TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Those pesky Iranians at it again.
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Your arguments are very weak. Iran has been not only anti-Bush but anti-West for a long time now, but especially nowadays.

Come on ............. u helped Shah of Iran with Nuclear

Iran was the state no. 51 in everything ...................spies everywhere

After their great puplic revolution and some old history
U insist to accuse their leader for Kidnapping ur old agents
Come on Now

quote:

I think going after Iran will actually BRING STABILITY to the Middle East, not the other way around. The country needs to be split up ASAP - the Kurds should be given their own country in Iran, Iraq, and later Turkey, and part of Iran should just be renamed Persia (where Persians are the majority). The Bahaii faith should be given its own autonomous region, as well as other people found within Iran.

While u 're focussing ONLY ON KURDS{few people}-not sarcistic-

Where are The Shiaa AND the Sunni from ur head..................


FOR ONLY OIL

Let's just relax. Everything will iron itself out if the united states goes into isolationism.

you can all simmer down

usa works on a social reform inside its borders while everyone else cools their jets.

perfect solution to a perfect world

The last time the United States went into isolationism World War II happened. In this case if the USA and the West stay out of this you can expect Iran to:
1) Invade Iraq once and if America pulls out of there.
2) Start a war with Saudi Arabia

The second they start war with the Saudis there is no way the US and Europe will be staying out of this.
M. Johan your views of Iranian history couldn't be further from the truth. Iran was never the 51 st so called state - Iran was a close ally of the U.S. but not that close. There werent agents everywhere as you put it, and the Americans held hostages inside the embassy weren't for the most part agents. Get your facts straight kid.

As for most of the world hating America, that's BS. Trust me when I tell you though that most of the world likes Iran a whole lot less then it does America. If the US goes to war with Iran most of the world won't be shedding any tears for the Iranian guard.

I find it funny that some of you are comparing Iraq to Iran. Just b/c Bush fucked up in Iraq doesn't mean he shouldn't go after the more immediate threat, Iran.
Again, I'm glad America took down Sadam Hussein and tried to bring some democracy to Iraq. If Iran and Syria wouldnt have gotten involved it's possible that Iraq would be a lot quieter right now.
Instead, Iraqis are killing each other like savages.
Iran should have been the target back in 2003 following Afghanistan, or do you guys have a problem with us invading Afghanistan too?
Do you guys like the Taliban regime that was there? The Iranian regime is not that far off from it.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles The last time the United States went into isolationism World War II happened.

What a ridiculous and horribly oversimplistic rationale to support your defense of invading yet another sovereign country. WWII did not occur AS A CONSEQUENCE of U.S. isolationism, sir, as you would seem to be implying. It was prolonged as a result, but most certainly wasn't the consequence of it.

Furthermore, it's cute how little time it took a Bush supporter like yourself to draw upon the Hitler parallel to help bolster your stance in yet another invasion of yet another country. There is nothing remotely similar between Iran's leader whom has dwindling support of his own country and Hitler whom invaded countries at will. The exception, of course, is similar sentiments against Jews, however Hitler did have a bit of a teensy more "aggressive" approach that went with his sentiments (i.e. genocide). Ahmadinejad doesn't have the means nor the support of any sort to put forth any real threatening action against Israel. You know damn well that if he even attempted any truly threatening action the entire world would come down on him without hesitation.

quote:

In this case if the USA and the West stay out of this you can expect Iran to: 1) Invade Iraq once and if America pulls out of there. 2) Start a war with Saudi Arabia

I find it interesting how you Bushies looove making predictions if we don't follow your "sound" advice on everything.

Can you cite some examples where your predictions on how well things have gone for you in Iraq have panned out accordingly? Here's a few to get you started:

"welcome us with open arms"

"somewhere around Tikrit"

"stable regime"

"there's no doubt that Saddam has WMDs"

"there won't be a civil war"

"this will be over in a matter of weeks"

Your turn.

quote:

The second they start war with the Saudis there is no way the US and Europe will be staying out of this.

