"Its like watching a tennis match, and one side is suprised the ball is coming back"

Using your logic, if my neighbor is a convicted murderer, he should be allowed to have a gun because I have one to protect myself from the likes of him. Do you see the fallacy in your logic?

I agree 100%. Unfortunately that is the logic of MANY on this board. Everything is just black and white with no shades of gray it seems. To have true intelligence one must see past the mere 'facts' and also see how and why certain rules are applied in certain situations.

To think otherwise just sounds like pure teen angst.


[edit on 1-10-2007 by princeofpeace]

Has anyone read "Countdown to Terror" by Curt Weldon? It goes over all of this in very good detail. Weapons inspections, history of the region etc.

"And as I said before, when it was the Mujahadeen killing Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan the US had no qualms whatsoever about supplying them with arms. Its kind of hypocritical to complain on those terms."

Well, the US and USSR were sworn enemies for years before this and they saw a way to cripple them by causing conflicts on as many fronts as possible. Iran is doing the same thing in their own region as has already been detailed on many threads. Like I have said in other threads, we all do it, right or wrong.

As to the fact we have Nukes for 30 years. Well, other than to end WW2 we haven't used them on anyone else, that is why we are trusted. (Read up on why using the Bombs saved more lives for Japan and the US compared to a landing based attack on Japan's mainland).

NK, Iran are like "The Mouse that Roared" but not as dumb. If they have Nukes they will give them to someone else to use. Just like people in your workplace that like to stir the sh*T just to entertain themselves but never get directly involved. We all do it; every nation worth its salt does it and will continue to as long as they are around.

Picking on the biggest bully is fun, but to say the US is the only bully is bull!

One last quote: "You can't blame Ronald McDonald when you get a bad hamburger? And you can't blame the US president for what our country does. Neither of them runs the company!!" Comedian Bobcat Goldwaith talking about Ronald Reagan and the ATC firings. I would say the same thing applies to Bush.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Iran has the right to invade Iraq and kill allied soldiers because the allied forces are there. Is that your stance? If so, thats ridiculous logic and I think you know it.
Iran is invanding Iraq any way you look at it. Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?

I think your being deliberately obtuse.

Let me spell this out in clearer terms as you aren't grasping it.

The US has NO RIGHT to be in Iraq. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Had Bush not lied about Iraq, and invaded under false pretences, then the soldiers wouldn't be there.

However, they are there, and they are being attacked by insurgents, some of whom may have weapons that they have bought from Iran.

The Bush administration complaining about what they term to be illegal and unfair activity by Iran is extreme hypocrisy judged by the standards of their own actions, where they invaded an entire nation without provocation.

Can I make that any clearer for you?

[edit on 2/1007/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Using your logic, if my neighbor is a convicted murderer, he should be allowed to have a gun because I have one to protect myself from the likes of him. Do you see the fallacy in your logic?

The problem is that you aren't using my logic. You are trying to fit your own logic in and couch it in my terms.

The "convicted murderer" in this case is the country that just invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to it.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
To have true intelligence one must see past the mere 'facts' and also see how and why certain rules are applied in certain situations.

To think otherwise just sounds like pure teen angst.

Enlighten us then.

Explain to us why double standards should be applied to Iran, when Brazil and Argentina are doing exactly the same?

Neformore, I admire your willpower to keep trying to make people see things from the other side, but it seems a lot of people are hardwired into the simplified view of reality we get to see in public. Im not sure those views can be changed by education.

Im wondering if people even realize what the topic means, so ill explain it. It means that for every action, there is a reaction. Its a universal law that cannot be changed. Hence the tennis ball going back and forth.

Its actually more complicated in reality... its like having a billion tennis balls bounce back and forth. And no side is willing to stop playing tennis. The tennis balls are reactions to actions.

Also each side have their own people telling if the ball was in or out.



[edit on 2-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by neformore
Kudos to ATS member Copernicus for giving me the title of this thread - it was his reply to something I had written in the "Weakened and Vulnerable" thread, and it made me chuckle a bit

But anyway, to my point - I'm going to try and put it as succinctly as I can.

