Has iran surpassed North Korea as 'the' rogue nation'?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You do twist words. All I said was the U.S. did not play a major role in the actions in Libya and Egypt. The Brits sounded the call to arms on those two.

You know very well what I refer to in Obama's inclination to arm the Syrian rebels, to support the Brotherhood. That support goes against the majority of the U.S., both by polls and the recent Mid-Term elections.

He has also, bent over backwards regarding Iran. Obviously in the negotiations with Iran, his cooperation with Iran in actions in Syria, as you say,against the very arms he supplied. I can assure you the seizing of these ships would not have occurred under any other President without consequence.

The current participation of European nations in these actions also counters your stance on this. Italy? Denmark? Really?

They have unilaterally entered the fray of their own accord and never have been players. Apparently, the European community see things more and more as the U.S. does and are contributing more than the U.S..

Very unlike the cold war or even the more recent Iraqi conflicts. Safe to say, the consensus against Iran, et al, is growing, not diminishing.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

And why do you trust them? Support the MSM I see? It goes both ways...apples and oranges...or apple sauce and marmalade. Same things, seen to different ways.

I'm standin beside Nwtrucker...I think you confused on this thread concept...

I'll leave it be....but, continue if you must...

Peace

MS

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ThePlusQ

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ThePlusQ

"We also shot down your air liners . oh wait ! we toppled your governments . wait again ! we bombed you . we violated your territorial integrity . Wait wait wait !"



If that so then it doesnt give Iran the right to participate in the mass killing of the Syrian people just because they have a differnent reglion, doesnt give iran the right to control Lebanon and weaken its goverment systamatically while pumping the hezbolla militia with money and weapons, doest give Iran the right to hold the decsion of peace and war in its hand and deciding the fate of a whole nation (Lebanon) against israel. The list continues down to Bahrain, Yemen, etc.

It's about time the western and eastern public know the real intentions of Iran.

Hm, you do realize that the West and its allies are participating in the mass killing of the Syrians right? We are funding and arming the opposition...

Most Westerners don't know this but a year or so ago the deaths were actually almost equal between opposition and the regime, meaning that both sides are killing lots of people....

Also, Syria is Iran's backyard. They know that this is a proxy war and that regimes are falling in a domino fashion. They know that they are next in the crosshairs. The enemy is at the gates for them.

Thanks for the insight, let me add that I already know that the west is involved in Syria. I was responding to Haman's claim that Iran is all peaceful and she is not reaponsible for the death of a single soul in the Middle East.

Regarding your insight about Iran defending its backyard as an excuse to go on and ethnicly cleanse the Syrian people. Maybe if we were talking about Iraq then your claim might stand ground, but Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, even Egpyt? These nations are all considered as Iran's backyard? They want to convert the whole area to the shia relegion but sure they won't declare it openly. Besides, in my humble opinion I think that the domino effect will not reach or affect Iran since they long ago purged the people that might instigate a reshuffle in the rule.

I didn't say that Iran necessarily has a right to interfere. However, they aren't "ethnically cleansing" Syrians, they are buffering the regime against a western-funded rebellion..

And do you know who has a far lesser right to be interfering and "ethnically cleansing Syrians?" The West!

Third, the US and West are without a shadow of a doubt trying to change the order of the ME to assure geo-political control AND diminish the power of any opponents such as Russia and their proxies (Syria, Iran, etc). Hence Iran DOES have real reason to be concerned.

Fourth, the US already factually overthrew the Iranian government in the 50's via the CIA. Who are you to say that they don't believe they are under legitimate threat? And with all of the propaganda recently, and sanctions, they are under threat.

I sincerely doubt that the west is behind the ethnic or sectarian cleansing going on in Syria. Check out this one
www.theguardian.com...

Let me tell you something about your proclaimed "western-funded rebellion", imagine yourself being ruled for over 40 years by the sword by a group that is a minority in your society, how would you feel about it? And when the chance came to overthrow these thugs, you would not go on and support it? The start of the upheaval was pure and righteous, the people fought for their freedom with little means, then the David vs Goliath war started with the people wielding hand guns against Migs and artillery shells, against Hezbolla, Houthies, Asaeb al Haq, Abo Fadl al Abas thugs, etc.. If the US really helped the Syrian people then Bashar won't be around as we speak, only an air embargo would have done the job. Then lately because of the lack of support and the overwhelming odds, extreme factions started to appear.

