Iran: failure of appeasement? or can we trust the intel?

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Does new evidence show that conservatives were right to mistrust Iran?
Does it show the utter folly of appeasement?

OR

Does it show that the administration is willing to do anything to attack Iran?
Can we trust the information in light of ''WMD''?
Can we trust Iranian dissidents any more than Iraqi dissidents?



imho, it shows the former, however, I do think that the evidence must be seriously questioned, a sad conseqeunce of the WMD debacle where the information was presented to the public as "knowns knowns" rather than what it was, (indications, theories, calculated guesses and subjective interpretations) and where too much faith was placed in the word of anti-saddam scientists and exiled opposition leaders. (I did support the war in Iraq, but for the real rationale behind it - liberal imperialism)

but for me, there is no need for debate. if the military believes the information, the US or Israel must take action now to destroy these facilities, and provide any aid they can to those fighting for democracy in the country. I am not talking about invading Iran, attacking the facilities would not involve civilian casualties.

I also think this shows the utter idiocy of the appeasers, yes, "lets close our eyes and hope that the Iranian govt is nice and cuddly and honest." when will people open their eyes??? they project their own good-nature onto the leaders of other countries, whilst I would like to live in a world like that, we don''t. they are treating the world as they would like to see it, not as it actually is.

 

[sxn675]

Why should the military have the final say on whether or not the information is accurate? Isn''t that like having the jeweler from whom you buy your diamond just send it to you without an appraisal?

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

who else would be able to verify and make a judgment on the information? I think it does have to come down to the military.

 

[sxn675]

Isn''t that why we have intelligence agencies? What are they doing with our tax dollars then?

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

sorry, when I said military, I also meant the intelligence organisations, not just army, navy, airforce. I am not exactly a military man myself (lol...) so please accept my apologies, now that you bring it up, yeah, I should have realised that military refers specifically to the armed forces... but yes, I agree, we should leave it upto the military and intelligence agencies

 

[sxn675]

Yeah, it IS different. I''m probably jaded, but I wouldn''t believe evidence unless it was corroborated by more than one report. There have been too many instances of overzealous representatives of our government seeing evidence where none is there....

 

[sxn675]

That''s a good point. Plus, who is the US or Israel (going back to the original post) to say that "Yes, Iran has weapons, let''s invade!". Last I checked, neither country had any sort of moral superiority over the world.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

I never said invade, I said take out their nuclear facilities, that is a big difference.

the idea that we have to wait for our people to be nuked before we act sounds utterly insane to me.

furthermore, did we wait til Britain or America was invaded to get involved in WWI? did we wait until Germany invaded the UK or the USA before we got involved in WWII?

the idea that we allow nations like Iran to develop nuclear weapons is ridiculous,

Plus, who is the US or Israel (going back to the original post) to say that ''Yes, Iran has weapons, let''s invade!''. Last I checked, neither country had any sort of moral superiority over the world.

who is US or Israel to say "yes, Iran has weapons..." well they are the two countries that are going to be in the firing line when they do. ok, they won''t be able to hit the US until they develop ICBMs, but it will make it a great deal more difficult to negotiate with them. they could hit Israel today, they will be able to hit most of Europe in a few years.

Israel''s very existence is at stake, do you want them to wait until there is a nuke on Tel Aviv before you will let them attack?

and please don''t give me a load of guff about the UN... it is an utterly undemocratic, anti-nationalist, anti-Semitic, corrupt, despotic and wholly illegitimate, immoral institution. may it be consigned to the trash heap of history alongside the league of nations

if the US allows Iran to develop nukes the way Clinton let Korea get away with it, there will be hell to pay.

the appeasers don''t want peace, they want the comfortable illusion that peace is simply the absense of war.

imho, Israel should direct its nukes to Mecca, and promise that if there is one more terror attack against its people, there will be a mushroom cloud over Mecca before you can say "Islam is a religion of peace, honest"

(btw no-one actually lives in Mecca, it is only inhabited during the Hajj, so no civilian casualties)

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

if you want a laugh, check this out

http://www.masada2000.org/priceless.html

 

[sxn675]

Date: 11/20/2004 3:12:11 PM
Author: diamondgeezer
I never said invade, I said take out their nuclear facilities, that is a big difference.


the idea that we have to wait for our people to be nuked before we act sounds utterly insane to me.


furthermore, did we wait til Britain or America was invaded to get involved in WWI? did we wait until Germany invaded the UK or the USA before we got involved in WWII?


the idea that we allow nations like Iran to develop nuclear weapons is ridiculous,

Plus, who is the US or Israel (going back to the original post) to say that ''Yes, Iran has weapons, let''s invade!''. Last I checked, neither country had any sort of moral superiority over the world.

who is US or Israel to say ''yes, Iran has weapons...'' well they are the two countries that are going to be in the firing line when they do. ok, they won''t be able to hit the US until they develop ICBMs, but it will make it a great deal more difficult to negotiate with them. they could hit Israel today, they will be able to hit most of Europe in a few years.