What evidence can you cite that would lead you to the conclusion that they have any viable interest in attacking the Saudis? Don't give me your fucking speculation. Give me evidence that demonstrates any future plans of attack by the Iranians. Anything short of this won't support your argument.

quote:

As for most of the world hating America, that's BS. Trust me when I tell you though that most of the world likes Iran a whole lot less then it does America.

Chris, this isn't a fucking schoolyard brawl where we're trying to win popularity points against Suzie the cute little blondie. It's irrelevant on who likes whom more or less. If you want to get real nitpicky:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6421597.stm

Notice our negative rating - it's sacked just three points lower than Iran and three points higher than N. Korea. Swell, ain't it? Yeah, the world just looooooves us so much more than Iran right now.

Great argument.

quote:

If the US goes to war with Iran most of the world won't be shedding any tears for the Iranian guard.

Straw man. No one is stating otherwise. What I and others are stating is attacking yet another sovereign country will do great damage to what's already a complete mess in the region thanks to our actions in Iraq, and that the world will most certainly be upset and unsupportive of our actions. Furthermore, it's highly likely that tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) more innocent civilians will be killed in yet another one of our fiascos. Do you even stop for one fucking second to think about such actions?

Do you have something against actually trying to talk to someone before blowing their innocents' legs and heads off?

Do you have something against a bipartisan commission ordered by your fearless leader who believed that silly thing called "diplomacy" is the best solution in Iran (as well as elsewhere in the region)?

quote:

I find it funny that some of you are comparing Iraq to Iran. Just b/c Bush fucked up in Iraq doesn't mean he shouldn't go after the more immediate threat, Iran.

Sorry, I'll pass. I think we've seen enough on how this Administration conducts itself with it's retarded foreign policy. I really can't think of too many other past Administrations who've fucked things up so badly for us.

If it's alright with you, I'd really prefer to have someone else in the White House who doesn't have some sincere credibility issues tell me when it's appropriate to invade yet another fucking country.

Actually, I'm really not asking for your permission. Sorry.

quote:

Again, I'm glad America took down Sadam Hussein and tried to bring some democracy to Iraq.

Yes, I'll bet you are glad. I'll bet you're glad of manipulated intelligence on WMD proliferation and stockpiles to bolster your case for war.

I'll bet you're glad you had shitheads like Chalabi tell you exactly what you wanted to hear with his little "Curveball" operatives and media lapdogs like Judy Miller from that darn "librul" NYTimes paper.

I'll be you're glad that Bush went to war based on these supposed WMD stockpiles and al Qaeda connections, despite there being absolutely no connections whatsoever.

I'll be you're glad that intelligence was selectively stovepiped through a special agency created by Cheney and Rummy that circumvented the normal intelligence channels to bolster your case for war.

I'll bet you're glad that Rummy , Cheney, and Bush all handwaved and subsequently fired those generals who told them they needed more troops for the post-invasion occupation period, only to realize how fucking wrong they were for doing so.

I'll bet you're glad that this Administration has pissed away billions of our taxpayer dollars to companies over in Iraq who utilized that $ on the troops and Iraqi infrastructure by showing no accountability as to where that money went.

I'll bet you're glad that this war is costing the taxpayers $2 billion a week.

I'll be you're glad that this Administration failed to actually protect our troops with the proper troop numbers needed. I'll be you're glad that this Administration for years failed to fully protect our troops with the proper body and vehicle armour.

I'll be you're glad that we now support a fundamentalist Shiite regime that's in leagues with your favorite country, Iran.

I'll be you're glad that we're also secretly funding the Sunnis via through the Saudis.

I'll be you're glad that hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been lost - HUNDREDS OF FUCKING THOUSANDS. You understand this?

I'll be you're glad that there has been absolutely NO post-war plan depicted by Rummy, and that no real post-war plan with set goals has ever been created so we can understand if there's actual progress so we can get the fuck out of there.

