Iran Test-Fires 9 Missiles to Show 'Might'

[billvon 3,006]

>Have we forgotten the millions of innocents that lost their lives under
>the regime we removed?

Nope. Have you forgotten the nearly 100,000 innocents who lost their lives under our occupation?

[Darius11 12]

We have media bias on both sides and they’re all full of shit. You forget I am not democrat or a republican. I don’t believe in organized religion or political affiliation. I want to make up my own mind on every issue

The one thing I am sure of is this. We right, left and middle live in this country and the sooner we get passed the since of camaraderie we feel to whatever group and start to actually do what’s right and constitutional that’s when we will succeed.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Or perhaps because highlighting what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan also highlights how US foreign policy has failed in the last seven and a half years (not that its ever been very good since WWII).

Before the US took a lead role in foreign policy for the world, there were frequent wars that killed tens of millions of people. Since then, none.

I'll take the Cold War and its proxy wars over WWI and II anytime.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Have we not forgotten the millions of innocents that lost their lives under the regime we removed?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Millions? Can you please provide credible sources to back that up?

It was Rush Limbaugh.

Let's just say it was many thousands (I'm shooting low here so not to disturb you) and all the mass graves have not been discovered yet. So, have you forgotten about those innocent lives?

Quote

I deliberately left out the smaller military conflicts we were involved in in the past century because they were not necessary to make my point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And also aren't consistent with it.

Care to expound on that. Perhaps listing the smaller military strikes that would make us out to be the great satan the left has painted us to be.

_________________________________________
Chris

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

>Have we forgotten the millions of innocents that lost their lives under
>the regime we removed?

Nope. Have you forgotten the nearly 100,000 innocents who lost their lives under our occupation?

Nope. Any innocent life lost is a tragedy. The difference is we are trying to reduce the loss of innocents while Saddam and Co. had no plan to stop.

_________________________________________
Chris

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

So all I need to do is to look at the past 10,20, fuck 50, a 100 you choose years and see who has spilled more inocent blood? Who has invaded more countries? And who has started more wars?

Darius,

Let's go back 100 years of U.S. history:

WW1 - US lured into war. Among other factors, the sinking of the Lucitannia comes to mind.

WW2 - US lured into war. Among other factors, the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Korea - Defending an ally from a communist aggressor.

Vietnam - Defending an ally from a communist aggressor.

Gulf War - Defending an ally from an invasion from an aggressor

Afghanistan - To remove the government that supported and aided the terrorist group that attacked us on our soil.

Iraq - First time we made the decision to invade. The reasons have been debated and still are. Some valid reasons for invasion and some not. Yes, innocent civilians lost their lives during this war. Have we forgotten the millions of innocents that lost their lives under the regime we removed?

I deliberately left out the smaller military conflicts we were involved in in the past century because they were not necessary to make my point.

And how many times has Iran made an unprovoked attack on another nation in the last 100 years?

Iran has become a powerhouse in the last few years thanks almost 100% to George W. Bush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Have we not forgotten the millions of innocents that lost their lives under the regime we removed?

Millions? Can you please provide credible sources to back that up?

He's correct. Just the the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War is estimated to have resulted in up to 1M deaths (covering both sides). Albeit, those were combatant deaths. As we know, accurate determinations of fatalities in conflict areas can be very difficult

Civilian deaths due to Hussayn's reign:

"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power."

So roughly 560K - 1M deaths.


It's a hard argument to make, however, when one looks to other conflicts, e.g., Bangladesh (1971, up to 1.5M civilians killed), Sudan (~1.9 M killed), D.R. Congo (1998-2005) ~3.5M excess deaths (per IRC), unless one wants to also make the argument that the US or western world is responsible for being the world's policeman over internal state conflicts &/or the the US military should be used for humanitarian reasons.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Their right to exist. Yes, your blindness for your homeland is grossly affecting your ability to view this rationally.