Israel''s very existence is at stake, do you want them to wait until there is a nuke on Tel Aviv before you will let them attack?


and please don''t give me a load of guff about the UN... it is an utterly undemocratic, anti-nationalist, anti-Semitic, corrupt, despotic and wholly illegitimate, immoral institution. may it be consigned to the trash heap of history alongside the league of nations


if the US allows Iran to develop nukes the way Clinton let Korea get away with it, there will be hell to pay.


the appeasers don''t want peace, they want the comfortable illusion that peace is simply the absense of war.


imho, Israel should direct its nukes to Mecca, and promise that if there is one more terror attack against its people, there will be a mushroom cloud over Mecca before you can say ''Islam is a religion of peace, honest''

(btw no-one actually lives in Mecca, it is only inhabited during the Hajj, so no civilian casualties)

How is taking our their nuclear facilities different than invading the country? We''ll be dropping bombs on them. Furthermore, there is anti-US sentiment throughout the world. Do you suggest that every country who is against the US not be allowed to build up weapons just in case they might use them? That is absurd. Your last comment is just ignorant. There are people who live in Mecca and there are people there for Umrah throughout the year. Your comment also assumes that all Muslims are the same and support terror. Even if you were kidding, it was highly inappropriate and offensive.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

How is taking our their nuclear facilities different than invading the country? We''ll be dropping bombs on them.

I don''t know where to start... I really can not comprehend that statement... and my mother told me if I can''t say something nice, then I shouldn''t say anything at all

 

[sxn675]

What''s not to understand? If you go into another country and attack their facilities, how is that not invading them? Your statement makes no sense.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

you can take out these facilities with air-strikes as did Israel of Iraq''s in the early 80s

Invasion implies occupation, the war in Iraq was an invasion

 

[sxn675]

And do you honestly think that will work? You think that the US or Israel can just take out the facilities via airstrike and Iran will just sit quietly and take it? There's no rule against Iran building weapons. And again, why should the US or Israel be able to decide which countries in the world should and shouldn't have weapons?

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

And do you honestly think that will work?

yes

You think that the US or Israel can just take out the facilities via airstrike and Iran will just sit quietly and take it?

what are they gonna do?

There''s no rule against Iran building weapons.

well actually there are. but so what if there weren''t?

And again, why should the US or Israel be able to decide which countries in the world should and shouldn''t have weapons?

because Iran would nuke Israel at the first possible convenience

 

[sxn675]

I''m not sure where you get your information. Probably from the same biased source you referenced above and in the Arafat post. Based on your responses above with respect to taking out nuclear facilities and bombing Muslim holy sites, you clearly have no interest in peace in the area. It''s attitudes like yours by both sides which have prevented peace in the Middle East to date. It''s too bad that the people with those attitudes are unable to see that.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Based on your responses above with respect to taking out nuclear facilities and bombing Muslim holy sites

I never suggested bombing muslim sites, I suggested that threatening to bomb them might prevent terrorism.

you clearly have no interest in peace in the area. It''s attitudes like yours by both sides which have prevented peace in the Middle East to date. It''s too bad that the people with those attitudes are unable to see that.

Peace? What peace? Peace is destroying evil, not shaking hands with it.

 

[sxn675]

Now you''re splitting hairs. You certainly implied bombing Mecca was an appropriate activity. And your definition of peace is certainly, um, one-sided. I won''t be responding to this post anymore so feel free to have the last word.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

a gentleman always lets a lady have the last word

Date: 11/20/2004 6:52

2 PM
Author: sxn675
Now you''re splitting hairs. You certainly implied bombing Mecca was an appropriate activity. And your definition of peace is certainly, um, one-sided. I won''t be responding to this post anymore so feel free to have the last word.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

world works on treaties and allies. So, using the my ally was attacked therefore I must help them reasoning, yes, we were attacked..

the US did not declare war on Germany because her allies were attacked, but because it was in the interests of the USA to enter the war to defeat Germany. to suggest otherwise is revisionist history. of course the US did help the allied powers with lend-lease and other forms of aid, (for which we are eternally grateful) however, it did not get into the conflict in Europe simply because Germany had attacked its allies. the US at that time was pretty isolationist and adhered to the "no entangling alliances" school of international relations.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

I did not mean to imply that the threat posed by either country is comparable to that posed by either the Kaiser''s or National Socialist Germany, but that the appeasement of evil in the hope of peace is misplaced optimism at best. Had we have acted when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, when they announced Anchluss or when they invaded Czechoslovakia, WWII may not have happened. indeed, I believe prominent National Socialist officials are on the record as saying that. if you cave in to an aggressor, he is emboldened. appeasement, even with the best of intentions, never works. "Peace is destroying evil, not shaking hands with it."

