I never made any comments about "killing Iran" I have never heard anyone in my government make any comments along the lines of "kill Iran" either. The only chants of killing come from Iran, ironically. So where exactly have you gained this mantra or perceived position from?

I don't think you really do appreciate or recognize the threat Iran is, after all as you have said ad nauseum ... Iranian support of terrorism is minor.

QUOTE(Vermillion)
Al Qaida was created and financed by Saudi. Bin Laden is Saudi. Saudi Royal family still is the single largest contributor to Al qaida in the world. Almost all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi. The single largest contingent of captured foreign fighters in Afghanistan are Saudis. Saudi provides more money to the PLO, Hamas and dozens of other terrorist groups then every other nation in the Middle East combined. Saudi is a total dictatorship which is probably the worst place in the Middle East to be a woman now that the Taliban (another Saudi invention) are gone. Saudi is one of the few nations in the world to still practice judicial amputations and public beheadings. Saudi still practices unofficial slavery in the form of 'forced migrant workers'. Saudi state newspapers DAILY call for the destruction of Israel and spread lies and hate against jews such as their need to 'kill children and bake them into bread'. And so on. 
 
So to me, you want to invade (or whatever) a Middle Eastern country because they are 'bad', you need to explain to me why they are worse than Saudi Arabia, personal friend and ally of Bush Jr. Otherwise all this talk of Iran being 'not very nice' (while true) is pure hypocricy. 


Where have I mentioned 9/11? Have I once used 9/11 to sex up the Iranian threat? Has any government that supports taking this matter to the UNSC done so too? So why are you using this as some argument against me and my ilk?

I don't want to invade Iran I have never said I do and you are again misrepresenting my position in an attempt to place me in this box you have labeled "kill Iran group." I support economic sanctions, I support Iran's adherence to the NPT, I support this issue being taken to the UNSC, I support EU sanctions if we can not get a vote in the UNSC, I support a non nuclear armed Iran and I support taking a stance and strong opposition to the Iranian government.

If the government of the KSA was supporting terrorism as Iran's is, if she was helping to disrupt a UN investigation into the murder of Hariri, if she was ignoring several UN resolutions, and if she was in violation of the NPT and refused to cooperate to resolve the issue then yes I would support the same actions against the KSA too. Fact is the KSA is not doing any of these things....but Iran is. I am not even close to being placed into a comparable situation to even practice any hypocrisy.

I think you also misrepresent the KSA position on Israel in comparison to Iran's. I think you are trying to assert that not only are they the same but that KSA's is even worse and I think that is completely false.

When the Iranian presidential puppet stood on the world stage and called for Israel to be wiped off the map and claimed the holocaust was a myth The KSA ambassador to America had this to say in response...
"As far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, that's a historical fact, you cannot deny that, and people should move forward from that," Turki said.

But Turki said the Arab world has "made our peace" with the creation of Israel. He noted that in 2002, the Arab League adopted a Saudi plan that committed Arab nations to a peace process that would result in the creation of Palestine and an acceptance of Israel, including normalization of relations, once it leaves territory occupied after the 1967 Six-Day War.

"It is a done deal for us," he said. "We are not going to go back on that."

source

Gee I think I do see a difference in the positions each state takes on foreign policy regarding Israel. KSA has been a major player and participant of the peace process in the ME, Iran has instead played a major role in the opposing side of peace in ME.

Why you refuse to acknowledge this and insist on branding or containing these two nation's as similars who each represent the same , or in the case of KSA, an even bigger threat to peace in that region is something that I not only don't understand but I feel is a horrible misrepresentation of the situation in the region.

Once again I feel you prove my "rant". I feel those who oppose taking a stance against the Iranian government not only misrepresent the situation but also ignore many of the key factors.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Jan 25 2006, 03:20 PM
Post #59


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



And adding to buckets reply I would add that last night I listened to an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on BBC radio 4*

In this interview, Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes it quite clear that as a young muslim, growing up in the middle east she was constantly fed misinformation from most of the major regional countries, but first and foremost from Iran.


QUOTE(Vermillion)
Al Qaida was created and financed by Saudi. Bin Laden is Saudi. Saudi Royal family still is the single largest contributor to Al qaida in the world. Almost all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi. The single largest contingent of captured foreign fighters in Afghanistan are Saudis. Saudi provides more money to the PLO, Hamas and dozens of other terrorist groups then every other nation in the Middle East combined. Saudi is a total dictatorship which is probably the worst place in the Middle East to be a woman now that the Taliban (another Saudi invention) are gone. Saudi is one of the few nations in the world to still practice judicial amputations and public beheadings. Saudi still practices unofficial slavery in the form of 'forced migrant workers'. Saudi state newspapers DAILY call for the destruction of Israel and spread lies and hate against jews such as their need to 'kill children and bake them into bread'. And so on.

So to me, you want to invade (or whatever) a Middle Eastern country because they are 'bad', you need to explain to me why they are worse than Saudi Arabia, personal friend and ally of Bush Jr. Otherwise all this talk of Iran being 'not very nice' (while true) is pure hypocricy.
Well first of all, who is talking about invasion?

Secondly, as I already pointed out to you Vermillion, Saudi Arabia is not on track to have a functioning mid range nuclear missile within the next three years, or even, perhaps, sooner.

All of what you said about Saudi Arabia is true and its a disgraceful nation which betrays the corruption that lies at the heart of Islam and poisons the minds of millions of people.

But you have to have priorities. Its that simple, and for all its sponsorship of terrorism, the bottom line is, Saudi Arabia, and even the terrorism its citizens support, does not threaten as much as the prospect of one single Iranian nuclear missile.


* this interview can be heard until Tuesday 31st January by going to the BBC radio site, activating the BBC radio player (top right hand corner) choosing radio 4 and then choosing the programme titled 'Taking a stand'. The programme is roughly ˝ an hour and well worth listening to.

editted to fix a link.

This post has been edited by moif: Jan 25 2006, 03:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whyshouldi
post Jan 25 2006, 08:18 PM
Post #60


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 114
Member No.: 5,593
Joined: November-1-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Natural Law Party



The simple answer to me is this.

1) Change our nations infrastructure to reflect an energy dependence that does not include oil in the food chain. I mean if we in an absolute form required no oil that would rid a lot of need to deal with the mid east at all.

2) End our support of Israel. Have nothing to do with that conflict unless via the u.n. Let Israel and any other mid east nation hate each other, survival should be the prime ideology anyways, not religion.

So I think with those two taken care of, that the mid east or individuals in it would not longer be able to politic any negativity towards the U.S, or course I could be wrong.

The other options to me of course mean issues like this becoming more prominent. Worries of nukes falling into hands that could use them and not worry so about the repercussions.

As Iran stands now, a traditional ground war would resemble the first gulf war, I don’t see how nukes would not be used, then again Saddam I guess never used his wmds against us. A tactical air strike to cripple any facility facilitating the creation of nuke grade weapons could work, but its not guaranteed to actually diminish the threat. If Iran gets nukes, it would elevate them in the realm of politics, who knows what that in itself could lead too.

The other option is that the U.S again continues on this path and that extremist Muslim hatred viewpoint becomes more and more, in which case who knows how bad humanity will be in at that point. From my stance, the war in Israel has been going on for to long, I can easily see the same becoming the same in Iraq. I have also always feared letting nukes fall into the hands of some religious wacko. Nukes for the most part forced war into more of an economical theme with “rational” people, I don’t know how such will fare here.

This post has been edited by whyshouldi: Jan 25 2006, 08:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 4th, 2021 - 07:45 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.