I can see why you would think that but lets not forget I am a child of the Iran and Iraq war where a million people were killed. Some friends and some family. I have had bombs drooped on my head by the Iraqi Air force. Yet you don’t see me rejoicing in the death of the very Iraqi people who invaded Iran. As a matter of fact I was against the war before it became fashionable.

Quote

Iran's leader has called for the obliteration of Israel, and have pursued an illegal nuclear weapons development program, and now is making a show with missile launches.

Threatening to use nuclear weapons is basically obliteration and we can follow up on that threat. Also considering what we have done in the past few years I would take are threat a lot more seriously then Iran. Specially considering Iran has not invaded another country in how long?
So have we

Quote

The fact that Israel has UN resolutions against is has no bearing on the violations by Iran wrt nuclear development.

A poster before you was attempting to use that as reasoning off course I am used to people changing there reasoning and what they consider fact to fit there view

Quote

Iran is giving Israel every reason to launch a massive strike, and giving Bush more than sufficient reasons to open yet another front in his last few months.

Have we given any reason for Iran to be nervous considering they are surrounded by US forces and not to mention the US naval forces have historically been in the PERSION GULF notice it’s not the Florida keys.
How would we react if we were surrounded by the Iranian or any other foreign force that constantly threatened us?

Its good to have realistic expectations one way is to threat others as we wish to be treated.
Why do we expect others to so patient with out actions when we show none?

Sorry to over use this word but hypocrisy is the best description for that way of thinking.

Quote

It's a very odd ploy - this sort of action works best for the bully, not for the one who will get his ass kicked. It makes me wonder if they are misunderstanding their situation, just like Hussein did in 2002. That didn't end well for him, or his country

Considering Iran has not invaded any small country I believe they have full right to defend them selves.
The US has the strongest military in the world but I wouldn't assume that a war with Iran would be no problem.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And how many times has Iran made an unprovoked attack on another nation in the last 100 years?

If you live in Tel Aviv, are you going to wait to be #1?

[billvon 3,006]

>The difference is we are trying to reduce the loss of innocents . . .

While we do indeed do what we can to minimize the loss of innocent lives, no planner (military or civilian) is fool enough to think that there will be no loss of innocent lives. We made a decision, and we knew that decision would lead to thousands of lost innocent lives. We did so for a political reason - to remove Saddam Hussein from power and install a more US-friendly government. Thus we are responsible for those deaths.

Was it worth nearly 100,000 dead Iraqis (and over 4000 dead US troops) to achieve what Iraq is now - a tottering democracy rife with sectarian violence, one that wants us gone, and one that is contributing to instability in the region? Because that's the tradeoff we made. We traded in tragedy, and we got far less than we bargained for.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Have we not forgotten the millions of innocents that lost their lives under the regime we removed?

Millions? Can you please provide credible sources to back that up?

He's correct. Just the the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War is estimated to have resulted in up to 1M deaths (covering both sides). Albeit, those were combatant deaths. As we know, accurate determinations of fatalities in conflict areas can be very difficult

Civilian deaths due to Hussayn's reign:

"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power."

So roughly 560K - 1M deaths.


It's a hard argument to make, however, when one looks to other conflicts, e.g., Bangladesh (1971, up to 1.5M civilians killed), Sudan (~1.9 M killed), D.R. Congo (1998-2005) ~3.5M excess deaths (per IRC), unless one wants to also make the argument that the US or western world is responsible for being the world's policeman over internal state conflicts &/or the the US military should be used for humanitarian reasons.

VR/Marg

Sadam was a bad man yes, but did you know who was supporting him all those years?

It’s crazy how most people have such short memories.

This is trying to find arguments to make us feel better as long as we don’t remember passed 10 years.


I remember the same thing was said about the Talabon and how they treated woman and how horrible they were. all true they are horrible but my point is this. We didn’t give a fuck about how woman were treated by them we supported them when we were putting guns in their hands now that its convenient for us we focus on it.


Lets not forget we went in to Iraq not because Saddam was a bad guy we have plenty of those but because of WMD including nuclear and the Imminent threat that Iraq imposed.

