Stop War On Iran

[Dillinger4]

While all the above is (probably) true, It does not justify war.

Most nation-states have aspects that are despicable.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I have mixed views on the situation , war is a disgrace , it causes uncountable suffering and losses. The other side , Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is dictator that is no good for the Iranian people, i know some who escaped the country because they could not bare it.
Of course a country should not force another country to change because it
does agree with it.

That is the essence of my point of view. I don't want a war as I think that it will make bad situations worse. However, Ahmedinejad is a dodgy charachter far more dangerous that Saddam Hussain ever was.

What are your views on Iran wanting nuclear power, do you think they will use it to create nuclear weapons?

I think they do want nuclear weapons but more for regional power politics reasons rather than wanting to convert the world to their brand of Islam at the barrel of a gun.

 

[rachamim18]

I would never pose justification of a war based on a human rights record. I believe that is up to the populace of a given nation. My justification is the instability posed by said nation combined with its boderline leader trying to seek nuclear weapons and then thumbing his nose to the world when called out on it.

 

[lobster]

Exploiting people, support their dictatorships as long as they are good puppets, threatening people and nations, invading them, occupying them, murdering hundreds of thousands innocent men, women, children, babies, unborn babies... to name some of the "democratic values" of the West is "democracy"? (hint:Try an other joke if you really want to play the comedian.)

Secondly: Is it your or anyone else's business which form of governing any other nation than yours adopts and implements, with exception for those who are citizens of that nation? (answer: no it is not in the least.)

salaam.

I am not denying your first paragraph , the west is full of a terrible history , for instance the way the Irish freedom fighters were treated was a disgrace.

In answer to your second question, if I was someone who just cares about his own country then you might have a point however as I said before I know people who have escaped from Iran because it had changed very much to when they grew up. I know they wish for a change in there country, am I not allow to share there opinion ?
I never once said America should invade them, they should be allowed to have nuclear energy.

Lets take a quick look at 20th century history , the Armenian Genocide was carried out without any real interference and the Turkish government still deny it was a genocide, now there they want to wipe the pkk, which have a legitimate excuse for existing.
The Czech republic knew what was happening in ww2 in Germany before England got involved, they even told them yet the British government ignored it until it was too late.
The 1994 Rwanda Genocide which the French supported was yet ignored by the world. Is my concern and opposition to the massacre of Tutsis and moderate Hutu sympathises none of my business?

The human right record under the present Iran government is a concern.

 

[lobster]

The USA hasn't exactly got a sparkling human rights record in recent years.

As for whether Iran will develop weapons from nuclear power ... well they may or may not, but considering the threats I can kinda see why it might be an attractive option as a deterrent.

Maybe if the current nuclear states reduced their arsenal then "potential" nuclear states might not be as tempted to develop weapons.

I agree, the USA has violated many rights.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe a country of the map , where as no other nuclear state has.

 

[lobster]

Get Israel to get rid of its nukes and the west might have just a moral molehill from which to preach to others

That's not going happen because they rely on its defence for its existence.
That country has been threatened like no other country in the 20th century.

Take away the who Zionist issue , and your notice that there are real people living in that country, many hate the situation , however if Iran nuked 7 million people (the rough estimate of the population ) would you just go oh well those innocent people get what they deserved and lets move on.

 

[lobster]

I heard the same arguments being deployed to rationalise and justify the invasion of Iraq. If we are so concerned about tyrants then we need to be less selective about where concentrate our economic and military strategies.

I could not agree more , Britain is happy to supply military equipment to Saudi Arabia that have the same attitude to human rights as Iran.

 

[lobster]

Than Shwe? He's a dictator and while the west wrings its hands over Burma and issues forth warm words; in the same breath it prepares to attack Iran behind the aegis of "freedom and democracy for all". The hypocrisy.

Indeed, i am not saying otherwise..

 

[JoePolitix]

I agree, the USA has violated many rights.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe a country of the map , where as no other nuclear state has.

Except that:

1. Iran is not a nuclear state and is nowhere near becoming a nuclear state. See:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2000303,00.html

2. Ahmadinejad's quotes have been ripped completely out of context:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad told conference participants on Tuesday.

He went on to urge elections among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801672.html

3. The nuclear armed US and its allies are a far, far greater risk to humanity than the Iranian regime.

4. There is no reason to have "mixed fealings". A war on Iran would lead to missery, chaos and a bloodbath of Iraq Proportions (1 million plus and counting).