"All that one needs to know about Yassir Arafat is that he demanded that he wear a pistol when he addressed the United Nations. And all one needs to know about the United Nations is that they let him in."

 

[strmrdr]

Actualy the Europeans had ticked off the everyday American to the point that they figured that europe was getting what they deserved.
Therefore did not support getting involved in the war.
My Dad and I had many discussion about this.
He faught in ww2.

The ww1 vets were really against it they figured that if they didnt learn their lessons the first time and treated us like crap after the war why should we save them a second time?
Why should our sons pay for other countries mistakes like we had too was the question many of them asked.

Pearl Harbor changed that amoung the younger groups but many ww1 veterns saw it as a plan to get the US into the war.
In some ways I agree with them that it was allowed to happen the US gov. just didnt realize the scale of the planned attack.

Remember when it comes to history there is the story of what happened and what really happened and they are very often 2 very different things.

Now about the middle east.
There is going to be an all out war there history proves it the only question is when and on whose terms.
We can delay it but it its going to happen.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Actualy the Europeans had ticked off the everyday American to the point that they figured that europe was getting what they deserved.
Therefore did not support getting involved in the war.

I never meant to imply that there was anything wrong with the US not wanting to get involved in the war. why should the US send its soldiers to die in Europe, again? there are an awful lot of myths surrounding the war, we have plenty of our own, don''t get me wrong. but we Brits do get a tad irritated by what we see as revisionist history (especially in Hollywood movies) that misrepresents American involvement.

also, I think it is rather sad that we let the animosity that developed/continued after the war between the West and the USSR deny the crucial importance of Soviet at Stalingrad, and all across the russian front.

Now about the middle east.
There is going to be an all out war there history proves it the only question is when and on whose terms.
We can delay it but it its going to happen.

I concur, should I take it you have read samuel huntingdon?

and for all the supposed hawkishness in the USA, I sincerely doubt that it will be conducted on our terms

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/21/2004 4:54:48 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

I concur, should I take it you have read samuel huntingdon?


and for all the supposed hawkishness in the USA, I sincerely doubt that it will be conducted on our terms

Nope I havent I have formed my own opinion by studying history, the Bible and people.

Most Americans just want to be left alone.
By their own goverment and the rest of the world.
Kick us too hard and we will wipe your face in it.
aka Pearl Harbour , 9/11

Our own goverment has forgot it and is going to have to re-learn that very painfull leason soon if they keep it up.

We as a people are not hawks just dont piss us off.

 

[rubydick]

Date: 11/20/2004 9

3:41 AM
Author:diamondgeezer
Does new evidence show that conservatives were right to mistrust Iran?
Does it show the utter folly of appeasement?

It is truly sad that so many have so little understanding of history. The comments about Iran being a threat are typical.

Iran has good reason to fear the US and Britain. After all, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government at the behest of British Petroleum and installed the Shah in its place. Don't believe me? Read the CIA's own internal history of the events, which were leaked to the NY Times many years ago:

The Secret History of the CIA in Iran

Having been to Iran, I can testify to the anger. As I crossed the border at Tabriz in 1976 (while the Shah was still in power), the immigration official took one look at my US passport and started cursing me as an imperialist and many other things this board won't permit me to print. Again, this was while the Shah was still in power. Of course, that was a Kurdish area.

Pop quiz time. Who was the first to gas the Kurds? Answer, Winston Churchill and the Brits, back in the 1920s:

Our Last Occupation

I guess what I'm trying to say is that people don't just wake up some morning and say to themselves: "Let's go out and commit acts of terrorism." There is much anger in both Iraq and Iran towards the West, and for very good reasons. Iran wants nuclear weapons not to use them on Israel, but to keep the US and the UK from doing what they've done over so many decades in Iran.

There is so much that people refuse to see. Ask yourself this. Why did the Reagan administration sell weapons to Iran in the 1980s? Reagan said it was to help free US hostages in Lebanon, but the weapons sales began (via Israel) even before a single hostage was taken.