I'll bet you're glad that the Pentagon has finally started describing parts of this mess as a civil war, exactly what anyone with half a fucking brain has been describing for many months now.

I'll bet you're glad that this Administration completely ignored so many intelligence officials who told them this was EXACTLY going to go down this way, in a civil war if you decide to invade Iraq.

Yes, you have much to be glad about. I can see why you want to shy away from comparing the two. It's just so darn unfair to think that we'd have a few problems with yet another invasion.....

quote:

If Iran and Syria wouldnt have gotten involved it's possible that Iraq would be a lot quieter right now.

It's sad that folks like yourself really believe that it's the Iranian and Syrian's fault for this whole mess. Here's a little something for you to think about in addition to that thought: they were already involved long before we decided to invade - we merely catalyzed the situation with our own actions.

quote:

Instead, Iraqis are killing each other like savages.

They're killing themselves like they have for hundreds of years, long before we ever got involved, and long before the British got involved and learned their lesson many decades ago. For us to walk in there, plant our flag of American-style "democracy" and believe all will be well is so cataclysmically ignorant of the region and culture it's not even worthy of a civil discussion.

quote:

Iran should have been the target back in 2003 following Afghanistan,

Ahh yes, because we've demonstrated how well we did in Iraq, that hindsight of yours is beaming brightly with glaring intelligence.

quote:

or do you guys have a problem with us invading Afghanistan too?

I have a problem with us failing to finish the job there. Do you have a problem with letting bin Laden go by diverting our attention to a hapless dictator in Iraq that had nothing to do with attacking us on our soil on 9/11?

quote:

Do you guys like the Taliban regime that was there?

Oh yes, I just loved these little ******s to death. I wish they'd attack us on our soil more often.

Do you get the feeling that your argument is starting to become a bit, uhh, desperate? You really should be by now.

quote:

The Iranian regime is not that far off from it.

N. Korea's regime is far worse, and they've come much further in making the bomb than Iran ever will. Perhaps you seemingly forgot to put them on your invasion list ahead of Iran and Iraq? I'll just assume it was that darn faulty memory of yours and give you a pass for now.........

UPDATE: Source

quote:

Protest in Iran targets British Embassy By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 2 minutes ago TEHRAN, Iran - About 200 students threw rocks and firecrackers at the British Embassy on Sunday, calling for the expulsion of the country's ambassador because of the standoff over Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines. Several dozen policemen prevented the protesters from entering the embassy compound, although a few briefly scaled a fence outside the compound's walls before being pushed back, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene. The protesters chanted "Death to Britain" and "Death to America" as they hurled stones into the courtyard of the embassy. They also demanded that the Iranian government expel the British ambassador and close down the embassy, calling it a "den of spies." Britain's Foreign Office said there had been no damage to the compound. A British Foreign Office spokeswoman in London, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government rules, said diplomats were working normally inside the embassy. "There is a police presence outside and there is no risk to those inside," said the spokeswoman. Britain and Iran are at a standoff over the 15 seized sailors and marines. Britain said they were in Iraqi waters when detained, but Iran has contended the Britons entered its waters illegally. British government and defense officials refused to discuss a report that claimed a Royal Navy captain or commodore would be sent to Tehran as a special envoy to negotiate the return of the personnel. The official would deliver an assurance that British naval crews would never deliberately enter Iranian waters without permission, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported. Transport Minister Douglas Alexander said Britain was engaged in "exploring the potential for dialogue with the Iranians." "The responsible way forward is to continue the often unglamorous, but important and quiet diplomatic work to get our personnel home," Alexander told the British Broadcasting Corp.'s Sunday AM program. British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett appeared to soften rhetoric against Iran Saturday � though she stopped far short of the apology sought by many in Iran. "I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," Beckett said in Bremen, Germany, before returning to England. "What we want is a way out of it." President Bush on Saturday called for the release of the sailors and marines and labeling their capture "inexcusable behavior." "Iran must give back the hostages," Bush said. "They're innocent, they did nothing wrong, and they were summarily plucked out of waters." Eight British sailors and seven marines were detained by Iranian naval units March 23 while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between Iraq and Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called world powers "arrogant" for refusing to apologize. "Instead of apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world arrogant powers issue statements and deliver speeches," Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech in the southeastern city of Andinmeshk. A poll published in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper found that 66 percent of respondents trusted Blair and Beckett to resolve the crisis, while 28 percent did not. Only 7 percent thought the government should be preparing to use military force. Pollster ICM interviewed 762 adults by telephone March 30 and 31. The margin of error is 4 percentage points.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Go learn your history you retard,who do you think was responisble for the revolution?the U.S was fearing the shah and his growing power so they got Ayatollah khomaini to take over,and once again they are fucked now and want to change the regime because their power in the region is growing.

