• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

CivU said:
At least we agree here.

Come on!  How childish can you posibly be?

CivU said:
As for the WMD's you seem so certain exist.   Where are they?   You expect me to prove everything...why cant you offer any evidence? Is it because the UN weapons inspectors found nothing?

Now I KNOW that our universities are next to useless.  Your comprehension skills are non-existant.  Show me where exactly I claimed that there are currently any WMD's in Iraq.  Do you think that in the future you could be so kind as to limits your arguments to statements I've made instead of things you wish I'd said?
 
CivU said:
"Therefore it is inconcievable that they would start a war which would not generate profit."

At least we agree here.  There is no way the US would enter into the Iraqi war without the ultimate objective of benefitting politically and economically...

As for the WMD's you seem so certain exist.  Where are they?  You expect me to prove everything...why cant you offer any evidence? Is it because the UN weapons inspectors found nothing?

Oy!!  PAY ATTENTION!!!  I showed where the UN, Han Blix, et al *KNEW* there are WMD in Iraq...  If you are refuting what I say, have something to back it up, else, shut yer piehole...

T
 
what does this have to do with Iran repelling a US attack?
 
"Oy!!  PAY ATTENTION!!!  I showed where the UN, Han Blix, et al *KNEW* there are WMD in Iraq...  If you are refuting what I say, have something to back it up, else, shut yer piehole..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-16-blix-iraq_x.htm

This is old news.  Since late 2003 Hans Blix has stated there are no WMD's in Iraq and that suspiscions were incorrect.  As for "piehole" you really do know how to contribute intellectually to this discussion...


jmackenzie_15:  this has everything to do with Iran.  With the elections in Iraq now over, and the potential, but nonetheless slow and prolonged withdrawl of US troops, it is entirely possible that to invade Iran over this presidential term, any number of claims will be made on grounds that were as contrived as the ones for the Iraq invasion of March 2003...

 
I really hate that line of argument.  Ever hear of probable cause?  If a police officer has reason to suspect that you've commited a crime, he has every right to detain, question, and search you.  If his investigation turns up nothing, it doesn't mean that he had some evil ulterior motive, nor does it neccesarily mean that you're innocent.  All it means is that either his assumptions were wrong, or that you're good at hiding the evidence.  Neither situation would invalidate the investigation though.  Fact is, the majority of nations accepted as fact the assumption that Sadam still possesed biological and chemical weapons.  They knew for a fact that he was developing delivery systems with a range longer than one allowed under UN directives.  And they passed a resolution to take action if Sadam didn't come clean about his weapons program.  All those things put together more than add up to "probable cause".

New Case law in Canada says that even if they have reason to suspect you in a crime you cannot be search you unless you are arrested for the crime.  This case law came out this summer.  From an incedint in Winipeg.  So using your own annalage the US would have had to have enough proof to arrest Iraq in order to go in and search the nation for its WMD. 

This is not to say that at one point they did not exist but if this is your sole cause for going to war then you had better find the smoking gun.  They did not.

I hate to have CiviU back me on this but.... probable cause is not beoyond a resonable doubt.  I know i will get jumped on for this but stir the pot i must it is like a calling or maybe an illness. :D

As for the war the US government may pay billions in cost so that some of it's "friends" may make hundreds of millions in profits of rebuilding off of the taxpayers backs .

stir stir stir

 
There were any number of "probable causes", ranging from defiance of UN resolutions, committing acts of war against the US and the UK, activities consistent with the development of WMD, activities consistent with the support of terrorist organizations, genocidal actions against the local population, corruption of French, German, Chinese and UN officials in exchange for under the table arms sales and political interference in the UN and so on. Despite most or all of these reasons being explicitly stated by the Clinton and Bush administrations over a period of years, there seems to be a severe case of selective hearing as for the justifications for OIF.

The common law precedent of "probable cause" is a good analogy, Canadian case law seems to be rapidly filling up with unwarranted assumptions (I listened to a radio interview with a UWO Law professor who asserted that viewing crime as the action of an individual  committing the transgression was incorrect. If they are teaching that in Law school, who knows what sort of case law will be developed?)