And again, ask yourself why Israel would deal weapons to such a regime?

And this logically leads to the question of just who really are the "appeasers?"

Want to read more about it? The following is a good place to start:

Profits of War

It is written by a Persian Jew who was involved in the weapons sales from Israel to Iran.

Frankly, Iran doesn't scare me nearly as much as the US government. And I would say a balanced look at the record over the past century bears out my fears.

The great tragedy in our lack of understanding of history is that a knowledge of the past creates skepticism. And that is a healthy thing. With a little more skepticism, the governments of the US and Britain never could have gotten away with the previous escapades in Iran, or led us into the current quagmire in Iraq.

 

[Serg]

Hi Diamondgeezer,



World system is not simple. Any coercion can not do World better.

I wish to you understand simple idea: You could be wrong.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

World system is not simple. Any coercion can not do World better.

of course, you are right, coercion can not do the world any better, because as we all know, the third reich was defeated by people linking hands and singing nice songs... give me a break. whilst you are right, the world system is not simple, tyrants are. if you want to tackle a tyrant, you must think like one. it is no good to assume they are honest, upstanding men, with nothing less than a full respect for human rights etc. coercion is all that enemies of liberty understand. tyrants do not recognise the rule of law, either domestic or international, to them a treaty, an agreement, is nothing more than a piece of paper, something that buys them more time, a symbol of the weakness of the international community.

we should have used coercion against Hitler when he remilitarised the Rhineland, invaded the Sudentenland, announced anchluss with Austria etc, had we have done, the horrors of the holocaust and the second world war may well have been avoided. [note - in defence of Neville Chamberlain, the British armed forces had been allowed to deterioriate to the point where in 1938 we would have been unable to mount any serious challenge to the National Socialist government in Germany.] would you have proposed appeasement even after he and Stalin carved up Poland? would you have proposed appeasement after the National Socialists had seized Northern France? would you have propose appeasement when Hitler was at the beaches of Dover? so when exactly would you have used force to tackle the National Socialists?

 

[rubydick]

Sergey,

I was wondering when someone would reply. Seems that many on this list are at a loss for words when it comes to facts, as opposed to opinion.

As you say, coercion does not work.

Amen.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/2/2005 1:17:55 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

World system is not simple. Any coercion can not do World better.

of course, you are right, coercion can not do the world any better, because as we all know, the third reich was defeated by people linking hands and singing nice songs... give me a break. whilst you are right, the world system is not simple, tyrants are. if you want to tackle a tyrant, you must think like one. it is no good to assume they are honest, upstanding men, with nothing less than a full respect for human rights etc. coercion is all that enemies of liberty understand. tyrants do not recognise the rule of law, either domestic or international, to them a treaty, an agreement, is nothing more than a piece of paper, something that buys them more time, a symbol of the weakness of the international community.

we should have used coercion against Hitler when he remilitarised the Rhineland, invaded the Sudentenland, announced anchluss with Austria etc, had we have done, the horrors of the holocaust and the second world war may well have been avoided. [note - in defence of Neville Chamberlain, the British armed forces had been allowed to deterioriate to the point where in 1938 we would have been unable to mount any serious challenge to the National Socialist government in Germany.] would you have proposed appeasement even after he and Stalin carved up Poland? would you have proposed appeasement after the National Socialists had seized Northern France? would you have propose appeasement when Hitler was at the beaches of Dover? so when exactly would you have used force to tackle the National Socialists?

Hitler is good example.
Do you know Who and How create ideal condition for National Socialists in Germany after WWI?
The biggest stupidity to try punish any nation. (Blockade, unreal indemnity, defamation, pressing) to any nation or (destruction government and culture structure) will produce National Socialists , Tyrants,..
It is simple reaction of any nation on aggression. It is simplest lesson of WWI and WWII. Do you need WWIII to understand this lesson?

Fast solution could produce only new worse problems.
See example: Irag, Germany after WWI.

You will see a lot of new terrible consequence in Irag a soon.
Good goal is not enough, right way is necessary too.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/20/2004 3:12:11 PM
Author: diamondgeezer


imho, Israel should direct its nukes to Mecca, and promise that if there is one more terror attack against its people, there will be a mushroom cloud over Mecca before you can say 'Islam is a religion of peace, honest'

(btw no-one actually lives in Mecca, it is only inhabited during the Hajj, so no civilian casualties)

Is it far from National socialism?

Is it far from fascism?

Where is boundary?

Why one country has more right for preventive war then other? What is a fertile field for terrorism?