Coffeehouse Thread

57 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

The case for war in Iran

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    androidi

    The case for war in Iran

    Convincing, if I may say so.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Please God no...

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    It's close. You'd have to change "dictator" to "President", since their leader was democratically elected. Otherwise you're just name-calling Smiley

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    I think it was John Stewart on the Daily Show who said that the reason we went to war in iraq is that someone mistyped a 'q' instead of an 'n'

  • User profile image
    UlsterFry

    ScanIAm wrote:
    I think it was John Stewart on the Daily Show who said that the reason we went to war in iraq is that someone mistyped a 'q' instead of an 'n'


    maybe it was a ramification from this

    Initial reports were confined to stories about the removal of the "W" keys from White House computer keyboards. The Spectator reports that "Wednesday two former staffers, one of whom worked in Hillary Clinton's office, were spotted near Dupont Circle laughing and giggling about the mess their former colleagues left behind."


  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    More on topic, Russia and China will vote no.

    What's in your wallet?

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    The enemy is Eurasia Eastasia.  The enemy has always been Eurasia Eastasia.

  • User profile image
    Steve411

    I have to reply!

    The only reason why we got attacked in the first place is because you, the dumb-(I need to watch my language) president was too lazy sitting on his fat million dollar (I need to watch my language) thinking of other ways to (I need to watch my language) his wife. If there actually was anything in that small monkey head of yours, you would of known to increase airport security the first day you came into presidency. This just proves that you're even more damn stupid than you damn look and sound! 

    Not to mention, if you knew what the (I need to watch my language) you were doing to begin with you would of known not to mess with any of that bull (I need to watch my language) in the middle east. Now you've got the terrorists from Iraq on our (I need to watch my language), and now you're going after nuclear weapons in Iran, which you most likely wont find anyway.You're the damn beast from the middle east, as bad and horrible as they (I need to watch my language)ing come. Good luck getting all of us killed.

    The end.
    - Steve

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    Steve411 wrote:
    I have to reply!

    The only reason why we got attacked in the first place is because ...


    Can I just point out that neither Iran nor Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 .. there seems to be a lot of public opinion that seems to point to that as the reason for the (illegal) invasion of Iraq. 

    Not so worrying that people have jumped to this conclusion, more worrying that Bush has taken you (and us) to war without the people knowing why you are fighting.  If anyone here thinks that the Iraq  invasion has absolutely nothing to do with Oil, then I suspect you might be being a little naieve.

  • User profile image
    Steve411

    Rossj wrote:


    Steve411 wrote:

    I have to reply!The only reason why we got attacked in the first place is because ...

    Can I just point out that neither Iran nor Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 .. there seems to be a lot of public opinion that seems to point to that as the reason for the (illegal) invasion of Iraq. 

    Not so worrying that people have jumped to this conclusion, more worrying that Bush has taken you (and us) to war without the people knowing why you are fighting.  If anyone here thinks that the Iraq  invasion has absolutely nothing to do with Oil, then I suspect you might be being a little naieve.


    I never said it was Iraq, the reason he attacked is because of his (I need to watch my language)ing dads personal dillemas with the middle east. And oil, which we wont get any of in the end.

    - Steve

  • User profile image
    Sabot

    Invading Iran would be an mistake IMHO, even if we do have International backing this time.

    There is already a wedge between westen and middle easten nations and this could be the catalyst to ignite a much wider conflict if this is not handled properly and within the context of the law.

    I believe this will be a game of patients, as the sanctions on Iran begin to sting and the man in the street becomes effected. Remember in Iran unlike Iraq they do have elections.

  • User profile image
    pacelvi

    This world most of you live in is pretty interesting.  Iran has already stated its intentions of destroying the United States and Israel.  It's obviously going forward with its nuclear weapons development.

    How do you suggest this be stopped?

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    pacelvi wrote:

    This world most of you live in is pretty interesting.  Iran has already stated its intentions of destroying the United States and Israel.  It's obviously going forward with its nuclear weapons development.

    How do you suggest this be stopped?