As far as Iran is concerned, there are many "probable causes" as well. Supporting the Jihadis and Hezbollah is bad enough, and their stated nuclear ambitions should also make thinking people everywhere begin to worry. The factors working in "our" favor is the presence of a viable pro democracy movement inside Iran, which has the potential of doing the heavy lifting for the West. The elections and process of creating a consensual government in Iraq should bolster the pro democracy forces in Iran (and indeed throughout the region).

This being said, the pro democracy movement will be a more gradual process, and if the Mullahs decide to short circuit things with a massive provocation, then coallition military response is warrented. Based on many factors discussed on this and other boards, the most probable military action would be a "head shot" to decapitate the regime and isolate it from the population and organs of power.
 
CivU said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-16-blix-iraq_x.htm

This is old news.   Since late 2003 Hans Blix has stated there are no WMD's in Iraq and that suspiscions were incorrect.   As for "piehole" you really do know how to contribute intellectually to this discussion...

As 48th said...  Both these articles say that there WERE WMD in Iraq...  You implied that Saddam never had WMD, when the inspectors were there...  Nice of you to give evidence to support my position.  How's that piehole again?  ;D  As far as an intellectual contribution, please se 48th's comment regarding: you.

W of O:  I asked a few of my lawyer type profs, and they were suprised to hear this, as were a few of my cop buddies, as they are still detaining and searching people with the "smoking gun"...  If they get a call to a house for a B&E, and someone is running down the street away from the house, even if they didn't see the person exiting the house (no smoking gun) they will still chase, detain and question...  Perhaps I misunderstood?  A link to the caselaw would be helpful. As for the money,  ::).

T
 
I think what the Wizard is saying is that in the past the police had the right to search you before saying the words "you are under arrest for...", whereas now they have to say those words first before they can search you :)  small technicality.  I'm not sure wether or not he's right about that, but either way it's not a big difference, and doesn't in any way disprove any part of my analogy.
 
Ohh you can detain him and question him but anything found by a search would not be allowed as eviedence i will find the case law and attach it.  It jsut came out last summer and it was inregard to a guy suspected of a a B&E and the the cops detained and searched him they found drugs which they charged him for.  The courts ruled that the search was unlawful and breached his Charter 8 rights and the eviednce was tossed under sec 24(2).  So if you search a guy (or girl) now it has to be incedent to arrest. otherewise your evidence is tossed.  If your cop friends don't know that then they are out of the loop it posted all over this office for weeks after it happned. WHAT NOT TO DO.

I don't disagree that it is possible that he had them but when it came time to find them they were not around.  Hence no smokin gun.  I know the Majoor will jump on this but that is fine.

Getting back on topic; now that the elections are over does anyone see a time line for either an intial puhs into IRAN or SYRIA or with the saber ratteling going on over NK is that the next stepping stone for Democracy.  

I can see the US maintaining an Airbase in Norther IRAQ just close enough to do serious damage to both Iran or Syria.  thoughts?

I found it it is Rv MANN 2004 SCC 52  the courts allow a pat down but it has to be for officer safety reasons going into the pockets and such would not be allowed.
 
Infanteer said:
You got your ideas mixed up a bit:  SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS  :p

The Domino Theory was the theory that if one state fell to communism, it's neighbours would soon also fall to revolutionary fervor.   This is a different than the concept that saw the US Military judge its readiness by being able to respond to two Major Regional Contingencies at the same time. Not under their concept of domino theory was that if one state fellt to the communist they would have to be able to uphold that state and any other that showed weakness hence Asia


This was a Royal Navy policy, I believe.   A longstanding policy which was applied to ensure the security of the British Isles, the Empire, and the sea-lanes in between - it really got trumpeted when a newly-created Germany industrialized and sought its "place in the sun".   As for the Admiral's name, I don't think Admiral Sir Jack Fisher was the creator of such a policy, but he sure was a drumbeater for it in the latter half of the 19th century.  Actually the American Admiral was MAHN not sure if it is spelt right but he formed it off of the Royal Navy policy and was in place after WWII and was used to beat the MONROE DOCTRINE to death you know that isolationist policy.

my changes are in Yellow.