All the other crap is food for the sheep so they can feel good about sending our youth to die and killing people who were no threat to us at all.

If you have to travel 140000000 miles to pick a fight usually you’re the ass hole not the guy sitting in his home minding his own business.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Before the US took a lead role in foreign policy for the world, there were frequent wars that killed tens of millions of people. Since then, none.

Is that the only independent variable?

One argument is that democracies very rarely go to war with each other.

Another is the observation, made by other folks than me (e.g., Tom Barnett, Martin van Creveld, Bill Lind), that once states obtain nuclear
weapons, large scale warfare between them ends.

There hasn't been an Arab-Israel war, that is between Israel and Arab state armies, since 1973 or an India-Pakistan War since 1971, or a USSR-NATO war ever. (Acknowledging the Iran's proxy Hizb'allah in Lebanon has approached conventional levels of warfighting, with both sides using precision-guided munitions.)

So is it the nature of the states or the having nuclear weapons that is the independent variable?

(Nota bene: While I'm confident [kelpdiver] will understand the nature of the question posed, just in case anyone else is less certain, see this thread for my #1 goal of US foreign policy toward Iran: preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.)

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Hey Bill what the heck do you think Rush is talking about?

Easy to figure out.... just go to the Lush Rimjob Show and to the EIB website......an you will know what they are thinking on any given week.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

And how many times has Iran made an unprovoked attack on another nation in the last 100 years?

Zero via conventional warfare since 1979.
One could argue that Iran had been ahead of the curve in moving beyond conventional warfare to employing proxy non-state actors.

Quote

Iran has become a powerhouse in the last few years thanks almost 100% to George W. Bush.

Largely true. Unintended consequences & balance of power. One can argue that as a reason, however, why the US "must" remain and insure a stable, strong Iraq -- as a counterweight to Iran in the Middle East.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Have we given any reason for Iran to be nervous considering they are surrounded by US forces and not to mention the US naval forces have historically been in the PERSION GULF notice it’s not the Florida keys.

And at no time have we crossed the Iranian border. We're in Afghanistan and Iraq for a reason whether you agree with that reason or not. Hell, we have respected the Pakistani border despite knowing Al Qa'eda is set up in their northwest territory and despite them crossing into Afghanistan. We're trying to work with Musharraf, much to our dismay, to take care of this problem.

When the President of Iran continuously makes threats to obliterate Israel, do you expect Israel to stand idly by and wait to be obliterated?

Oh wait, Iran has not invaded another country. The Iranian president must just be blowing smoke out of his ass.

Let's not forget his call for the destruction of the U.S.. However, in this case Israel is in more imminent danger.

_________________________________________
Chris

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Considering Iran has not invaded any small country I believe they have full right to defend them selves.

Nah they just let Hezbollah do all their dirty work for them

[rwieder 0]

Do not vote for a dem, or a republican. There is a Write In Place For A Candidate If You Would Like To Vote For Anyone Besides Who's Running. Write My Name In That Slot, I'll Make All Of This Go Away So Fast You'll Never Know we Were In A Bind.

Quote

Don't Ask Why, "Just Do It!"

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Sadam was a bad man yes, but did you know who was supporting him all those years?

It’s crazy how most people have such short memories.

I remember the same thing was said about the Talabon and how they treated woman and how horrible they were. all true they are horrible but my point is this. We didn’t give a fuck about how woman were treated by them we supported them when we were putting guns in their hands now that its convenient for us we focus on it.

I'd be willing to wager the majority of folks here do recognize which side the US backed during the Iran-Iraq war.

How others interpret history I am less confident to speculate. To me, it's demonstrating (again) the truth of Clausewitz's famous apothegm: "War is merely a continuation of politics."

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Was it worth nearly 100,000 dead Iraqis (and over 4000 dead US troops) to achieve what Iraq is now - a tottering democracy rife with sectarian violence, one that wants us gone, and one that is contributing to instability in the region? Because that's the tradeoff we made. We traded in tragedy, and we got far less than we bargained for.