Imperialist scum - Hands Off Iran!

 

[Spion]

That's not going happen because they rely on its defence for its existence..

That country has been threatened like no other country in the 20th century.

It's hardly surprising given the thievery the country is based on. If they did something about making recompense to the people they wronged they might not be hated

Take away the who Zionist issue , and your notice that there are real people living in that country, many hate the situation , however if Iran nuked 7 million people (the rough estimate of the population ) would you just go oh well those innocent people get what they deserved and lets move on.

I've spent a fair chunk of time there, as it happens and the suggestion that emerges from your barely comprehensible statement is quite insulting

 

[lobster]

2. Ahmadinejad's quotes have been ripped completely out of context:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad told conference participants on Tuesday.

why did Iran host the "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust " ?

3. The nuclear armed US and its allies are a far, far greater risk to humanity than the Iranian regime.

Except Hiroshima , the US has never used or threatened with its nuclear weapons against anyone, of course I am not justifying there reason for having them in the first place.

4. There is no reason to have "mixed fealings". A war on Iran would lead to missery, chaos and a bloodbath of Iraq Proportions (1 million plus and counting).

Imperialist scum - Hands Off Iran!

I never doubted that, however the majority of Japanese look back at what the us did in ww2 to their constitution and thank them for there freedoms they have today.
I personally don't want the us to attack, the UN should force a trial on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his crimes against the people of Iran, because if he was tried and found guilty by the courts I would suggest the whole regime may change very quickly and the whole attitude in that region would change.

 

[lobster]

It's hardly surprising given the thievery the country is based on. If they did something about making recompense to the people they wronged they might not be hated

What about the theft by the Soviet Union at the time, never once did anyone threaten to wipe out the Soviet Union.
Sure the regime got its threats but not the actual people living under the Soviet Union.

I've spent a fair chunk of time there, as it happens and the suggestion that emerges from your barely comprehensible statement is quite insulting

so you have a heart, what do you suggest instead of zionism?

 

[Spion]

so you have a heart, what do you suggest instead of zionism?

Equal rights for jews and arabs in a single state with the injustice to the Palestinian refugees made good with money from the chief architects and beneficiaries of their misery - Britain, Israel, the US

 

[JoePolitix]

why did Iran host the "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust " ?

Because the government are reactionary cunts. Doesn’t mean they’re gonna nuke Israel though does it?

Except Hiroshima , the US has never used or threatened with its nuclear weapons against anyone, of course I am not justifying there reason for having them in the first place.

Well there you have it. Iran has threatened no one and the only country that has ever dropped nuclear bombs is the US in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Biscuit taken.

In any event its not true that Hiroshima was the only occasion that the US and its allies used nuclear weapons. Depleted uranium tipped shells were used in both the lastest invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The effects have been horrific birth defects and widespread cancer. The impact will be felt for for generations.

I never doubted that, however the majority of Japanese look back at what the us did in ww2 to their constitution and thank them for there freedoms they have today.
I personally don't want the us to attack, the UN should force a trial on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his crimes against the people of Iran, because if he was tried and found guilty by the courts I would suggest the whole regime may change very quickly and the whole attitude in that region would change.

I don’t think the majority of the Japanese look back foundly on the flattening of two of their cities and the needless slaughter of 100s of thousands of its citizens though.

I’d personally like to see the Iranian regime overthrown by its people but a trial of Ahmadinejad wouldn’t change a great deal. The real power holders in Iran are the unelected mullahs. A profound political revolution is required to really change things.

In the meantime I repeat - Imperialist Scum - Hands Off Iran!

 

[JoePolitix]

What about the theft by the Soviet Union at the time, never once did anyone threaten to wipe out the Soviet Union.
Sure the regime got its threats but not the actual people living under the Soviet Union.

How has Iran threatened the people of Israel?

 

[lobster]

Equal rights for jews and arabs in a single state with the injustice to the Palestinian refugees made good with money from the chief architects and beneficiaries of their misery - Britain, Israel, the US

Good idea

 

[JoePolitix]

More on the horrific effects of depleted uranium in Iraq:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AL-20060831&articleId=3116

 

[Detroit City]

How has Iran threatened the people of Israel?