 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4084908.stm

Bomb damage in Ahwaz, Iran, 12 June 2005
The bombs in Ahwaz exploded over a two-hour period
Six bombs have exploded in Iran, killing at least 10 people, days before the presidential election.

Four blasts targeted public buildings in the south-western city of Ahwaz, killing at least eight people and wounding more than 70 others.

Hours later, a bomb exploded in the capital Tehran, killing two people. Three other bombs were defused.

Bombings have been rare in Iran since the war with Iraq ended in 1988. No group has claimed responsibility.

Ahwaz, which is close to the Iraq border, was the focus of unrest between Arabs and Persians in April, when several people were reportedly killed.

'Failure'

The bombings in Ahwaz took place over a two-hour period.

One of the bombs exploded outside the governor-general's headquarters.

Two went off near government offices and a fourth exploded near the home of a local state television executive.

The explosion in Tehran took place near the Imam Hussein square in the city centre. As well as the two who died, at least two people were wounded.

The interior ministry also confirmed that a bottle filled with explosives blew up in Vali Asr square in central Tehran, but there were no reports of casualties.

A spokesman for the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body, blamed the attacks on separatist Arabs aided by members of the armed Iraq-based opposition group, the People's Mujahideen, and remnants of the Baath Party.

The spokesman, Agha Mohammadi, told the BBC he was sure the Americans were behind the attacks and also suggested that Britain might be involved - but he gave no evidence to support his claims.

The People's Mujahideen denied any involvement in the attacks.

"Whoever is responsible for this, the target of the blasts is to undermine Friday's presidential elections," said interior ministry spokesman Jahanbaksh Khanjani.

Rumour

Iranians go to the polls on Friday to elect a successor to President Mohammad Khatami.

Opinion polls put former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the lead.

April's trouble in Ahwaz - the capital of oil-rich Khuzestan province - started after a letter circulated on the internet suggested that non-Arabs were being-relocated to the city to dilute its ethnic Arab population.

Crowds attacked government offices and banks, setting them on fire, and hundreds of people were arrested.

The official who was supposed to have written the letter said it was a forgery.
 
If it was the Americans, I'm pretty sure Dubya would be on the tube telling the Ayatollah that he's sending the JDAMs "with plenty of hugs and kisses, mother fucker!"

Call Dubya what you will, but the sumbitch has balls larger than Paul Martin himself.
 
Iraq's Iranian insurgency
Peter Brookes 

Iran is becoming a foreign-policy problem of almost immeasurable proportions -- from its nuclear-weapons brinkmanship to its feverish support of Islamic fundamentalism and international terrorism. 

But Tehran's most proximate -- and often overlooked -- threat to American interests is its attempts to destabilize Iraq by supporting and fomenting its own insurgency against Coalition and Iraqi forces. 

Tehran is seeking a hasty retreat by the United States and its partners that will leave a political and security vacuum that Iran can readily fill, dragging Iraq into its sphere of influence - or, perhaps, carving off southern Iraq to create an Iranian Shia "super state." 

Without question, Iranian encroachment on Iraq must be prevented at all costs. 

Some Middle East experts don't buy this take on Iran's involvement in Iraq, especially its geopolitical intentions. Yet Tehran plainly has every reason to want to see the U.S.-led Coalition in Iraq fail. 

First, since the 1979 revolution, the "Great Satan" has been Iran's No. 1 enemy. The radical regime found it bad enough having American forces in the region before the Afghan and Iraqi wars, much less having 150,000 cranky, battle-hardened GIs right next door. 

Now, Tehran faces not only the prospects of (at least some) American forces being stationed long-term in the theater, a fundamental check on Iranian power, but also the possibility that Iraq and Afghanistan could become strong U.S. allies. 

