[raydan]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Not my problem. If Israel can handle Iran themselves let them nuke it out. But please for the love of whichever god you pray to, no Canadian taxpayer dollars for these shenanigans.

Fixed...

[CommanderSock]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

$1:

What if it were the other way around?

Don't be too impressed with the Iranian military, it doesn't even get anywhere close to "near peer" status with anything in the West.

It's not the other way round. Iran hasn't attacked anyone. In fact, Iran has never been aggressive towards Israel. Iran was not part of the 6 day war or the conflict of 1948.

If Israel is crazy enough to attack the only country in the ME which hasn't actually attacked it, good fucking luck.

Not my problem. If Israel can handle Iran themselves let them duke it out. But please for the love of whichever god you pray to, no Canadian taxpayer dollars for these shenanigans.

So Iran are the good guys? Come on Sock. This is a nasty facist theocracy that has been funding proxy wars against the West for years. Who do you think is sending rockets to Hamas? IED parts to the Taliban?

The Iranian regime is not full of good guys, there are no good guys here, just lot of foolish and idealistic zealots of both sides.

Israel attacking Iran is like watching one crackhead beat up another, you don't get involved.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

It's not the other way round. Iran hasn't attacked anyone.

Sure they have. Who do you think is behind the Iraq insurgency? Who do you think is responsible for rocket attacks at the Green Zone? Iran has been attacking the US in Iraq for going on 10 years.

News to me. I can't see this as being true. I dont watch much US cable news, but given the general level of excitement down there, I thhik even I would here about if Iran were directly launching rockets at US targets. The Shi'ites may use some Iranian made weapons.

The Iraq insurgency is complex in nature. Laying it on Iran's doorstep is facile. Clearly Iran wants to establish a regional hegemony, but much of the disturbance comes from warring between Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds.

[Lemmy]

Like I said to CommanderSock, read what Michael Ware has to say about it. He's been embedded there for most of the past decade.

[Zipperfish]

SprCForr SprCForr:

I can't believe people are still naive enough to believe that Iran is as pure as the driven snow in this day and age. Especially with everything that's come to light since '01.

I don't believe that. On the other hand, the US isn't exactly "pure as the driven snow" either when it coms to Iran. The CIA knocked off their elected leader in 1953, they entered Iranian waters and shot down a Iranian civilian airliner in 1988 killing 290 people, and they've invaded two countries that border Iran, including the invasion of Iraq which was likely based on a pack of lies.

I'm not taking Iran's side--it is after all an Islamic theocracy. On the other hand, I'm not going to swallow a bunch of FOX News propaganda on the subject either, like they all did on Iraq.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Like I said to CommanderSock, read what Michael Ware has to say about it. He's been embedded there for most of the past decade.

He doesn't seem write much, unfortunately, and I don't get youtube over here. And from what I can read, I see no evidence of direct rocket attacks from Iran on American targets in Iraq. More like Iran peddling influence and using proxies to establish control after the US pulls out. There's not much to be done. A democratic government in Iraq will be a Shi'ite controlled government, and Iran will have influence in a Shi'ite government.

Call me old fashioned, but I see Al Qeada and the Taliban as the enemy. Al Qeada launched the attack on 9/11. The Taliban abetted them.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't believe that. On the other hand, the US isn't exactly "pure as the driven snow" either when it coms to Iran. The CIA knocked off their elected leader in 1953

Mossadegh was aliging with the Soviets and the threat of the Soviets with a warm water port was enough that we offed him. I stand by the decision as the correct move because it kept the Soviets out of the Indian Ocean.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

they entered Iranian waters and shot down a Iranian civilian airliner in 1988 killing 290 people,

The US ship was not in Iranian waters according to the UN and the problem with the airliner was that the aircrew didn't understand that a US Navy ship was querying them on their intent. There's also been some suspicion that the plane was filled with corpses and that this was some sort of PR stunt on the part of the Iranian regime. This is because some of the bodies recovered had body temperatures that were lower that the surrounding waters - indicative of post mortem refrigeration.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

and they've invaded two countries that border Iran, including the invasion of Iraq which was likely based on a pack of lies.