Iran, a nation which has not invaded any other in living memory (except in response to an attack). Appears to be ruffling more than a few feathers with the esteemed right wing posters on ATS, because it has said it will defend itself as needed should it be attacked, and may actually carry out a few attacks of its own if the bombs start falling in downtown Tehran.

Imagine a country saying it would defend itself from agression against it? Who'd have thought that might happen?

"We're gonna bomb you because you said you'd defend yourself if we bombed you."

I mean, seriously, what ARE some people thinking?

I mean, that would be like people complaining about people possibly arming the other side in an ideaological war against a superpower that had invaded a sovereign nation, wouldn't it? Of course that never happens at all....

What's really interesting is how, if you ignore the sabre-rattling of the White House and concentrate on the actions of the administration, they are giving Iran an incentive to gain nuclear weapons.

According to the "wisdom" of President Bush, there were three main states who were a threat to international security: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Now, we all know what happened with Iraq. No WMD stockpiles were found, but the country was invaded and the leadership overthrown and executed.

North Korea, on the other hand, got its hands on several dozen nuclear weapons, started acting erratically and threatening US regional allies with its, quite frankly, belligerent actions. Suddenly, the US Administration are promising multination talks, aid packages and anything else they can think of in order to calm the North Korean leadership down.

Quite an interesting contrast, I'm sure you'll agree. The difference between the two, of course, is that one had nuclear weapons and an apparent will to use them, while the other had only conventional forces available.

Now, I'll admit I'm no expert in international diplomacy (though I've studied under several). However, usually in negotiation, I believe, you are meant to offer incentives to parties in order to stop them from wanting to gain such weapons. Nuclear proliferation is very serious business and I'd rather no-one had weapons of that magnitude. Not Iran, not Israel, not China, not the USA no-one. However, if we want to aim for that, then the USA has to have a strategy in place to stop proliferation before it starts, reward those states who do not try to acquire nuclear weapons, and punish those do.

Sadly, this strategy does not seem to exist.

I also find it interesting that the USA can trust Christian, Hindu, Communist and South African (back when they had a program) extremists with fingers on nuclear triggers, but not Iranian ones. If Iran did acquire weapons, they would be cancelled out by Israel's rather advanced nuclear weapons program of its own. Iran may be a theocracy, but I'm sure its leaders are more willing to utilize others willing to die for their cause than do it themselves. MAD was a perfectly acceptable policy in the Cold War, a regional level nuclear balance may actually force Middle East conflicts into proxy wars and force parties there to actually sit down and negotiate.

In a perfect world though, Iran would gain security concessions from Israel and the USA, in return for full access to their nuclear program and oversight to ensure no weapons were being made. And maybe that is the game plan. Iran have made a number of strategic gains in the last 6 years, mostly without having to do much of the work themselves. Building up hype about nuclear weapons, then giving them up to consolidate their gains would be sensible, and entirely in keeping with how their leaders operate.

Perhaps we should begin a UN campaign to offer peaceful nuclear energy programs to any stable country in the world who would like them? That may help stop proliferation. I mean if like someone said earlier there are certain kind of reactors that can ONLY be used for energy, then we should be helping to spread that around for energy security. Uranium is going higher and higher in price after all, and Uranium producing countries could make a simple buck in the process through trade concession.

Like "I see you wish yo pursue a nuclear energy option, but lack appropriate uranium resources. I think we could trade uranium for an equal dollar amount of spices, or bauxite, or flowers, or petroleum, or medicinal plants, or fishing rights," you know whatever they have to offer.

It supports friendly trade relations and helps bring energy security to others. Does that sound viable at all? Or is everyone in the world not in the West too crazy to be trusted?

Originally posted by neformore
The US has NO RIGHT to be in Iraq. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Had Bush not lied about Iraq, and invaded under false pretences, then the soldiers wouldn't be there.

However, they are there, and they are being attacked by insurgents, some of whom may have weapons that they have bought from Iran.