uh....last I checked history, the Shah was American backed and the Ayatollah was part of the Islamic Revolution that overthrew the Shah and scared the shit out of Iraq...

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Your arguments are very weak. Iran has been not only anti-Bush but anti-West for a long time now, but especially nowadays. I think going after Iran will actually BRING STABILITY to the Middle East, not the other way around. The country needs to be split up ASAP - the Kurds should be given their own country in Iran, Iraq, and later Turkey, and part of Iran should just be renamed Persia (where Persians are the majority). The Bahaii faith should be given its own autonomous region, as well as other people found within Iran.

Iran???

Have you been living on Planet earth? Or would you like to see evidence that the World, even people within the countries these leaders rule in.. ARE ANTI-BUSH and ANTI-BLAIR

Get your head out of your ass

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Your arguments are very weak. Iran has been not only anti-Bush but anti-West for a long time now, but especially nowadays. I think going after Iran will actually BRING STABILITY to the Middle East, not the other way around. The country needs to be split up ASAP - the Kurds should be given their own country in Iran, Iraq, and later Turkey, and part of Iran should just be renamed Persia (where Persians are the majority). The Bahaii faith should be given its own autonomous region, as well as other people found within Iran.

ohyes.. so there could be fighting between lands for a couple more thousand years between rival groups. Your thinking is so disgusting. You have no sense of geo politics. You think countries can just be split, a few bombs dropped.. and everyone will be happy?

10 days so far. will they storm the UK embassy?

If the UK embassy is stormed, war is at hand.

Leave it to the Iranians to not only captrue 15 Brits, but to also try to strom the British embassy afterwards.
Soverign state? givme a break. I know history pretty well and remember reading the nazis also rose to power via democracy. I'm sick of all the idiots on this board who hide behind a bunch of sugarcoated BS saying the Hamas and the Hizbollah are legitimate simply b/c they were democratically chosen. Would you all be okay with the KKK being elected into office in the US?

If the people of Iran really want to avoid seeing hundreds of thousands of their own people dead they wouldnt be storming the British embassy - they'd be storming their own government buildings.

LOL, this is so bad hahahahaha, and predictable.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Leave it to the Iranians to not only captrue 15 Brits, but to also try to strom the British embassy afterwards. Soverign state? givme a break. I know history pretty well and remember reading the nazis also rose to power via democracy. I'm sick of all the idiots on this board who hide behind a bunch of sugarcoated BS saying the Hamas and the Hizbollah are legitimate simply b/c they were democratically chosen. Would you all be okay with the KKK being elected into office in the US?

Do you even know wtf you are saying?you comparing kkk to Hamas and Hezbollah?

quote:

If the people of Iran really want to avoid seeing hundreds of thousands of their own people dead they wouldnt be storming the British embassy - they'd be storming their own government buildings.

Again you fail to see the real picture here,the people that so called stormed the embassy were most likely the ones who support the mullahs and their beliefs and they do not represent the whole nation so stop saying people of Iran.