Iran is in a tought spot, true. Bearing that in mind have you noticed how polite they've been for the past decade?

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm not taking Iran's side--it is after all an Islamic theocracy. On the other hand, I'm not going to swallow a bunch of FOX News propaganda on the subject either, like they all did on Iraq.

Personally, I'm counting on the Iranian people to resolve the main issues in Iran. Over the years I've met plenty of Iranians and they're consistently reasonable people. To some extant, even Ahmadinajad is rational in his context.

[SprCForr]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Like I said to CommanderSock, read what Michael Ware has to say about it. He's been embedded there for most of the past decade.

Yossef Bodansky has written a pile of stuff too. There is (IMO) some valid criticism about some of his sources (he doesn't detail who they are for security reasons), but there is no doubt the man is extremely well informed about the region.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

He doesn't seem write much, unfortunately, and I don't get youtube over here. And from what I can read, I see no evidence of direct rocket attacks from Iran on American targets in Iraq. More like Iran peddling influence and using proxies to establish control after the US pulls out. There's not much to be done. A democratic government in Iraq will be a Shi'ite controlled government, and Iran will have influence in a Shi'ite government.

Too bad you don't have access to Ware's interviews. He makes a compelling case. Much more than "peddling influence".

[GreenTiger]

I agree with Bart in that over the year I (and a lot of other people) have met a number of Iranian people. Their hospitality is amazing and they are a group of very level headed people and at some point they are going to say enough is enough with these kooks running that country.

What may emerge from government more in line with the will of the governed may or may not like the US or NATO or the UN but it will be a far more rational state than what is there now.

[MaineUSAGuy]

Well Wars have been started for less important things. If someone does go to war with Iran let´s hope the U.S. stays out of it, war is not cheap.

[SprCForr]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't believe that. On the other hand, the US isn't exactly "pure as the driven snow" either when it coms to Iran. The CIA knocked off their elected leader in 1953, they entered Iranian waters and shot down a Iranian civilian airliner in 1988 killing 290 people, and they've invaded two countries that border Iran, including the invasion of Iraq which was likely based on a pack of lies.

I'm not taking Iran's side--it is after all an Islamic theocracy. On the other hand, I'm not going to swallow a bunch of FOX News propaganda on the subject either, like they all did on Iraq.

Do a little digging on the Iranian involvement with Hezbollah as a start. So when Sock posted:

$1:

In fact, Iran has never been aggressive towards Israel.

that flat out astonished me given their involvement with Hezbollah to name just one example.

It's a given that no country involved in that region could ever claim to be as pure as the driven snow and it would be an error to assume that I was giving the West a pass.


Fox News propaganda and moi? Them's fightin' words brother.

Oh Shit Just Before Hitting Submit Point: That Yossef Bodansky I mentioned to Lemmy earlier? He friggin' destroys the US on their intelligence assesment etc prior to the start of the Iraq War.

[desertdude]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't believe that. On the other hand, the US isn't exactly "pure as the driven snow" either when it coms to Iran. The CIA knocked off their elected leader in 1953

Mossadegh was aliging with the Soviets and the threat of the Soviets with a warm water port was enough that we offed him. I stand by the decision as the correct move because it kept the Soviets out of the Indian Ocean.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

they entered Iranian waters and shot down a Iranian civilian airliner in 1988 killing 290 people,

The US ship was not in Iranian waters according to the UN and the problem with the airliner was that the aircrew didn't understand that a US Navy ship was querying them on their intent. There's also been some suspicion that the plane was filled with corpses and that this was some sort of PR stunt on the part of the Iranian regime. This is because some of the bodies recovered had body temperatures that were lower that the surrounding waters - indicative of post mortem refrigeration.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

and they've invaded two countries that border Iran, including the invasion of Iraq which was likely based on a pack of lies.

Iran is in a tought spot, true. Bearing that in mind have you noticed how polite they've been for the past decade?

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm not taking Iran's side--it is after all an Islamic theocracy. On the other hand, I'm not going to swallow a bunch of FOX News propaganda on the subject either, like they all did on Iraq.