The Bush administration complaining about what they term to be illegal and unfair activity by Iran is extreme hypocrisy judged by the standards of their own actions, where they invaded an entire nation without provocation.

Can I make that any clearer for you?

First, saying Bush lied is a personal opinion. Invading Iraq with incomplete facts is not lying. These facts were something the democrats, republicans, British etc all had and used, and no matter how incomplete removing Saddam was a good thing.

Second, the US is trying to get out of the country and has been for years now but we do not want to leave it without it standing on its own legs.

Third, if Iran is actively using its resourses against the US to kill our solders and the Iraqi people this is a totally different event that needs to be dealt with. You talk as if our invasion of Iraq allows us no rights to prevent Iran from being actively involved against the US Iran’s involvement IS an offensive move, and that alone justifies the US to defend itself with its own counters. Whether we are in Iraq legally or illegally doesn’t change the fact that Iran’s is offensively attacking the US.

Uh, slight factual error in the above post. Sorry, don't really want to get myself involved in this private argument, but there is very little to no real evidence of Iran supplying Iraqi insurgents, at least directly.

In fact, most of the Shi'ite groups seem to be gaining weapons (those they didn't loot from ungauarded ammo dumps) from Hizb'allah, according to US intelligence. They have supplied certain weapons which are hard to get in Iraq, and training for insurgents. Now, we all know Iran and Hizb'allah have a relationship, but I very much doubt they are acting on direct orders. Hizb'allah take badly to their Iranian overlords micro-managing their groups and strategy. Either way, it appears Iran is not arming or training insurgents, currently. Perhaps some evidence will arise of Hizb'allah acting as a conduit for Iranian weapons, but until it does...well, no evidence says it all.

Anyway, back to your argument, peeps.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
First, saying Bush lied is a personal opinion.

Thats the only point I'm going to give you

Invading Iraq with incomplete facts is not lying. These facts were something the democrats, republicans, British etc all had and used, and no matter how incomplete removing Saddam was a good thing.

OK. So, we assume that Bush et al didn't have the full facts.

I'm glad you bought this up actually, because its another part of the Iraq argument that gets left out alot.

Is it the act of a responsible person, or administration, to carry out an action that has such serious political and human repercussions without having the full facts of the matter? What can then be said of that administration when it becomes apparent that they have messed up so badly? Are the subsequent deaths of 4108 troops (3808 or which are American), the 650k (by some estimates) Iraqi casualties, massive political and economic costs of attacking a nation that posed no threat to the USA really the actions of people you want in charge of nuclear weapons - and people are calling Iran irresponsible? Think about it.

As for removing Saddam ...well the US propped him up for so long in the 80's, and only got antsy with him when he made a play for the oil fields. No one gave a monkeys about what happened to the Kurds at the time in 1988, so its never been about his human rights record, has it?

Second, the US is trying to get out of the country and has been for years now but we do not want to leave it without it standing on its own legs.

Had Bush not lied/got his facts straight, they wouldn't be there and need to extricate themselves, would they?

Third, if Iran is actively using its resourses against the US to kill our solders and the Iraqi people this is a totally different event that needs to be dealt with.

Hey - I have no problems with someone returning fire if they are attacked on a battlefield. If people are daft enough to want to get into a shootout with each other thats their problem.

You talk as if our invasion of Iraq allows us no rights to prevent Iran from being actively involved against the US

Its a matter of opinion isn't it? As I keep saying, had the US got its lies/facts, straight, the US forces wouldn't be in Iraq. Which of the two evils involved in the scenario is the right one? You reap what you sow.

Iran’s involvement IS an offensive move, and that alone justifies the US to defend itself with its own counters. Whether we are in Iraq legally or illegally doesn’t change the fact that Iran’s is offensively attacking the US.

Do you believe that Iran would be involved in anything to do with US forces if they were at home in their bases? Can you not understand that one has led to the other?

We're back to where the thread started here. You seem to believe that the USA has a right to walk into Iraq, and do whatever it pleases, pissing off the population groups and that they should be expected NOT to do anything, just because its the USA that did it.