A very pessimistic view of what will become of Iraq. That is expected from your political POV. The truth is that history will tell whether those brave men and women and the innocent civilians who made the ultimate sacrifice will bring about a sound democracy free from fear and oppression from their own government.

_________________________________________
Chris

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

You're right they're not doing it. The reason: The economy makes Obama seem stronger while foreign policy makes McCain look stronger. Hmmm.......

Not sure that I understand that one. McCain has repeatedly had problems specifically remembering who we're fighting. He's been busted repeatedly on blatant misstatements (some would argue that "lie" was a better word) regarding the level of security in Iraq. He is viewed as a hawkish continuation of a very unpopular Bush foreign policy. And, as of yesterday, his policy with regard to withdrawal from Iraq is in direct opposition to the wishes of the Iraqi government.
The fact that he served in the military doesn't trump those negatives.

[billvon 3,006]

>A very pessimistic view of what will become of Iraq.

It's what's happening right now. Will it become a strong, stable democracy? Perhaps, perhaps not. But again, we placed that bet not just with our own money, but primarily with the lives of nearly 100,000 innocent Iraqis.

And personally, if we are going to be placing such huge bets, and we're using our money and lives, that's one thing. But we don't have the right to bet with other's lives. I'd be willing to bet that the millions of Iraqis who have lost loved ones would rather have them back than have this new tottering government.

Ask yourself whether or not you would welcome such an invasion if it meant the lives of people you loved.

> The truth is that history will tell whether those brave men and women
> and the innocent civilians who made the ultimate sacrifice will bring about
> a sound democracy free from fear and oppression from their own
> government.

Yep. We tried the same thing in Vietnam. That didn't turn out so well.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So is it the nature of the states or the having nuclear weapons that is the independent variable?

No doubt - I was giving a flippant answer to a flippant question. Given the role and power that the US had over the past 60 years, I think the record is fairly positive from a historical perspective. In the bipolar Cold War, detente was far more humane than most options.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Hey Bill what the heck do you think Rush is talking about?

Easy to figure out.... just go to the Lush Rimjob Show and to the EIB website......an you will know what they are thinking on any given week.

You know, "Facts".

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Iran's leader has called for the obliteration of Israel, and have pursued an illegal nuclear weapons development program, and now is making a show with missile launches.

Threatening to use nuclear weapons is basically obliteration and we can follow up on that threat. Also considering what we have done in the past few years I would take are threat a lot more seriously then Iran. Specially considering Iran has not invaded another country in how long?

You meant the US, but when I read that "we can follow up on the threat," I hear Iranian nationalism in my mind.

Quote

Quote

The fact that Israel has UN resolutions against is has no bearing on the violations by Iran wrt nuclear development.

A poster before you was attempting to use that as reasoning off course I am used to people changing there reasoning and what they consider fact to fit there view

That poster merely challenged the bullshit claim that Iran was legally/properly pursuing a nuclear energy program. It's clearly false. And anything Israel has done has no bearing on that determination.

Quote

Sorry to over use this word but hypocrisy is the best description for that way of thinking.

This isn't the schoolyard with the teacher (god) looking on. The powerful can get away with a double standard. The meek cannot.

If Iran merely pursued a nuclear program for self defense, just like North Korea has done, it would be bad for US interests, but so be it. But Iran is hardly an innocent, and if Israel decides to take them out, good for them. Iran is the one causes the problem here. They're not defending themselves, they're threatening others.

Of course, all this shit might just be in reaction to the $10 drop in oil prices the last week.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

When the President of Iran continuously makes threats to obliterate Israel, do you expect Israel to stand idly by and wait to be obliterated?

And when the president of the united states continuously says iran is a global threat and currently sitting on top of the "axis of evil", what do you expect iran to do? We launch preemptive attacks for our own protection. Why would you expect them to be any different?