Personally, I'm counting on the Iranian people to resolve the main issues in Iran. Over the years I've met plenty of Iranians and they're consistently reasonable people. To some extant, even Ahmadinajad is rational in his context.

Sorry to say what a load of crap, the sheer hubris of some Americans never ceases to amaze me. Anything the yanks do is alright and perfectly justified or very trival and if someone even farts in the wrong direction, bomb them to hell attitude really is disgusting ! Contarary to your beliefs America is not invicible and all this meddleding around in other peoples bussiness is going to come and bit it in the ass, hard ! You have already fought yourself into brankrupty, its high time you learnt some lessons from your mistakes in the past.

And ofcourse more horseshit about the how the idiots shot an civillian airliner as a PR stunt filled with corpses ( Ofcourse Americans can do no wrong ! ), dude I know people who had friends and family on that plane !

There are days when one can when one bear your ramblings and horse dung and then there are others.

As for the rest, with major wars in the world going on to its left and right by the same country and a country it paticularly does not like very much, you'd expect them to sit quitely ? I'm surprised they haven't been more actively involved. The US starts "offing" people half way across the world just because it thinks it might prove usefull. A sending arms, money etc etc pales in comparsion.

[GreenTiger]

Iran has a lot more to fear from Israel than from the US. Unlike the US Israel is not so much concerned with being Politically Correct, the are more concerned with Amadinejad assertion that Israel needs to be wiped off the map.

Benjamin Netanyahoo and Ehud Barak take that kind of talk very seriously and now that they have a missile system that can deliver a nuclear warheads to Iran and the Israeli subs off the cost of Iran with armed with nuclear weapons and the Saudis giving the IDF permission to fly over their territory to attack Iran. Iran has more of a concern with them than with the USA.

I do agree that the US should but out of a lot of things in the ME, Africa and elsewhere as we have our own problems.

I'm not even sure we should have done what we did in Libya especially after they stopped blowing up our airliners; although there aren't too many people mourning Mr Kaddafi's demise.

There are times when I see the isolationist point of view. A lot of the world wants the USA to piss off and let whatever happens in other parts of the world just happen. Outside of the Mexican drug border war and Al Quada why don't we oblige them?

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Mossadegh was aliging with the Soviets and the threat of the Soviets with a warm water port was enough that we offed him. I stand by the decision as the correct move because it kept the Soviets out of the Indian Ocean.

That's fine, but if you look at it from Iran's point of view, it didn't really set the table for future constructive relations. You could see why they would be pissed off.

Bart Bart:

The US ship was not in Iranian waters according to the UN and the problem with the airliner was that the aircrew didn't understand that a US Navy ship was querying them on their intent. There's also been some suspicion that the plane was filled with corpses and that this was some sort of PR stunt on the part of the Iranian regime. This is because some of the bodies recovered had body temperatures that were lower that the surrounding waters - indicative of post mortem refrigeration.

I'm sorry, according to the UN? Puh-leeze. Some suspicion the plane was filled wiht corpses? That's a complete fairy tale. But again, conspiracy thories aside, you could see why Iranians would be pissed off.

Oh and I almost forgot that the US backd Saddam in his invasion of Iran. That pissed off the Iranians too.

Bart Bart:

Iran is in a tought spot, true. Bearing that in mind have you noticed how polite they've been for the past decade?

I don't realy think of Ahmadinejad as polite myself. You could argue the best favour that the US ever did for Iran was to invade and then (incompetently) occupy Iraq.

Bart Bart:

I'm not taking Iran's side--it is after all an Islamic theocracy. On the other hand, I'm not going to swallow a bunch of FOX News propaganda on the subject either, like they all did on Iraq.

Ahmaddinejad is a lot like Bush, according to one Iranian I know. A hard-core conservative who makes the citizens of Iran facepalm every time he opens his mouth. But he's just a symptom. The mullahs are the problem. Ratcheting down the existential threat of annihilation posed by the US would weaken the mullahs in my opinion.

I could be wrong--I don't really know what's happening with the intel.