    A few people currently in power in Iran, I would stop short of labelling a whole country as wishing for the demise of the US and Israel.

  • User profile image
    pacelvi

    Rossj wrote:
    pacelvi wrote:

    This world most of you live in is pretty interesting.  Iran has already stated its intentions of destroying the United States and Israel.  It's obviously going forward with its nuclear weapons development.

    How do you suggest this be stopped?



    A few people currently in power in Iran, I would stop short of labelling a whole country as wishing for the demise of the US and Israel.


    The Gov't of Iran speaks for Iran ; therefore, I dont need to change anything in that sentence.  I'm well aware that the populace is generally fed up with the Islamic state and are somewhat not anti-American.  But so what. Iran is ruled by Islamic Clerics. So what matters is what the Clerics and Military people say...

    So here are some examples

    commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television, “The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world”.

    The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.

    The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”

    So again...  ignoring Al Qaidi didn't protect the World Trade Center.. Ignoring Iran isn't going to protect thier future target.

    What do you propose to do about thier stated intentions?



  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    Sabot wrote:
    Remember in Iran unlike Iraq they do have elections.

    Yes, and if it becomes public that you didn't vote for the theocratic party, your live is virtually f*cked because your peers will hate you to no end.

  • User profile image
    pacelvi

    Tom Servo wrote:
    Sabot wrote: Remember in Iran unlike Iraq they do have elections.

    Yes, and if it becomes public that you didn't vote for the theocratic party, your live is virtually f*cked because your peers will hate you to no end.


    I'm not sure what he meant by Iraq not having elections.

    Anyway in the case of Iran, yes there are elections , however, who can run in those elections and what laws the parliament can pass are all up to the discretion of the UNELECTED Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians. All of whom are Islamic Clerics, so the scope of the "democracy" is within the bounds of Sharia as approved by the Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader (who is also the Commander in Chief of Iranian military).

    So.. what significance does Iran having elections have in terms of Iran being an international threat?

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    pacelvi wrote:

    The Gov't of Iran speaks for Iran ; therefore, I dont need to change anything in that sentence.  I'm well aware that the populace is generally fed up with the Islamic state and are somewhat not anti-American.  But so what. Iran is ruled by Islamic Clerics. So what matters is what the Clerics and Military people say...


    But it is the general population that will suffer and die as the result of a war.  This point may be moot, the US alone does not have the military capacity to undertake yet another war.  Are you willing to be drafted and killed thousands of miles from your family on a 'what if'?

    If you want to exercise your military might, why not somewhere useful like Sudan? Or how about waiting until the job is done in Iraq, in fact come to think of it how about waiting until the job is done in Afghanistan - remember there?

    pacelvi wrote:

    commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television, “The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world”.

    The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.

    The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”


    You know why the revolution took place in 79? You know all about the US sanctioned overthrow of an existing government to place a 'friend' in power? And his brutal intelligence gathering?

    I'd be interested for your sources for these quotes, if you wouldn't mind posting them? Just out of interest.

    I am not suggesting anyone is blameless (especially not the UK) but this problem is a lot older than you think it is - and it doesn't help when the CiC of the US forces uses the word crusade all too frequently.

    pacelvi wrote:
    So again...  ignoring Al Qaidi didn't protect the World Trade Center.. Ignoring Iran isn't going to protect thier future target.


    I never suggested ignoring Iran, I just don't think that being a playground bully trying to impose your own culture and morals on other kids is a sensible move - it breeds dissent and then all the other kids will eventually gang up on you. 

    pacelvi wrote:

    What do you propose to do about thier stated intentions?


    Because for the past 27 years they have been threatening (but not following up on) to destroy Western democracy? I'd be interested to here them publically discuss the issues that they have with western society to see if there is any common ground.  And I'd make sure that they got proper compensation over *their* oil.  But there is so much more to it than all of that, I don't think I have all (or in fact any) of the answers.

    I think maybe we should petition Charles for another political forum where we can debate this sort of stuff, it feels really out of place in the coffee house, but I do want to discuss it. 

