Iranian leader's opening rant...sounded like a JW

by restrangled 60 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  steve2

  HS I guess we wont know what the Iranians will used until it happens but anyone backed into a corner are likely to use nukes if they have them. If th ehutus had them Im sure they would use them.

  Thank you Barry for your honesty. The exchange commenced with a poster - you? - stating unequivocally that Iran has often explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons against Israel. Now, after a round of frustrating exchanges, it sounds like you are backed into a corner and are summising that "anyone backed into a corner are likely to use nukes if they have them". That sounds a far more compelling statement that an assertion that Iran actually has threatened to use nuclear weapons. Winston Churchill was unerringly accurate when he said that the first casuality of war is truth.
• 

  Iron Rod

  Well,barry and kerj2leev, I don't know about you but I am soooo relieved. Steve2 has comforted me immensely! I had no idea that Mr. Amadinijad had promised not to use his nukes when he gets them! WHEW! What a relief.

  HITLER SIGNED A TREATY NOT TO INVADE POLAND, TOO! At least he went to the trouble to lie about it. This nut-job is coming right out and saying that he wants to wipe out Isreal and the U.S. You don't have a problem with that, Steve? I guess you would feel differently if he were promising to obliterate New Zealand.

  As far as your assertion that Iraq was invaded under false pretenses because no WMD's were found,that wasn't the only reason stated for the invasion. Besides,many other countries believed that they were there. Not to mention that the 14 months spent playing footsie with the U.N. provided plenty of time for them to be moved to Saudi Arabia or God knows where. Also, since you are so concerned with the well being of the terrorists at Gitmo, are you aware that they have gained weight since they have been there? They also are provided with prayer rugs and whatever else they need for their worship.Yeah,they're really being tortured. (And no, I'm not proposing that they should be.)

  One thing I do agree with you about is CNN. They really suck. I'm surprised that they even reported what Amadinijad said,for fear of angering him so much that he would refuse to talk to them anymore. That was their viewpoint with Saddam back in the 90's
• 

  hillary_step

  Iron Rod,

  As far as your assertion that Iraq was invaded under false pretenses because no WMD's were found,that wasn't the only reason stated for the invasion.

  Correct. The other reason given was that there were direct links between Saddam Hussein's regime and at least one of the terrorists who partook of the attack on 9/11.

  This was also false.

  HS
• 

  barry

  Steve you are right the Iranians have never said that they will use nukes against Israel. That still doesnt let me rest any easier because they have threatened the west and Israel with complete destruction and they are attempting to build nukes. Add to that a fanatical religious government. The threat is implicide Im sure we all agree.

  As iron rod has said we should all be able to rest easily in our beds tonight thanks steve.

  The truth is steve we can sustain conventional warfair but atomic warfare is a luxury the world cant afford.
• 

  hillary_step

  Barry,

  Steve you are right the Iranians have never said that they will use nukes against Israel. That still doesnt let me rest any easier because they have threatened the west and Israel with complete destruction and they are attempting to build nukes.

  Once again, please present credible evidence that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons.

  As an aside, Bush made (yet another) major error in describing this proud nation as part of the "Empire of Evil". He was of course too ignorant of foreign affairs or thinking to have judged what effect this would have on the leadership in Iran, much of which has been to provoke a course of sabre rattling. It is also ironic that the US who helped arm Iraq in its unprovoked and bloody war against Iran, now describe it as part of the "Empire of Evil".

  A study of the history of Iran will help you understand where these people are coming from and how they, who historically formed the first democracy, are a people who vacillate regularly between a religious and secular state. Iran is one of the oldest intact civilizations on the planet and they are very proud of their history. They have much to be proud of as well as ashamed of, and in this they share much in common with the US, the UK and Australia.

  No attempt should ever be made to understand a nation and its development outside of a backdrop of history. It is only when history is studied that the present day can be understood and properly dealt with. Unfortunately you need to read books in order to do this and this possibly may be a reason why the Bush Administration has shown a staggering ignorance of anything outside a comic book framework of foreign affairs.

  HS
• 

  Iron Rod

  hillary_step,

  First of all, the Bush administration did not link Saddam to 9-11.That is often put forth by people,but they didn't. I often wondered why they didn't. I suggest for example that you check the info on Salman Pak, as I said before. It doesn't prove Saddam was involved in 9-11, but it proves that he was training terrorists in how to take over airplanes. Lets see....did that happen on 9-11....

  Second, I always love it when people try to blame Bush for the animosity that the Iranian government (and others in the Middle East) have for America. Lets see....who held American hostages for 444 days in the 70's? Oh yeah, Iran (Amadinijad was involved in that one,too.Just in case you didn't know) I'd love to see how you can blame Bush for that. Or the WTC bombing in '93...or the U.S.S Cole? Bill Clinton was President then,remember?

