PDA

View Full Version : Iran May be the Greatest Crisis of Modern Times


BUBI
Apr 18th, 2007, 07:27 PM
Iran May be the Greatest Crisis of Modern Times

by John Pilger

The Israeli journalist Amira Hass describes the moment her mother, Hannah, was marched from a cattle train to the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen. "They were sick and some were dying," she says. "Then my mother saw these German women looking at the prisoners, just looking. This image became very formative in my upbringing, this despicable ‘looking from the side'."

It is time we in Britain and other Western countries stopped looking from the side. We are being led towards perhaps the most serious crisis in modern history as the Bush-Cheney-Blair "long war" edges closer to Iran for no reason other than that nation's independence from rapacious America. The safe delivery of the 15 British sailors into the hands of Rupert Murdoch and his rivals (with tales of their "ordeal" almost certainly authored by the Ministry of Defense – until it got the wind up) is both a farce and a distraction. The Bush administration, in secret connivance with Blair, has spent four years preparing for "Operation Iranian Freedom." Forty-five cruise missiles are primed to strike. According to Russia's leading strategic thinker General Leonid Ivashov: "Nuclear facilities will be secondary targets... at least 20 such facilities need to be destroyed. Combat nuclear weapons may be used. This will result in the radioactive contamination of all the Iranian territory, and beyond."

[B]One million Iraqis fill the streets of Najaf demanding that Bush and Blair get out of their homeland – that is the real news: not our nabbed sailor-spies, nor the political danse macabre of the pretenders to Blair's Duce delusions. Whether it is treasurer Gordon Brown, the paymaster of the Iraq bloodbath, or John Reid, who sent British troops to pointless deaths in Afghanistan, or any of the others who sat through cabinet meetings knowing that Blair and his acolytes were lying through their teeth, only mutual distrust separates them now. They knew about Blair's plotting with Bush. They knew about the fake 45-minute "warning." They knew about the fitting up of Iran as the next "enemy."

Declared Brown to the Daily Mail: "The days of Britain having to apologize for its colonial history are over. We should celebrate much of our past rather than apologize for it.":help: In Late Victorian Holocausts, the historian Mike Davis documents that as many as 21 million Indians died unnecessarily in famines criminally imposed by British colonial policies. Moreover, since the formal demise of that glorious imperium, declassified files make it clear that British governments have borne "significant responsibility" for the direct or indirect deaths of between 8.6 million and 13.5 million people throughout the world from military interventions and at the hands of regimes strongly supported by Britain. The historian Mark Curtis calls these victims "unpeople." Rejoice! said Margaret Thatcher. Celebrate! says Brown. Spot the difference.

Brown is no different from Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and the other warmongering Democrats he admires and who support an unprovoked attack on Iran and the subjugation of the Middle East to "our interests" – and Israel's, of course. Nothing has changed since the US and Britain destroyed Iran's democratic government in 1953 and installed Reza Shah Pahlavi, whose regime had "the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture" that was "beyond belief" (Amnesty).

Look behind the one-way moral screen and you will distinguish the Blairite elite by its loathing of the humane principles that mark a real democracy. They used to be discreet about this, but no more. Two examples spring to mind. In 2004, Blair used the secretive "royal prerogative" to overturn a high court judgment that had restored the very principle of human rights set out in Magna Carta to the people of the Chagos Islands, a British colony in the Indian Ocean. There was no debate. As ruthless as any dictator, Blair dealt his coup de grâce with the lawless expulsion of the islanders from their homeland, now a US military base, from which Bush has bombed Iraq and Afghanistan and will bomb Iran.

In the second example, only the degree of suffering is different. Last October, the Lancet published research by Johns Hopkins University in the US and al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad which calculated that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a direct result of the Anglo-American invasion. Downing Street officials derided the study as "flawed." They were lying. They knew that the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defense, Sir Roy Anderson, had backed the survey, describing its methods as "robust" and "close to best practice," and other government officials had secretly approved the "tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones." The figure for Iraqi deaths is now estimated at close to a million – carnage equivalent to that caused by the Anglo-American economic siege of Iraq in the 1990s, which produced the deaths of half a million infants under the age of five, verified by Unicef. That, too, was dismissed contemptuously by Blair.