Regarding the idea of overthrowing the current Iranian regime, you must understand that today is totally different than 50 years ago, nowadays everything is tightly monitored and any attempt of wrong doing is quickly abolished. Imagine yourself residing in Tehran and spewing propaganda against them, chances are you will disappear quickly, unlike the US where freedom of speech is strongly present and a proof for that is that many of the ATSers that talk openly about the US and they are in fact residing there are still around to continue what they are doing. Hell, Iran is tightly controlling other neighboring nations, it won't control its own?

So please, understand that the intentions of Iran are far more sinister than you think, behind the peaceful claims and warm smiles there is a long history of deadly animosity for its neighbors.

originally posted by: ThePlusQ

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ThePlusQ

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ThePlusQ

"We also shot down your air liners . oh wait ! we toppled your governments . wait again ! we bombed you . we violated your territorial integrity . Wait wait wait !"



If that so then it doesnt give Iran the right to participate in the mass killing of the Syrian people just because they have a differnent reglion, doesnt give iran the right to control Lebanon and weaken its goverment systamatically while pumping the hezbolla militia with money and weapons, doest give Iran the right to hold the decsion of peace and war in its hand and deciding the fate of a whole nation (Lebanon) against israel. The list continues down to Bahrain, Yemen, etc.

It's about time the western and eastern public know the real intentions of Iran.

Hm, you do realize that the West and its allies are participating in the mass killing of the Syrians right? We are funding and arming the opposition...

Most Westerners don't know this but a year or so ago the deaths were actually almost equal between opposition and the regime, meaning that both sides are killing lots of people....

Also, Syria is Iran's backyard. They know that this is a proxy war and that regimes are falling in a domino fashion. They know that they are next in the crosshairs. The enemy is at the gates for them.

Thanks for the insight, let me add that I already know that the west is involved in Syria. I was responding to Haman's claim that Iran is all peaceful and she is not reaponsible for the death of a single soul in the Middle East.

Regarding your insight about Iran defending its backyard as an excuse to go on and ethnicly cleanse the Syrian people. Maybe if we were talking about Iraq then your claim might stand ground, but Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, even Egpyt? These nations are all considered as Iran's backyard? They want to convert the whole area to the shia relegion but sure they won't declare it openly. Besides, in my humble opinion I think that the domino effect will not reach or affect Iran since they long ago purged the people that might instigate a reshuffle in the rule.

I didn't say that Iran necessarily has a right to interfere. However, they aren't "ethnically cleansing" Syrians, they are buffering the regime against a western-funded rebellion..

And do you know who has a far lesser right to be interfering and "ethnically cleansing Syrians?" The West!

Third, the US and West are without a shadow of a doubt trying to change the order of the ME to assure geo-political control AND diminish the power of any opponents such as Russia and their proxies (Syria, Iran, etc). Hence Iran DOES have real reason to be concerned.

Fourth, the US already factually overthrew the Iranian government in the 50's via the CIA. Who are you to say that they don't believe they are under legitimate threat? And with all of the propaganda recently, and sanctions, they are under threat.

I sincerely doubt that the west is behind the ethnic or sectarian cleansing going on in Syria. Check out this one
www.theguardian.com...

Let me tell you something about your proclaimed "western-funded rebellion", imagine yourself being ruled for over 40 years by the sword by a group that is a minority in your society, how would you feel about it? And when the chance came to overthrow these thugs, you would not go on and support it? The start of the upheaval was pure and righteous, the people fought for their freedom with little means, then the David vs Goliath war started with the people wielding hand guns against Migs and artillery shells, against Hezbolla, Houthies, Asaeb al Haq, Abo Fadl al Abas thugs, etc.. If the US really helped the Syrian people then Bashar won't be around as we speak, only an air embargo would have done the job. Then lately because of the lack of support and the overwhelming odds, extreme factions started to appear.

Regarding the idea of overthrowing the current Iranian regime, you must understand that today is totally different than 50 years ago, nowadays everything is tightly monitored and any attempt of wrong doing is quickly abolished. Imagine yourself residing in Tehran and spewing propaganda against them, chances are you will disappear quickly, unlike the US where freedom of speech is strongly present and a proof for that is that many of the ATSers that talk openly about the US and they are in fact residing there are still around to continue what they are doing. Hell, Iran is tightly controlling other neighboring nations, it won't control its own?