Second, Iran's rulers are deathly afraid that the freedoms taking root in Iraq/Afghanistan will highlight the Iranian revolution's abject political, economic and social failures to Iran's increasingly discontented "baby-boomers." 

Iran's young people -- 60 percent under the age of 30 and born after the revolution -- are increasingly going to look at the political, economic and social freedoms enjoyed by Iraqis and Afghans and ask: "Why not us?" 

Third, Iran is a Shia Persian country in a tough Sunni Arab neighborhood. Bringing southern Shia-majority Iraq under Iranian influence -- or, even, via secession from Iraq or civil war, Iranian control -- will neuter long-time enemy Iraq as a threat. 

Absorbing southern Iraq would not only debilitate Baghdad by cutting off access to Persian Gulf seaports, it would significantly increase Iran's size, population and oil wealth, putting Tehran on a trajectory to regional dominance. 

Iran has been slipping clerics, intelligence agents and paramilitary forces into Iraq and bankrolling sympathizers, political parties and militants since the spring 2003 invasion to bring Iraq under its sway - while doing its best to keep its fingerprints off its dirty dealings. 

But seeing Coalition forces facing a tough insurgency, Iran evidently decided to seize the opportunity to advance its cause, upping the ante by changing its tactics from garnering influence to actively instigating insurgency against U.S.-Coalition forces -- even Iraqis who might stand in the way. 

You want proof? Well, Coalition forces recently intercepted a number of shipments of explosives being spirited across the border from Iran to Iraq. Experts believe that a new, more lethal-type of roadside bomb -- capable of destroying armored vehicles -- is based on an Iranian design often used in the past by Hezbollah against Israel. 

Just last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seemingly choking off a desire to be more direct, said: "It is true that weapons, clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have been found in Iraq." Another senior officer claimed that the new bombs are, "the most sophisticated and most lethal devices we've seen." 

But it's more than just these new deadly explosives: The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-directed component of the insurgency probably consists of several hundred Iranians and Iraqis as well as members of Lebanon's Iranian-backed, Shia terrorist group, Hezbollah. 

Some analysts believe that the Iranian paramilitaries and Iranian-supported militias are training insurgents in southern Iraq as well as in Iran. In addition, it's likely that Iranian-led insurgents are being prepped by Hezbollah guerillas in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. 

Iranian behavior is increasingly troubling and problematic for U.S. national security and regional interests -- an Iranian-directed insurgency in Iraq is just the latest example of Persian perfidy. 

It's time to stop handling Iran with kid gloves, especially while Iranian hi-tech bombs deployed by Tehran-backed insurgents are killing Coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians, encouraging civil war and destabilizing the country. 

It's time for an aggressive rollback strategy against the Iranian regime - to address its drive for nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terror in Iraq and elsewhere, and its repressive rule at home. The strategy should embrace biting economic sanctions, aggressive covert action -- and even surgical military strikes to protect American and Coalition forces and interests. 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/peterbrookes/pb20050822.shtml
 
Hardline President's remarks spark fury
Nuclear weapon fears
 
Tim Butcher
The Daily Telegraph; with files from CanWest News Service


October 27, 2005



CREDIT: Behrouz Mehri, AFP, Getty Images



IRAN'S GOAL: TO WIPE ISRAEL 'OFF THE MAP': Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday stands in front of the logo for a conference in Tehran entitled "The World Without Zionism." The top of the logo, not shown, is a picture of the globe.

JERUSALEM - Iran's new hardline President called yesterday for Israel to be "wiped off the map" -- the first time for many years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for the Jewish state's eradication.

The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted a chorus of international condemnation.

The White House said they underlined American concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Several reports have estimated that Iran is five to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

President Ahmadinejad, elected in June, was addressing a conference in Tehran titled "The World Without Zionism," attended by about 3,000 students who chanted: "Death to Israel!" and "Death to America!"

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," he said. "As the Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] said, 'Israel must be wiped off the map.' The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."

Mr. Ahmadinejad praised Palestinian suicide bombers, and his remarks were delivered just before a suicide bomber killed five people in the Israeli town of Hadera.