  • User profile image
    pacelvi

    Rossj wrote:
    pacelvi wrote:
    The Gov't of Iran speaks for Iran ; therefore, I dont need to change anything in that sentence.  I'm well aware that the populace is generally fed up with the Islamic state and are somewhat not anti-American.  But so what. Iran is ruled by Islamic Clerics. So what matters is what the Clerics and Military people say...


    But it is the general population that will suffer and die as the result of a war.  This point may be moot, the US alone does not have the military capacity to undertake yet another war.  Are you willing to be drafted and killed thousands of miles from your family on a 'what if'?


    If you want to exercise your military might, why not somewhere useful like Sudan? Or how about waiting until the job is done in Iraq, in fact come to think of it how about waiting until the job is done in Afghanistan - remember there?


    I think I would have a heart attack if the oh-so-enlightened ones on the left would spent just 25% of thier Detecting-The-Evil-US-Motive energy into Detecting-The-Motive-Of-The-True enemy.

    In the course of this thread I have cleared up serveral of thier mistatements.. statements they used as premises for other conclusion and yet they continue on with the arguement as if nothing about thier foundations is different.

    No matter what is said or correct, they still come back with the same Anti-US statements but from yet another angle.

    Frankly, it's something I'm not going to bother to engage in.

    Rossj wrote:





    pacelvi wrote:
    commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television, “The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world”.

    The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.

    The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”


    You know why the revolution took place in 79? You know all about the US sanctioned overthrow of an existing government to place a 'friend' in power? And his brutal intelligence gathering?


    And here's more of the same behavior I described above.  I post these quite specific quotations from the leadership in Iran and yet you're going to tell me that , what, they dont know the motivations and agendas behind their own revolution.  That you do?  That their religious beliefs are not what they say they are and that (zzzzzz) it's really because of the US that the revolution happened and it has nothing to do with anything about the escathology of Islam?

    Wow..

    Of course this denial of reality in favor of find-the-angle-that-blames-the-US is something I can detect a mile away.


    Rossj wrote:


    I'd be interested for your sources for these quotes, if you wouldn't mind posting them? Just out of interest.


    I dont remember thier specific source. You can post the quotations into Google and find them.

    Rossj wrote:


    I am not suggesting anyone is blameless (especially not the UK) but this problem is a lot older than you think it is - and it doesn't help when the CiC of the US forces uses the word crusade all too frequently.



    I never said how "old" I thought the problem is.  So how you presume to know my thoughts about the backreach of this is something I'd like to know.

    You're the one casting everything through the prism of Anti-USism that would indicate you dont know how far back these things go.  They go back to the foundations of Islam.
    Rossj wrote:



    pacelvi wrote: So again...  ignoring Al Qaidi didn't protect the World Trade Center.. Ignoring Iran isn't going to protect thier future target.


    I never suggested ignoring Iran, I just don't think that being a playground bully trying to impose your own culture and morals on other kids is a sensible move - it breeds dissent and then all the other kids will eventually gang up on you. 



    Imposing "our" culture on Germany and Japan after WW-II has been a horrible failure. You're right.

    Of course your arguement has the advantage of not actually stating what YOU think a solution might be.  Just the flaws in someone else's.

    I dont feel quite motivated to pursuade you because frankly your goal here is to just keep knocking the US while not providing any solution yourself. 


    Rossj wrote:

    pacelvi wrote:
    What do you propose to do about thier stated intentions?


    Because for the past 27 years they have been threatening (but not following up on) to destroy Western democracy? I'd be interested to here them publically discuss the issues that they have with western society to see if there is any common ground.  And I'd make sure that they got proper compensation over *their* oil.  But there is so much more to it than all of that, I don't think I have all (or in fact any) of the answers.

    I think maybe we should petition Charles for another political forum where we can debate this sort of stuff, it feels really out of place in the coffee house, but I do want to discuss it. 


    Well I hope you get to the discussion in enough time before they are actively sawing your head off of your body while chanting Allah Akbar.

    Enjoy your dhmittitude.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.