So please, understand that the intentions of Iran are far more sinister than you think, behind the peaceful claims and warm smiles there is a long history of deadly animosity for its neighbors.

The only country that has proven "sinister intentions" towards the other is the US -> Iran, over the course of 75 years... Sorry brah, stop buying the propaganda. You people are like abusers, that blame your victim for anything you do to them, and then blame them again if they react.

We have to look at facts and actual evidence when assessing global policy. This is called "evidence-based policy making." Much like the scientific approach, credibility lies with what has happened historically and what is occurring now.

The US, factually, has done far more to Iran and done far more to support its enemies. Iran is not overthrowing countries in Central America, or Canada... Iran never regime-changed the US. Iran never helped our enemies hit us with chemical weapons.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The irony is your views is as the previous poster had said. The U.S. has little involvement with the current rebellions in the ME. Granted Obama armed the rebels in Syria, but the point, and it's huge, that you miss is those rebels were already there and fighting before Obama 'armed' them.

If the goal was regime change in Iran, it would already be a fait accompli.

Although, I'd support that aim, obviously, it's not occurring.

The biggest difference between the goings on now and the cold war games is the internal groups that never existed in that era. It's both internal national groups and regional power players. Most of the outside 'interference' is European based.

Turkey, Iran, Isis and the status quo crowd led by the Saudis. That's the main players. The U.S. is, for now, far down the list.

Your fixation/angst towards the U.S.-some is valid- blinds you to the current overview. Unless you have a specific agenda not disclosed, that is....

Personally? I'd let the whole bunch have at it unrestrained and deal with who ever comes out on top of the new food chain, then, if necessary.

Unfortunately, too many in Europe are still addicted to ME oil and will not allow multiple unrestrained conflicts due to the potential loss of that oil supply.

That's how I see the current ME situation, rightly or wrongly. As far as Iran, itself, goes? I could care less about their track record. I will not forget nor forgive the U.S. casualties in Iraq due to Iranian IEDs.

Even that takes a back-seat to nuclear proliferation in the region. Iran must not be allowed the opportunity-or even the temptation to develop them. They must be made an example of sufficient to make the bowels of the remaining ME leaders turn to water at the mere thought of developing nukes.

Failure to stop it here and now will result unrestrained, no consequence rampant development in the ME, as well as the rest of the world and this planet will be TOAST.

a reply to: buster2010

Same old mantra. Blame Fox. The rebels we active in Syria well before your Obama gave them the arms. Therefore any U.S. activity was after those rebels existed. Hello?

You sit and claim, time after time, that all the reports are bogus when it comes to Iran and use the same type of sources when arguing against Israel.

YOU prove they are false. Based on you posting record, how could anyone accept your bias over Fox's? I sure couldn't.

Then you really don't prove much other than dissembling statements. In the case of Maersk-and having three or more brain cells hooking in series- logic demands if Maersk did, in fact, have a debt owed to an Iranian company, they would certainly not sail in Iranian waters.

No notice by Iran, no publicizing of documents from any outside courts authorizing the seizure or the sale of that asset. Obviously Iran would have that portion of their PR machine firing that all around the world...See any?? Nope.

Oh yes. ICBMs carry nukes..Period. Quit embarrassing yourself...

There is always a point in time when a healthy discussion on a controversial topic becomes a healthy debate. Yet, there are still points in time where that healthy debate becomes a heated debate; however, there still remains room for cooler heads to prevail. Still, further, there are points in time on this spectrum where heated debate turns toward an unhealthy argument, to which parties ought to agree to disagree and visit the matter at later time.

This thread, however, has turned into a childish tit for tat and it reflects poorly on all those involved.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I'm an admitted old sorehead. I believe I respond to perceived honest posters appropriately.

I sincerely posted my views in that last overview of the ME situation, even though it wasn't on topic. I added my reservations on Iran in general and where I feel the line in the sand needs to be drawn and kept and my reasoning behind it.

There's no point in commenting further on the last exchange...

I enjoy your posts, even though we may not see eye to eye. That's the whole point of this venue. Enjoy your Sunday..