Look out! Here comes another serve return.

[edit on 2/1007/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by DYepes
It supports friendly trade relations and helps bring energy security to others. Does that sound viable at all? Or is everyone in the world not in the West too crazy to be trusted?

Ah. The use of the word "crazy".

By that I assume you mean "has different customs and looks a bit different to"

The world is NOT the USA. Likewise, the USA is NOT the world.

Pity you put that, because it kinda negated the rest of your post for me, which seemed to have a good idea in it.

Originally posted by neformore
I think your being deliberately obtuse.

Hello Kettle!

The US has NO RIGHT to be in Iraq. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

** SIGH **.......IRRELEVANT!!!!!
I does NOT matter whether the U.S. is in Iraq or not. It has no bearing on Iran invading Iraq. What does this have to do with the price of cheese?
Ok, so you are ok with Iran invading Iraq ONLY because the U.S. is there.

So tell me why its ok for Iran to invade Iraq just because the U.S. is there?

Originally posted by neformore

The problem is that you aren't using my logic. You are trying to fit your own logic in and couch it in my terms.

Sorry, but it is your logic, unfortunately.

The "convicted murderer" in this case is the country that just invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to it.

Exactly, Iran invading Iraq! Great, we agree!

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Exactly, Iran invading Iraq! Great, we agree!

I think you have your countries mixed up.

Iran isn't invading Iraq. The US did that already.

Quite where you have conjoured the notion that Iran is invading Iraq up from is beyond me.

Originally posted by neformore
I think you have your countries mixed up.
Iran isn't invading Iraq.Quite where you have conjoured the notion that Iran is invading Iraq up from is beyond me.

Right! My bad....I guess all the arms, money and men being sent into Iraq from Iran to kill allied forces and to destabilize Iraq is just a welcoming party planning a picnic.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

As far as I know, and the world, the only evidence of any Iranians being in Iraq have been Iraqi invited diplomats or other officials who were invited by Iraq and handed Visas to be there. all of the "Iranian commandos and spies" that have been nabbed and accused on TV and print media have been stated by the Iraqi government to been invited, on official business, and with government issued visas.

As far as the arms go, its war. The Us has again, since the end of WW2, topped the list of arms suppliers in the world, by a landslide mind you. These weapons murder civilians and non-civilian citizens in nearly every country on Earth in almost every battle zone.

Now I don't believe that pulling everything out is a smart solution, and I do believe that getting rid of Sadaam was a good thing, even if the reasons for doign so werw wrong. I just will not deny nor attempt to act victimidzed when an occupied nation is utilizing weapons from their neighbors to fight the occupiers. It just makes no sense to act like it is happening unjustly, and without consideration.

It is like being naive, hypocrit, and living in lala-land at the same time.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Right! My bad....I guess all the arms, money and men being sent into Iraq from Iran to kill allied forces and to destabilize Iraq is just a welcoming party planning a picnic.

Top US Military Official : No evidence of Iran involvement in Iraq

U.S. general: No evidence Iran is arming Iraqis

UK drops allegations of Iran 'involvement' in Iraq bombings

Officials Go 'Off the Record' on Iran-Iraq Arms

In today's briefing, the U.S. officials admitted there was a gap between what they say they know, and what they can show, leaving reporters with more questions than answers.

Lets have some proof, please?

Originally posted by neformore
Lets have some proof, please?

Come on!
You know I can google and find just as many articles stating the exact opposite so you have proved nothing.

Articles like these:
Click HERE for article #1

Click HERE for article #2

I could go on and on and on.........

[edit on 3-10-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
I could go on and on and on.........
[edit on 3-10-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

If serial numbers that anyone can fabricate - or claim to be part of someone elses production line - is the best that you can come up with, I refer you to this gem of a claim

"We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat...."

We're five years, 655k+ Iraq Dead, 4000+ coalition troops dead and a whole load of political and economic problems off the back of that one, so serial numbers is kind of stretching the old credibleness...don't you think?

But, if you want to persist along the topic line, since when do serial numbers constitute an "invasion"??