Iran Super Thread- Merged

[CivU]

But what percentage of the people actually support it?

Canada:
Opposed:  44%
In favour:  53%

US:
Opposed:  55%
In favour:  30%

An 11% difference in opposition really isn't anything to get overly excited about.  The main difference is that only 3% of Canadians don't bother having or voicing an opinion as opposed to 23% of Americans.

How about looking at US opinions on gay "civil unions"?  Same concept, different name:

Opposed:  51%
In favour:  46%



Where does this data come from?

 

[a_majoor]

Majoor

You still never answered my questions as to France and Germany seeing Iraq as a threat and failing to back the US in the war?

The "Oil for Food" scandal sums it up very nicely: Iraq already had billions of dollars worth of business with France and Germany, and were skimming the "Oil for Food" money (about $21 billion worth) and using it to bribe French, German and apparently Chinese government officials to put up a huge diplomatic fight against any effort to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq. France and Germany were (and still are) not willing to accept a Democratic Iraqi government reneging on debts racked up during the Ba'athist dictatorship, nor million and billion dollar contracts negotiated with Saddam being repudiated.

Really, all this stuff is open source, you can find it by reading various newspapers, magazines, internet Blogs and so on. I have given you quite enough material to begin doing the basic research and finding the answers on your own.

Since facts don't seem to be working, lets go to a story:

You have just taken over the "Iraqi variety store", the previous owner having been arrested and jailed for various crimes. The store is a mess. The slushy machine is missing, and no one can say where it is despite it being one of the biggest attractions of the store during the 1980's and early 1990s. 1/3 of your employees are surly and resentful, having lost their management positions when the former owner was arrested. Despite your best efforts, getting back to business is difficult. Every time the police patrol leaves (usually with a petty criminal in the back seat), bikers or native cigarette smugglers are harrassing your customers, shoplifting or throwing a brick through your window. You have even caught some employees  helping these thugs.

You also are aware that the biker chicks hang out at the "Syria strip bar" at one end of the street, and the "Iran pizza" franchise at the other end of the street is a well known native hangout, and they seem to be selling slushies as well....

You have enough on your plate as it is, your new security guard needs to be trained, store policies enforced, but there is a good sign; during the last municipal election, the new police chief has promised to maintain the patrols in your neighbourhood (even with the sudden flooding downtown), and although you can't quite prove the connection between the roving gangs of thugs and the two stores at either end of the street, lately there has been a van parked in an alley most days and nights.....

 

[48Highlander]

Where does this data come from?

I used 4 different sites to look up and double-check the statistics.  It took me all of 5 minutes on google.  Try looking it up for yourself, and if you really can't figure it out I'll go find the links.

 

[Infanteer]

Wow, alot of arguments all over the place on this one, here's my crack at it:

1) Canadians and Americans:   Try going to a city in the United States and then going to a city in any other country, especially one in the non-developed world.   You will see that except for a few cosmetic issues and some different historical inputs, Americans and Canadians are largely the same - we both get up in the morning, eat cereal, drive the sport utility to work and pay lots for gas, work infront of a computer, pick up the kids from judo/hockey/scouts, eat a steak, watch the evening news, go to bed, and repeat.

2) Whoever thinks that US/Western involvement in the Middle East isn't about oil is a fool.   However, whoever thinks that we shouldn't be involved in the Middle East because of oil is also a fool.   Until our economies can move away from oil-dependency (which is probably the best long-term strategy to dealing with the region - we can simply leave the sand-dunes to the mullahs and dictators) we have every reason to take a personal interest into how things unfold there.   If you still believe that we shouldn't be in the Middle East for oil, please get rid of 90% of your cozy belongings (including the computer you're using to read this) and give all your money away...better yet, send it all to me.

3) It's obvious that many people don't agree with a very assertive/aggressive US-led Coalition policy in the Middle East?   I've taken the time to argue extensively on why I feel it is in general a good strategy, but I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in".   Please, I'm all ears - give me something to chew on and think about instead of one-off comments on the morality of Iraq (which is merely an means to an end) or how Americans are imperialist nazis.

 

[muskrat89]

CivU - 48Highlander said

Let's try not to make the Americans out to be homophobic hicks, eh?

He said this because there are a LOT of people on this board that  make unsubstantiated claims, generalizations, etc., about people in the US. Based, typically, on something they have heard or read somewhere, as opposed to actual experience LIVING in the United States.

There are several members of this board who are either American, or Canadians living in the US. Sometimes it helps to look at profiles to see who you are speaking with. Generally, people with credibility put enough info in their profile to get the jist of who they are and what they have done.

I have lived in the US for about 15 years. Thus far, I have chosen NOT to become a US Citizen. When some of the people on this board try and spout off with some authority about life in the US, people in the US, etc., it is almost laughable.

It would be like me stating with some conviction, what the people in New Zealand are like...or think... or do...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.  :skull:

It prevented over 1,000,000 Allied casualties, and brought about the end to a Japanese regime that was notable for murdering prisoners of war, torturing civilians, and waging aggressive war.

 

[onecat]

"What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'. 


I'ld have to disagree, the 2 atom bombs ended the war quickly and they were far fewer Japanese citizenx killed in those tow bombing raid that in the fire bomb raids the US was doing before that.  If anything was un-justied it was the fire bombing.  Raids totally designed to cause as fire as possible; very nasty and if you think the naplam used in Vietman was bad.... this was far more deadly.

It does bring up an interesting debate, as both sides did what would now be called war crimes.  Only the allies won and so our's are some how justied because of that.

 

[Rushrules]

Radiohead,

To further substantiate that one, look up the firebombing of Dresden, where an estimated 100,000 people were killed, and any fleeing civilians were shot at by Allied warplanes. 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't attacked because Japan was a threat (the war was mostly over then), but to tell the Soviets that this will happen to them.