  Now ,I'm not saying nuke Mecca or anything extreme like that...but for crying out loud...you have to take the actual terrorists seriously. I guarantee you that they do.
• 

  steve2

  That still doesnt let me rest any easier because they have threatened the west and Israel with complete destruction and they are attempting to build nukes. Add to that a fanatical religious government. The threat is implicide Im sure we all agree.

  That must be one of the oldest lines in history for invading another state: let's get 'em before they get us. Again, the regime in Iran is not one I would EVER want to live under. However, as Iranians who themselves are opposed to their own regime have said, opposing that government does not mean they are pro-USA or pro-Israel.

  It seems to me that the Big Guys who spout on about "freedom of speech" and "Democracy" have a very special incentive to paint Iran into the corner. You say "a fanatical religious government". true. But from where I'm standing, Bush's idiot-minded invasion of Iraq and subsequent ranting about invading Iran sounds pretty fanatical - but dressed up in predictable Western reason.

  To be perfectly clear: I don't like the Iranian system one little bit; but I also find so much about the American system utterly repugnant. It doesn't look any sweeter because it tries to add sweeteners such as so-called freedom of speech.
• 

  hillary_step

  Iron Rod,

  "First of all", you seem to have reading comprehension issues!

  This is what I wrote:

  Correct. The other reason given was that there were direct links between Saddam Hussein's regime and at least one of the terrorists who partook of the attack on 9/11.

  You rebutted:

  First of all, the Bush administration did not link Saddam to 9-11.That is often put forth by people,but they didn't. I often wondered why they didn't. I suggest for example that you check the info on Salman Pak, as I said before. It doesn't prove Saddam was involved in 9-11, but it proves that he was training terrorists in how to take over airplanes. Lets see....did that happen on 9-11....

  I did not mention Bush, I mentioned that one of the other inaccurate reasons given for the invasion of Iraq was a supposed link between Iraq and Al Quaeda, the masterminds of the 9/11 terrorist attack. The person that mentioned this link and perpetuted it was in fact the Vice President, Dick Cheney. I quote:

  "It was just weeks after the terrorist attacks that the first link between Saddam and al-Qaida was alleged by the administration. It came from Cheney, who said it had been "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, the man held responsible for masterminding the Sept. 11 hijackings, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2000, an allegation congressional investigators later dismissed."

  Your second point is even more misinfomed:

  Second, I always love it when people try to blame Bush for the animosity that the Iranian government (and others in the Middle East) have for America. Lets see....who held American hostages for 444 days in the 70's? Oh yeah, Iran (Amadinijad was involved in that one,too.Just in case you didn't know) I'd love to see how you can blame Bush for that. Or the WTC bombing in '93...or the U.S.S Cole? Bill Clinton was President then,remember?

  America was enemy number one after the downfall of the Shah because it had backed financially, militarily and morally a regime that had tortured and murdered tens of thousands of its own people. The Shah's torturers were actually trained by the US military! That is why American hostages were caught in this fallout and why for example German, or Spanish hostages were not!

  On a good day, Islamic Mullahs were hung upside down by the Shah's torturers and chillie peppers inserted into their anus for days at a time. Many succumbed under this treatment - on a bad day you would not want to know what happened.

  What I find a recurring theme in these political threads is a stunning confidence displayed by those with a staggering ignorance of history and fact. I suppose this is forgivable given the fact that history seems to be up for sale educationally in the States these days.

  HS
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  First of all, the Bush administration did not link Saddam to 9-11.

  No, they linked them to Al Queda. They stopped just short of blaming Iraq for 9/11. But tell me, why even mention the two in the same sentence? Al Queda and Saddam? Because that is exactly what they did. They linked Iraq as a supporter for Al Queda for years. That was an out and out falsehood. What are the American people going to think of with any group that they are told associates with Al Queda? That they sell girl scout cookies? Without their claims that Iraq sponsered worldwide terrorists (they didn't), have WMD's (they didn't) their would be no support to invade Iraq. There WERE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ!! Not ONE reason the Bush Administration gave for invading was true. Not one thing they said would happen happened.

  Do you think 150,000 troops on the ground in Pakistan would find the real master mind of 9/11? Couldn't hurt!

  The fact is that Iraq was a highly secular Arab state under Saddam. It wasn't nearly as Muslim as their neighbors. Saddam kept the religous loons under his thumb. Yes, he did so through unimaginable means or torture and cruelty. Are we going to invade all tyrannical governments?

  No one who is a Republican wants to admit this, but Bush screwed up. This is incompetence in all areas on a scale previously unseen.
• 

  Satanus

  In the usa, the prison to resident population is 702 inmates per 100,000 residents. In iran, it is 229 inmates per 100,000 of general population.
  
  S