"This Labour government, which includes Gordon Brown as much as it does Tony Blair," wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, "is party to a war crime of monstrous proportions. Yet our political consensus prevents any judicial or civil society response. Britain is paralyzed by its own indifference."

Such is the scale of the crime and of our "looking from the side." According to the Observer of 8 April, the voters' "damning verdict" on the Blair regime is expressed by a majority who have "lost faith" in their government. No surprise there. Polls have long shown a widespread revulsion to Blair, demonstrated at the last general election, which produced the second lowest turnout since the franchise. No mention was made of the Observer's own contribution to this national loss of faith. Once celebrated as a bastion of liberalism that stood against Anthony Eden's lawless attack on Egypt in 1956, the new right-wing, lifestyle Observer enthusiastically backed Blair's lawless attack on Iraq, having helped lay the ground with major articles falsely linking Iraq with the 9/11 attacks – claims now regarded even by the Pentagon as fake.

As hysteria is again fabricated, for Iraq, read Iran. According to the former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the Bush cabal decided to attack Iraq on "day one" of Bush's administration, long before 11 September 2001. The main reason was oil. O'Neill was shown a Pentagon document entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which outlined the carve-up of Iraq's oil wealth among the major Anglo-American companies. Under a law written by US and British officials, the Iraqi puppet regime is about to hand over the extraction of the largest concentration of oil on earth to Anglo-American companies.

Nothing like this piracy has happened before in the modern Middle East, where OPEC has ensured that oil business is conducted between states. Across the Shatt al-Arab waterway is another prize: Iran's vast oilfields. Just as nonexistent weapons of mass destruction or facile concerns for democracy had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, so nonexistent nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the coming American onslaught on Iran. Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations. The International Atomic Energy Agency has never cited Iran for diverting its civilian program to military use. For the past three years, IAEA inspectors have said they have been allowed to "go anywhere." The recent UN Security Council sanctions against Iran are the result of Washington's bribery.

Until recently, the British were unaware that their government was one of the world's most consistent abusers of human rights and backers of state terrorism. Few Britons knew that the Muslim Brotherhood, the forerunner of al-Qaeda, was sponsored by British intelligence as a means of systematically destroying secular Arab nationalism, or that MI6 recruited young British Muslims in the 1980s as part of a $4bn Anglo-American-backed jihad against the Soviet Union known as "Operation Cyclone." In 2001, few Britons knew that 3,000 innocent Afghan civilians were bombed to death as revenge for the attacks of 11 September. No Afghans brought down the twin towers. Thanks to Bush and Blair, awareness in Britain and all over the world has risen as never before. When homegrown terrorists struck London in July 2005, few doubted that the attack on Iraq had provoked the atrocity and that the bombs which killed 52 Londoners were, in effect, Blair's bombs.

In my experience, most people do not indulge the absurdity and cruelty of the "rules" of rampant power. They do not contort their morality and intellect to comply with double standards and the notion of approved evil, of worthy and unworthy victims. They would, if they knew, grieve for all the lives, families, careers, hopes and dreams destroyed by Blair and Bush. The sure evidence is the British public's wholehearted response to the 2004 tsunami, shaming that of the government.

Certainly, they would agree wholeheartedly with Robert H. Jackson, chief of counsel for the United States at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders at the end of the Second World War. "Crimes are crimes," he said, "whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

As with Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld, who dare not travel to certain countries for fear of being prosecuted as war criminals, Blair as a private citizen may no longer be untouchable. On 20 March, Baltasar Garzón, the tenacious Spanish judge who pursued Augusto Pinochet, called for indictments against those responsible for "one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history" – Iraq. Five days later, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, to which Britain is a signatory, said that Blair could one day face war-crimes charges.

These are critical changes in the way the sane world thinks – again, thanks to the Reich of Blair and Bush. However, we live in the most dangerous of times. On 6 April, Blair accused "elements of the Iranian regime" of "backing, financing, arming and supporting terrorism in Iraq." He offered no evidence, and the Ministry of Defense has none. This is the same Goebbels-like refrain with which he and his coterie, Gordon Brown included, brought an epic bloodletting to Iraq. How long will the rest of us continue looking from the side?


http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=10812

Sam L
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:22 AM
It's time that we stop looking from the side when Islamic radicalism threatens to tear ourselves apart with terrorism and other hate messages.