 

[a_majoor]

Individuals and nations are morally justified to take up arms or use force to protect themselves.

Imperial Japan was an aggressor state since the mid 1930s, and a quick search on the Internet will bring up pages of stomach turning activities sanctioned by the Imperial government and carried out by the Imperial Army. All this happened BEFORE they launched a surprise attack against the United States.

Given that history, is it creditable to imagine that the Japanese Empire would have ceased these practices on its own accord?

Flash forward to the period since 1979. Iraq uses terrorism against diplomats, sponsors terrorist groups in the Middle East (some of which, like Hamas and Hezbollah have branch offices in Canada and global reach), uses barbaric practices like human wave attacks of children to fight the Iraqis and treats its own citizens like slaves. They train, support and sponsor the Jihadis, and are openly seeking nuclear weapons to impose their will on their neighbours (what other use do nuclear weapons have).

Given this history, does it seem creditable that Iran will cease these practices on their own?

If the United States can achieve their aims through diplomacy, trade and support of the pro democracy movement in Iraq, then that would be wonderful, and I think this would be everyone's preffered option. We need to ask what we must do should these efforts fail, and military solutions ranging from a "head-shot" to a full scale invasion need to be investigated and war gamed in order for the Administration to understand the range of options available.

If the Iranians are not comfortable with this sort of American activity, they should ask themselves what is causing this activity after so many years of neglect?

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Majoor i think you meant to say Iran in this Para

"Flash forward to the period since 1979. Iraq uses terrorism against diplomats, sponsors terrorist groups in the Middle East (some of which, like Hamas and Hezbollah have branch offices in Canada and global reach), uses barbaric practices like human wave attacks of children to fight the Iraqis and treats its own citizens like slaves. They train, support and sponsor the Jihadis, and are openly seeking nuclear weapons to impose their will on their neighbours (what other use do nuclear weapons have)."

No one is disputs that change is necessary (well i don't otheres may) It is how and why that change is to come about that we have been debating over.

Radiohead,

To further substantiate that one, look up the firebombing of Dresden, where an estimated 100,000 people were killed, and any fleeing civilians were shot at by Allied warplanes.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't attacked because Japan was a threat (the war was mostly over then), but to tell the Soviets that this will happen to them.

Your kidding right?

The war was almost over?  Some small islands around Japan where troops were isolated and cut off did not fully surreneder until the 80's when the troops were found.

They would have fought to the death hence the Samrari way. Or kamakazie bombers.  It would have been a war of desperation much to what we are seeing in Iraq right now with suicide bombers and car bombs and the such except on a much higher scale.

In some ways i agree it was a way of showing the Red Army what they were capable of but in some many others it was a quick fix to a war tired nation and world.

 

[48Highlander]

Hey, we finaly agree on something

The idea that the US dropped the bomb to scare Russia is an old communist-generated conspiracy theory that's been perpetuated way past it's time thanks to groups like ANSWER.  It's extremely popular in the old warsaw pact countries.  Of all the Serbs and Croats I know, almost all of them think of it as a fact rather than propaganda.  Just goes to show what decades of government controled media can do.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

You mean puppet governments right.    ;D

Yea see we can agree.

i know they were satilite nations, used as a shield to protect the herd from the Western invasion.  ;D

 

[CivU]

I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in"

How about the United States cutting ties with Israel?  Their relationship has undoubtedly benefitted Israel in the region but at the same time generated unprecedented animosity toward the United States...

 

[Wizard of OZ]

  Would never happen to much money in special intrest groups in the states to lose if that were to happen.  And we all know it is money that makes policy not people.

 

[Horse_Soldier]

I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in"

How about the United States cutting ties with Israel?   Their relationship has undoubtedly benefitted Israel in the region but at the same time generated unprecedented animosity toward the United States...

Why should the US cut ties with the only democracy in the Middle East? To appease a bunch of fanatics?  No dice.  That would be craven capitulation on the scale of Neville Chamberlain giving in to Hitler in 1938

 

[48Highlander]

I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in"

How about the United States cutting ties with Israel?   Their relationship has undoubtedly benefitted Israel in the region but at the same time generated unprecedented animosity toward the United States...

You're joking right?  Lessen terrorist attacks against the west by letting Israel get wiped out?  You're a real humanitarian...

 

[Wizard of OZ]

You're joking right?   Lessen terrorist attacks against the west by letting Israel get wiped out?   You're a real humanitarian...

Ok its a full moon

we have agreed on two issues on the same form i better buy a lottery ticket.

;D

 

[a_majoor]

"Flash forward to the period since 1979. Iraq uses terrorism against diplomats, sponsors terrorist groups in the Middle East (some of which, like Hamas and Hezbollah have branch offices in Canada and global reach), uses barbaric practices like human wave attacks of children to fight the Iraqis and treats its own citizens like slaves. They train, support and sponsor the Jihadis, and are openly seeking nuclear weapons to impose their will on their neighbours (what other use do nuclear weapons have)."

I realize Ba'athist Iraq did many of the same things, but the Hezbollah (Party of God) is a distinctly Iranian creation, and the Iraqi military used barbaric tactics like mustard gas attacks to break the waves of Iranian children the Mullahs were sacrificing in the name of Allah the Merciful....

 

[48Highlander]

He was correcting you.  Look at the second sentence of what you wrote.  You put in "Iraq" instead of "Iran".  Either that was an accident or I total missed the point of your post.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

That is all i meant by the post.  Was i think you meant to use Iran instead of Iraq.  In the postion.  Iraq did alot of that stuff plus gassed it's own people and the kurds as well.

I have no sympathy for those who did the crime.