I would suppose if you offend or threaten the US you're also doing the same to Israel?

 

[Nigel]

How about a petition for to "Stop People Saying that America is about to Go to Invade Iran". Be handy if people could use their critical thinking capabilities and actually understand the ME (+ Global) situation.

I'm getting quite bored of the Anti-American rhetoric. Seems to me that AQ has won, instead of being a bunch of goat-herders... Can't anyone come up with anything original anymore...

FUCK OFF AND DIE AMERICAN IMPERIALIST RUNNING DOG SCUM!!!!!!

 

[Demosthenes]

I don't buy into the general idea that the reason for islamic extremism is the existence of the state of israel, -,see the other thread.

I reckon a much bigger reason for it is for the purpose of social control, and when it's anti-western islamic extremism, the main reason for that is that there's something deeply wrong with the ethics of the west, - basically that we worship money, and as a result, collectively we've fucked humanity over again and again.

There's also some things quite wrong with the iranian government, - but if they weren't there, then, the likelihood is that their oil would be exploited by various multinationals to their benefit, to our benefit and to the benefit of a minority of rich iranians. But for the most part, the iranian people wouldn't benefit from their country's wealth.

Currently they do, because ahmadinejad spends the oil revenues on handouts to the poor. This I know because having visited the country, for family reasons, I@ve met a few rich iranians, who are deeply pissed off with their government for giving handouts for the poor, instead of investing the revenues in infrastructure. (and also because essentially a state-run economy makes it difficult for them to make big successes on the world market)

The idea that the US wants to intervene in Iran because of some moral reason, out of some desire to help the people of Iran, or because they think they or the world has something to fear from iran going nuclear, strikes me as utterly ludicrous, so, more or less, I ahve to agree with nino on this.

Magneze: "Ahmadinejad is not a dictator, he was elected." You must a be a bit unfamiliar with the Iranian system. In Iran, only those candidates handpicked by the religious leaders may run for any elected office. Then, they are further restricted by how much they may publicise that bid, and all candidates have differing levels of permission so that a person earmarked for a position can naturally be given the distinct advantage.

I think this is true, - but in the US, although, I suppose, in theory, anyone can run for office, - in practice, you can only run for office if you have a great deal of money, - and if you don't have a great deal of money, then your bid will be completely unpublicised; besides which, if you don'#t support the interests of capital, the mainstream media will be extremely unsympathetic.

I reckon it's quite an analogous situation.

 

[fela fan]

It is the reverse: Governments carefully organize their campaigning via the willing media, so that whenever they feel like it to get on with yet an other mass murdering of innocents in a far-away country, the public is already indoctrinated into thinking that this was something "inevitable".

salaam.

Indeed.

One pertinent question should be how come everybody now knows the lies and bullshit that the anglo-american politicians spewed out to start their 'war' against iraq, and that the anglo-american media swallowed, yet the exact same thing is now happening over iran.

And the media are swallowing it all over again!

It can only have one answer: arrogance runs in the blood of the anglo-americans. And this arrogance is born from viewing the whole world through their viewpoint. First the british went ransacking the whole world, then they passed the baton to the yanks. That is several hundred years of ingrained thinking that says 'we're the best, most moral, most democratic, most powerful'.

It permeates the politicians, the media workers and owners, and many of the two populations.

Just the single notion that it has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the US or the UK to go in 'sorting out' nations in the way they do is the underpinning of the default of madness that occupies the blood of so many people in the anglo-american countries.

It's a distasteful fact, but our governments can only do these wars with the implicit permission of the populations. That we give this permission is, ironically, not our fault. Most people have only two sources of information in their daily lives: their daily paper, and the tv news on the bbc or itv. And since that is full of propaganda, then it's a fait accomplis by our warmongering leaders.

 

[fela fan]

I cannot believe that some of you think there is a moral equivalency between a western democratic country where human rights are enshrined in legislation & Iran where women are routinely rounded up by so called self appointed moral guardians for the oh so heinous crime of having a western hair style or showing too much hair. A country where homosexuality is a capital offence, as is sex before marriage, the offence only being capital for the women. It reminds of a conversation I had with a SWP member who stated that the Taliban & the society they wished to create was as virtuous as any western society.

Look, the US and UK are held up as some kind of model example of how a country should be run, obviously held up as this model by themselves.