Sam L
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:35 AM
if america doing anything to iran than that is the final straw for me

Why? Are you Iranian? Do you have relatives that are Iranian? Is the Iranian government trading with your government? Is Iran giving your country's people's jobs? :rolleyes:

aussie12
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:37 AM
no but why invade a country when there is absolutely no need to. isnt iraq a big enough lesson

Sam L
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:44 AM
no but why invade a country when there is absolutely no need to. isnt iraq a big enough lesson

Because they are a threat to global security and it's not just America that's recognized this. And there's no need for an invasion, we could just bomb them.

aussie12
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:50 AM
someone has been watching fox news too much. why doesnt america bomb china, india heck why not bomb every country that isnt america :rolleyes:. i dont know why america thinks they are the world police.

CCCP1
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:03 AM
Because they are a threat to global security and it's not just America that's recognized this. And there's no need for an invasion, we could just bomb them.

Israel is a threat to global security why haven't the US invaded them :confused: What they do to the Palestinian people is truely mind boggling and disturbing

CCCP1
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:03 AM
someone has been watching fox news too much. why doesnt america bomb china, india heck why not bomb every country that isnt america :rolleyes:. i dont know why america thinks they are the world police.


Agreed :)

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:44 AM
It's time that we stop looking from the side when Islamic radicalism threatens to tear ourselves apart with terrorism and other hate messages.

And bomb a country that has nothing to do with it? It's Al Qaida you're talking about, it's a sunni muslim organization and is an enemy of Iran.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:48 AM
Alas... the Double Standard that my country has is unnacceptable... the hegemony will consume the world, unless we change things from the inside out...

Thanks to stupid Republicans and Democrats.. it won't be happening soon...

Philbo
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:36 AM
I think that article is being over dramatic. I think the USA/UK/Australia and the rest of the Coalition have used up whatever public support there may have been for invading Iran with the Iraq debacle.

We no longer trust our governments to only go to war under dire circumstances where no other option is available. George Bush, Donald Rumself, Paul Wolfowitz etc ensured that, supported by Tony Blair and John Howard etc..

We were told there were WMD's (there wasnt), we were told there was a link between Iraq and Al Queda (there wasnt) then we were expected to just be ok with the fact that it was all about bringing democracy to Iraq..

How do they expect us to believe that Iran has Nuclear weapons based on their 'intelligence'? They've used up their mandate.

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:55 AM
I think that article is being over dramatic. I think the USA/UK/Australia and the rest of the Coalition have used up whatever public support there may have been for invading Iran with the Iraq debacle.

We no longer trust our governments to only go to war under dire circumstances where no other option is available. George Bush, Donald Rumself, Paul Wolfowitz etc ensured that, supported by Tony Blair and John Howard etc..

We were told there were WMD's (there wasnt), we were told there was a link between Iraq and Al Queda (there wasnt) then we were expected to just be ok with the fact that it was all about bringing democracy to Iraq..

How do they expect us to believe that Iran has Nuclear weapons based on their 'intelligence'? They've used up their mandate.
I hope you're right but they have already created a unit in Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Directorate) to make a case of bombing of Iran. Just like they did with Iraq. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans)

MistyGrey
Apr 19th, 2007, 07:00 AM
Why? Are you Iranian? Do you have relatives that are Iranian? Is the Iranian government trading with your government? Is Iran giving your country's people's jobs? :rolleyes:

Load of crap! So one cant care about another country's rights if one doesnt have relatives/material profits attached to that country! You're worse than these so called Islamic threats!

V.Melb
Apr 19th, 2007, 08:33 AM
Sam L. - what u said is discusting, just bomb them?

I have worked with many Iranians enterning into Australia to study and eventually live.... They are wonderful people, freindly and kind... to kill so many innocent people just to destroy certain branches of islamic extremists is ridiculous. Persian people are good people. Extremist Muslims are not... see the difference.

Apoleb
Apr 19th, 2007, 08:46 AM
Sam L. - what u said is discusting, just bomb them?