Dang it....

someone beat me to it!! I could of made a lot of ducks on that url!! Damn!!!

http://www.deathtoiran.com/

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Dang it.... someone beat me to it!! I could of made a lot of ducks on that url!! Damn!!! http://www.deathtoiran.com/

LOL Thanks for the laugh Laz. Sheeple!

how is hamas different then kkk? they have more similarities then differences.

Okay, British soldiers coming forward and denouncing what they've done was almost plausable. But putting one up in front of a map and having him point out where his ship was is just a little bit over the line. Iranian believablity in regards to the non-coreced "confessions" of the soldiers just jumped the shark.

LOL, do you guys really love war and falling for classic FFs that much?

U.S. planes violate Iran's airspace

Two U.S. airplanes have violated Iran's airspace, a top Iranian military official has said.

Colonel Aqili, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) in the southwestern city of Abadan, Khuzestan province, said Sunday that the airplanes trespassed Iranian airspace from the northwest of the city and exited from its southwest on Saturday.

He said the U.S. airplanes had violated Iranian airspace several times in the past.

"The planes cast out a white smoke trail, attracting the local people's attention," he added.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?i...ctionid=3510101

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun U.S. planes violate Iran's airspace Two U.S. airplanes have violated Iran's airspace, a top Iranian military official has said. Colonel Aqili, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) in the southwestern city of Abadan, Khuzestan province, said Sunday that the airplanes trespassed Iranian airspace from the northwest of the city and exited from its southwest on Saturday. He said the U.S. airplanes had violated Iranian airspace several times in the past. "The planes cast out a white smoke trail, attracting the local people's attention," he added. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?i...ctionid=3510101

Looks like the U.S really wants to get involve in this mess,perhaps they trying to see if Iran will try to shoot them down so that they can have an excuse to go after them.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Looks like the U.S really wants to get involve in this mess,perhaps they trying to see if Iran will try to shoot them down so that they can have an excuse to go after them.

I'll go to washington and burn myself with gasoline if that happens.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I'll go to washington and burn myself with gasoline if that happens.

I wouldnt be surprised if some people do something like that,I mean hey nothing else seems to be getting this admin attention.

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun U.S. planes violate Iran's airspace Two U.S. airplanes have violated Iran's airspace, a top Iranian military official has said. Colonel Aqili, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) in the southwestern city of Abadan, Khuzestan province, said Sunday that the airplanes trespassed Iranian airspace from the northwest of the city and exited from its southwest on Saturday. He said the U.S. airplanes had violated Iranian airspace several times in the past. "The planes cast out a white smoke trail, attracting the local people's attention," he added. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?i...ctionid=3510101

Yes, they were caught flying over the far western border of Iran, also known as the US state of Indiana.


Seriously, not saying that they didn't, but I'm not a big fan of believing any government right now, and I'm not sure if "white smoke trails, attracting the local people's attention," does it for me in the case of Iran.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I'll go to washington and burn myself with gasoline if that happens.

I'll be happy to hold you to that. I'm gonna bookmark this page and see what happens when war breaks out with Iran.
But hey, why wait - feel free to go burn yourself with gasoline right now. It sounds like you've got a BURNING sensation to do it anyways

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Yes, they were caught flying over the far western border of Iran, also known as the US state of Indiana. Seriously, not saying that they didn't, but I'm not a big fan of believing any government right now, and I'm not sure if "white smoke trails, attracting the local people's attention," does it for me in the case of Iran.

They're both proven liers. You're preference of believing your side of the story is a clear bias of living in the US. Now the interesting question is, if you have that bias, wouldn't others also have it? And if you can understand this concept, wouldn't you also espouse the belief that this type of intimidation and warmongering doesn't amount to anything else than escalation which will surely be followed by more war, more instability, more hunger and more suffering. Notice that in that list you'll never find anything positive, as with all wars. No war has ever brought any good, only of course the spoils for the victor. And if that is the point, the spoils, why cover it up and pretend you're doing good?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.