Yet it is these two countries that go beyond their borders smashing nations to bits, killing millions of innocent people. Some fucking freedom that is, being blown to bits, or seeing your family and friends blown to bits.

So what we can see is that the countries who tell the world how noble, how free, how democratic they are, are the very same countries that go around that world with their guns, bombs, and violence towards totally innocent people and families trying to live their lives in peace.

That some people can be so suckered into thinking that iraqis now have more freedom than when saddam was in power is shocking. The greatest piece of propaganda is the one where they tell you that we have brought democracy and freedom to iraq. We kill one million of them, reduce many of their cities to rubble, yet that is us bringing in freedom for them.

You just could not make this up. Yet here we are again facing the same scenario over iran.

And with millions of americans and britons yet again ready to believe the utter bullshit printed in their newspapers. The proof of this is the difference between iran and burma. Everything the press rabbit on about iran and dictatorship and gays and women and this and that is dozens of times worse in burma. So leave iran alone, and if you must exercise your pathetic bullying ways, go and free the people in burma, and actually do something good for once.

 

[fela fan]

We are american, we are british, we have freedom, we want freedom for everybody else in the world. We want them to get what we've got.

It is our duty to give it to them. We have been afforded that duty by God, by our own bloodlines, by our own superiority.

Furthermore when we kill one million of a population, we shall henceforth state loudly that we have brought peace and freedom and democracy to the population.

Presumably this new freedom does not apply to the one million that have been killed?

 

[Detroit City]

You just could not make this up. Yet here we are again facing the same scenario over iran.

its all about oil and the security of israel as far as i'm concerned....

 

[fela fan]

its all about oil and the security of israel as far as i'm concerned....

It may well be mate, but then all that tells me is that you don't work for the anglo-american media in any capacity!

For me it's purely about the actions of an empire. Like a shoppaholic, they just can't stop doing it. They get a kick out of each war, each invasion, but it only lasts a short time, then their desires for more kick in, and off they go.

The amazing thing is how the anglo-american media do their bidding. Perhaps they too get an orgasm over tanks and planes and bombs and guns and death steaming into far-flung parts.

 

[lobster]

It can only have one answer: arrogance runs in the blood of the anglo-americans. And this arrogance is born from viewing the whole world through their viewpoint. First the british went ransacking the whole world, then they passed the baton to the yanks. That is several hundred years of ingrained thinking that says 'we're the best, most moral, most democratic, most powerful'.

Until the war actually effects the majority of Americans, the majority of the general public just do not care , as long as there consumer life continues the way the government planned it , everything is sweet.
This is not peculiar to the Americains, the British majority are the same and I would not be wrong to say many other nations are the same.
The simple attitude that's been born out of Capitalism is "not my problem, why should i care".
The way the US economy is going , if it were to reach such heights of the great depression , they will be more chance for revolutionary ideas to hit the majority of people or fascist views.
There will be a choice like at the beginning of the 20th century, this will decide what the majority wants.

You might consider me going off- topic , that sadly is why the US population at large just does not care.

 

[rachamim18]

Lobster: Question, in talking of "Irish Freedom Fighters," do you mean IRA?

"Should be allowed to have nuclear energy." Except that that is not their aim. Even if it were indiscernible either way, are you willing to bank the planet on it?

Joe: "The Guardian says Iran is not near to becoming a nuclear power." Ever stop to consider that the Gurdian might just be serving an agenda? Ever see a positive article about Israel in the last 15 years? Hmmm...

"Ahamdinejad's comments have been out of context." Um, no they were not. Was the blurb by one of his Ministers, about Tom and Jerry being proof of the Jews trying to dominate the world, a comment that Ahmadinejad signed off on taken out of context?

Even the lackeys who serve him have come out against him, albeit in a gentle way.

LEt us examine your claim though a bit more. Was he taken out of context when the BBC reported on his unedited TV broadcast in his nation!?

www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4529198.stm

Was it out of context when CNN reported on an Iranian news agency reporting the following?:

www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html

I have plenty more if you would like. the same calim of context was made after the last state Holocaust conference in Iran (was the staging of that conference out of context?)...until the next day when Ahmadinejad marched personally with students from hid old university. Smiling he told people in both Farsi AND English, on many different media sources including live TV, how the Holocaust never happened and how Israel should be destroyed.