I have worked with many Iranians enterning into Australia to study and eventually live.... They are wonderful people, freindly and kind... to kill so many innocent people just to destroy certain branches of islamic extremists is ridiculous. Persian people are good people. Extremist Muslims are not... see the difference.

Quite repulsive, no? He once suggested that 'we should destroy their cities and infrastracture and wreck their economy.' I just wish that Sam_L and the likes can someday be under the mercy of people who'll say "just bomb them."

ronim1
Apr 19th, 2007, 09:02 AM
As in many cases, one has to separate the people in the leadership with the ordinary ones. IMO most people want peace.
Wanting to eliminate a whole country, like Iranian leaders have many times declared concerning Israel , is not something you can ignore. Especially not if you might gain access to atomic bombs.

Europe tried to ignore Hitler's thread, and look what he brought to the world.

Bombing the whole nation is of course in my opinion not a solution.

A united world sanctioning the Iranian leaders, not people, should be IMO the way for a solution.

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 09:13 AM
As in many cases, one has to separate the people in the leadership with the ordinary ones. IMO most people want peace.
Wanting to eliminate a whole country, like Iranian leaders have many times declared concerning Israel , is not something you can ignore. Especially not if you might gain access to atomic bombs.

Europe tried to ignore Hitler's thread, and look what he brought to the world.

Bombing the whole nation is of course in my opinion not a solution.

A united world sanctioning the Iranian leaders, not people, should be IMO the way for a solution.

Iranian leaders don't want to eliminate Israel! That is just propaganda. The whole quote "Israel must be wiped off the map" is a lie. Ahmadinejad never said that. The real quote (taken out of context) was "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Iran just opposes the occupation of Palestinian lands and there is nothing wrong with that.

ronim1
Apr 19th, 2007, 11:49 AM
Iranian leaders don't want to eliminate Israel! That is just propaganda. The whole quote "Israel must be wiped off the map" is a lie. Ahmadinejad never said that. The real quote (taken out of context) was "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Iran just opposes the occupation of Palestinian lands and there is nothing wrong with that.

I really didn't mean to get into a political argument. Everybody is entitled to his opinion.
"Propaganda"- that's what the English said about Hitler's threats prior
to 1939 Poland's invasion.
Either way, I don't think you would like the idea that your neighbor has second thoughts about your legitimacy to exist.

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:11 PM
I really didn't mean to get into a political argument. Everybody is entitled to his opinion.
"Propaganda"- that's what the English said about Hitler's threats prior
to 1939 Poland's invasion.
Either way, I don't think you would like the idea that your neighbor has second thoughts about your legitimacy to exist.
Diplomatic relations work both ways. Iran can't recognize Israel unless Israel recognizes Iran. Iran offered peace in 2003 but they were turned down. It's clear that Bush administration doesn't want peace between Israel and Iran.

Lord Nelson
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:16 PM
someone has been watching fox news too much. why doesnt america bomb china, india heck why not bomb every country that isnt america :rolleyes:. i dont know why america thinks they are the world police.
Because Australia does not think it is the leader in its area? It is competing with Indonesia as the master of Oceanic sea.

ronim1
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:17 PM
Diplomatic relations work both ways. Iran can't recognize Israel unless Israel recognizes Iran. Iran offered peace in 2003 but they were turned down. It's clear that Bush administration doesn't want peace between Israel and Iran.

The problem with Iran started well before this American administration. Khomenie's regime stopped diplomatical relation with Israel, not Bush.

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:20 PM
The problem with Iran started well before this American administration. Khomenie's regime stopped diplomatical relation with Israel, not Bush.

Khomeini or Khamenei? What are you talking about :confused: And why do you think Iran's peace offer was rejected?

ronim1
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:24 PM
Khomeini or Khamenei? What are you talking about :confused: And why do you think Iran's peace offer was rejected?

I was referring to Khomeinie ( hope the spelling is OK ), after the Shah's fall.

Lord Nelson
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:34 PM
The problem with Iran started well before this American administration. Khomenie's regime stopped diplomatical relation with Israel, not Bush.