It was the worst such attack in three months.

"There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe this disgraceful blot from the face of the world," Mr. Ahmadinejad said.

Germany called his comments "completely unacceptable," and France "firmly condemned them."

In Ottawa, Prime Minister Paul Martin told the House of Commons, "Canada will never accept such hatred, such intolerance and anti-Semitism."

Under his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, Iran had shown signs of easing its hostility toward Israel. But Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments underscored how the gap between Iran and the West has widened during the dispute over Tehran's insistence of developing its nuclear capability. His bellicose language was reminiscent of Iran's Islamic revolution, launched by Khomeini in 1979, when the new President was a young activist.

Israel's Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, said the comments demonstrated that the Iranian leadership represents a genuine threat to Israel's existence.

"We believe that Iran is trying to buy time so it can develop a nuclear bomb," said Mr. Shalom. "Iran is a clear and present danger."

He added: "This kind of regime is very extreme. It would be a nightmare for all the international community if they had a nuclear bomb."

Although Israel is widely believed to have its own nuclear arsenal, it fears such weapons falling into the hands of hostile states. In 1981, when Saddam Hussein threatened to develop a nuclear capability, Israel launched a pre-emptive air strike to destroy Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.

Unilateral military action by Israel would be much harder against Iran's nuclear capability. Military jets would have to fly much greater distances, and the Iranians have spread their nuclear programs across a number of sites -- some located inside mountains.

Israeli military planners are nonetheless believed to have a number of options, including air strikes using American-designed bunker-busting munitions and commando raids.

Israel stressed that the threat of Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons was a danger to countries outside the region, including European nations in range of Iran's long-range missiles.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven a defiant successor to Mr. Khatami, a Western-leaning reformist who wanted to bring Tehran closer to the international community, repeatedly rejecting European Union efforts to persuade his country to curb its ambitions to enter the nuclear age.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments are "all the more troubling" given Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Canada does not believe that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear power solely to meet its energy needs. Like the United States, Canada believes Iran is secretly trying to develop a nuclear weapons program and that it should be brought before the United Nations Security Council.

"It is very important that all countries do stand up together to make sure that we do not accept that Iran continues a nuclear program," Mr. Pettigrew said.

He reiterated Canada's desire to see Iran taken before the Security Council. "Our patience has worn thin," Mr. Pettigrew said. "This kind of comment made by the President ... given the fact that they have those nuclear ambitions, makes us even more preoccupied and concerned."

© National Post 2005
 
I can't wait for the apologists to appear and somehow blame Isreal and the US for this asinine statement. :threat: Maybe the Isrealis should just step up and deal with this threat. But then we would have people say they didn't have the UN's approval ::) and that attacking Iran is illegal! ::)
 
I'm not too tuned into the political situation, so I was wondering if this is anything new.  It seems like a really gutsy move to me and I'm wondering if the message is skewed a little (like they really meant that they need to destroy their policies, not actually a message saying they need to obliterate Isreal and America).

Unless I am really underestimating the man.
 
Its only a matter of time now  :threat:

If Iran launched an offensive against Israel, how well prepared is the rest of the world to respond anyway? The US is obviously fairly tied up in Iraq.. England has alot of committments as well...

Would they have to pull troops out of other places and place priority on Iran, or do they have the manpower to still fight an effective war against Iran while maintaining current troop strength everywhere else they are comitted?
I wouldnt think so, but I could be wrong.

I dont think Iran could pick a better time to do something like this.
 
Have you meet any MASAD?

Israel is not a simple push over, although they have a very good "Help Us" campain.
 
I was wondering if this is anything new.  It seems like a really gutsy move to me and I'm wondering if the message is skewed a little (like they really meant that they need to destroy their policies, not actually a message saying they need to obliterate Isreal and America).
Standard sabre-rattling, we've heard this all before. And yes, they do literally call for the absolute destruction of Israel. What I find about this story so interesting is why its news worthy, probably because Sharon is using the media scrutiny of Iran to call for Iran's removal from the UN. Not going to happen.
 
Back
Top