 

[rachamim18]

Joe: "Imperialist scum":You mean Iran did NOT sponsoir a coup attempt in Bahrain in 1981? Has not repeatedly threatened Bahrain with annexation? Is now trying to wrangle at least 4 sialdns claimed by Bahrain?

Iran has not created Hezbollah IN LEBANON?

Iran does not nwo maintain 2 bases in LEBANON?

Iran did does not sponsor Shia insurgencies in Saudi Arabia?

Iraq?

Did not iniate cross border hostilities that ended in the Iran-Iraq War (I know Iraq invaded but it happened after 2 years of almost weekly cross border infiltrations by Iran)?


Yeah, talk about imperialism.


"Iran has threatened noone and no country." See above.


"Depleted uranium shells." Those are not nuclear arms .


"How has Iran threatend the people of Israel."id Iran create Hezbollh? Does Iran currently sposor Hezbollah? Arm it? Fund it? What is the goal of Hezbollah?


Lest you think this is restricted to Zionism, please explain ranian involvement in the Argentinian bombing.

Spion: "Thievery.": Have you ever heard of the UN Ratification? Or are yougoing to claim it does not exist because I have not hand you a url?

"Making recompense.": Ever hear about the 49 Armisitice? Try researching the 53 Release. Wait....more urls?

"Fair chunk of time there." You have been to Israel?

"Equal rights for Jews and Arabs." Ever read the Israeli "Basic Law?"

Nigel: "Expletive, expletive, verb, and expletive." Quite original Nigel. Took a bit did it not? Tell me though, what nation do you live in? Why not book fare to N. Korea?


ALL: "Reason for Islamic Extremism." the answer is one I have long supplied and this year Abadi from Harvard, reiterated it in saying that the lack of democracy is what causes it. There is a driect correlation between the level of democratic participation, or opportunity for participation and the frequency of terrorism.

Islamic terrorists have existed since the 3rd Khalifa if not during Muhammed's time first.

 

[rachamim18]

Demosothenes: "Ahmadinejad spends petrol revenues on handouts..." Do not belive the hype, as the song says. What you believe is not making sense. Look, they just had to institute petrol rationing which resulted in insurrection in many parts of the nation. Why would they be devoting petrol revenues towards handouts when they could instead be solving their rationing crisis?

People have been complining for years about how the wealth is again concentrated among the elite. The difference now of course is that the elite are the mullahs.

"Moralreason."Of course not. Where was Sam in Rwanda? Darfur and Chad are happening as we speak. The point though is that Iran as a nuclear state is the key to total instability for the region. Instability leads to reduced petrol output which of course causes the US and the Industrialised World's economies to collapse forthright.

Fela: Do you use petrol?

I do not believe much of any talk about freedom has been floated. It has all been conctrated around Iran's repeated attempts to go nuclear. that happens to be a cause good enough for mot rational folks.

 

[JoePolitix]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to engage with this R18 character (probably boredom)

Joe: "The Guardian says Iran is not near to becoming a nuclear power." Ever stop to consider that the Gurdian might just be serving an agenda?

Are you implying that the Guardian media group wants Iran to nuke Israel? That’s cute.

Ever see a positive article about Israel in the last 15 years? Hmmm...

Yes.

"Ahamdinejad's comments have been out of context." Um, no they were not. LEt us examine your claim though a bit more. Was he taken out of context when the BBC reported on his unedited TV broadcast in his nation!?

www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4529198.stm

Er, I’ve already acknowledged that the President has been dabbling with Holocaust denial. Abhorrent though that it is, I don’t think its justification for an invasion.

Was it out of context when CNN reported on an Iranian news agency reporting the following?:

www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html

Yes it certainly was. I wouldn’t rely on anything CNN had to report considering its long history of distortion and falsification. Lets examine the article. It begins:

“Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state”

The full Ahamdinejad quote, which I have already sited was "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom." He then went on to that this should be done through a democratic vote of Jews, Christians and Muslims, a point he recently restated during his talk at Columbia University. It’s clear from the full quote and the qualification that he was arguing that the Zionist political framework of Israel should be dismantled in the same way the Communist system was dissolved in the USSR. The CNN report selectively quoted him, negated his qualifications about democratic elections and inferred he was advocating an invasion of Israel - a series of bogus rhetorical devices in other words.