Iran offered peace in 2003? :lol:
I doubt that the supreme leader or revolutioanrry guards would have allowed this to happen. Remember it is they who hold the real power and not the Iranian President.

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 12:47 PM
Iran offered peace in 2003? :lol:
I doubt that the supreme leader or revolutioanrry guards would have allowed this to happen. Remember it is they who hold the real power and not the Iranian President.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17049526/site/newsweek/

Lord Nelson
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:01 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17049526/site/newsweek/

Yes thank you, I knew about that. Like I was saying it is khamenei and the revolutionary guards who hold the keys to the throne and not the President of Iran. In addition, I doubt that Mahmood was any serious. He was just rambling like that college student of Virginia Tech, Cho. You really think that Iran wants to make peace with U.S.? I highly doubt it.

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:07 PM
Yes thank you, I knew about that. Like I was saying it is khamenei and the revolutionary guards who hold the keys to the throne and not the President of Iran. In addition, I doubt that Mahmood was any serious. He was just rambling like that college student of Virginia Tech, Cho. You really think that Iran wants to make peace with U.S.? I highly doubt it.
Ahmadinejad wasn't the president in 2003. And of course they want peace, their army can't beat the US army in a war.

mykarma
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:50 PM
Because they are a threat to global security and it's not just America that's recognized this. And there's no need for an invasion, we could just bomb them.
:eek::tape:

Apoleb
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:53 PM
I really didn't mean to get into a political argument. Everybody is entitled to his opinion.
"Propaganda"- that's what the English said about Hitler's threats prior
to 1939 Poland's invasion.
Either way, I don't think you would like the idea that your neighbor has second thoughts about your legitimacy to exist.

I'm no fan of those religious wackos in the Iranian regime, but I think Ahmedinajad's words were misinterpreted in the West. He didn't mean to suggest that he wants to genocide Israelis, or even ethnic cleanse them, but that he wants to destroy Israel as a political entitity. There's a big difference.

mykarma
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:56 PM
As in many cases, one has to separate the people in the leadership with the ordinary ones. IMO most people want peace.
Wanting to eliminate a whole country, like Iranian leaders have many times declared concerning Israel , is not something you can ignore. Especially not if you might gain access to atomic bombs.

Europe tried to ignore Hitler's thread, and look what he brought to the world.

Bombing the whole nation is of course in my opinion not a solution.

A united world sanctioning the Iranian leaders, not people, should be IMO the way for a solution.
When the US, Israel, and England get rid of their nuclear weapons then we can talk about someone else building them. I really don't blame Iran for trying to protect themselves, it's only a matter of time before the US or Israel attacks them.

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 01:59 PM
I'm no fan of those religious wackos in the Iranian regime, but I think Ahmedinajad's words were misinterpreted in the West. He didn't mean to suggest that he wants to genocide Israelis, or even ethnic cleanse them, but that he wants to destroy Israel as a political entitity. There's a big difference.

No, not to destroy, nothing suggests that Iran is going to do anything about it. Here is what their supreme leader has said:

We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.

Apoleb
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:03 PM
No, not to destroy, nothing suggests that Iran is going to do anything about it. Here is what their supreme leader has said:

We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.

Yeah, that's true, but they advocate a Palestinian state that include Jews and Palestinians, so that's pretty much like they want Israel, as a Jewish majority state, gone. And notice "native Palestinians" so they don't want the Jews who came as settlers to participate in the referendum. Ofcourse that has nothing to do with genocide or ethnic cleansing, that's merely a political position. It was just one of those instances where the Holocaust was politicized again, unfortunately.

ronim1
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:04 PM
I'm no fan of those religious wackos in the Iranian regime, but I think Ahmedinajad's words were misinterpreted in the West. He didn't mean to suggest that he wants to genocide Israelis, or even ethnic cleanse them, but that he wants to destroy Israel as a political entitity. There's a big difference.

Hello neighbor.
1) I agree with you about any kind of " religious wackos"
2) How do you " destroy Israel as a political entitity"? Ask us nicely???

Apoleb
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:07 PM
Hello neighbor.
1) I agree with you about any kind of " religious wackos"
2) How do you " destroy Israel as a political entitity"? Ask us nicely???

You simply advocate that an Israeli state shouldn't exist, and that Jews should be part of a larger Palestinian state that includes Palestinians and Jews. It's the binational solution, nothing new. :shrug:

ronim1
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:10 PM
When the US, Israel, and England get rid of their nuclear weapons then we can talk about someone else building them. I really don't blame Iran for trying to protect themselves, it's only a matter of time before the US or Israel attacks them.

Why should a country, which is as small as a large sized city in the world should get rid of the only real deterrence it possesses? As long as Israel is not in peace with all it's neighbors, this would be suicide.
One nuke on Israel, and it's just gone.
I don't see any similarity here with the USA or England.

ronim1
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:12 PM
You simply advocate that an Israeli state shouldn't exist, and that Jews should be part of a larger Palestinian state that includes Palestinians and Jews. It's the binational solution, nothing new. :shrug:

History shows that there is no "binational solution" in the long run. Lebanon is a good example of this.

Apoleb
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:16 PM
History shows that there is no "binational solution" in the long run. Lebanon is a good example of this.

There are many binational states out there, like Belgium. Canada can also go as binational, since Quebec was declated a nation within Canada. Lebanon was never a bi or a multinational state. Anyway, this isn't really about the validity of that solution, it's just that it isn't what it was interpreted in the West. Hysteria run through the media, comparing Ahmedinajad to Hitler, and that he wants to genocide Jews wherever he finds them. It created idiots like Lovefifteen (a poster on this board) who thinks every single Muslim out there wants to spill the blood of Jews. People just didn't bother to do their own research before getting brainwashed.

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:19 PM
Why should a country, which is as small as a large sized city in the world should get rid of the only real deterrence it possesses? As long as Israel is not in peace with all it's neighbors, this would be suicide.
One nuke on Israel, and it's just gone.
I don't see any similarity here with the USA or England.

I have nothing against Israel having nuclear weapons as long as they don't use them. Actually I think it's a good strategy. But how come Iran is such a threat? Don't you trust the nuclear deterrence? Israel has about 200 nuclear weapons, Iran may have the technology to build their first one in 3-5 years...but there is no proof that such a weapons program even exists.

ptkten
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:20 PM
Well, I lost any respect for the author of the article when he said that John Edwards was a war-mongerer :tape:

Um, last I checked John Edwards is supporting the full withdrawal of troops form Iraq and from the entire Middle East region except for a very small force on some U.S. bases and has said repeatedly he would not use force against Iran.

The author is an idiot and is just trying to stir up fear of the U.S. and Israel just like the right-wing nuts do on the other side for Islamic countries.

mykarma
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:20 PM
Why should a country, which is as small as a large sized city in the world should get rid of the only real deterrence it possesses? As long as Israel is not in peace with all it's neighbors, this would be suicide.
One nuke on Israel, and it's just gone.
I don't see any similarity here with the USA or England.
That's my point, Iran also has the right to protect themselves.

TennisGuy21
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:24 PM
Hey everyone, I am American, and I completely understand all of the anger towards my country. I agree with you all on SO many levels about what our nation is doing over there. I dont think we should be heading towards Iran. I just wanted to assure everyone that America is trying to stop it. Well half of us. I personally dont know ANYONE who thinks we should be over there. Obviously there are people who do.. ( my uncle probably being one of them but that is a different story :help: ) Just an update- Our government has changed alot due to what the people want recently. I dont think any of us want to be looked at as Bullies, I personally LOVE the rest of the world, and want to travel, and I love how tennis incorperates everyone. We have a new Democratic congress and a New House that both are putting forward bill's to the president to have funding for the war stopped and the troups withdrawn from Iraq. There are alot of people here who want it to stop just as bad, and alot of people who think what is going on is horrible. Our president (Bush) has the lowest approval ratings of almost any president.. he is in the low LOW LOW 30's. Its really crazy because all of Hollywood ( thats where are celebs are.. =P ) are really becoming activist against the war, and everyone you speak with is against it.. but somehow Bush was re elected.. I wish I could explain it better, but even I am confused! All I can say really, is that its not the whole country that is pushing for this, it is the wealthy and it is easier for them to vote over here. The approval ratings over here for the war are at an all time low, and our congress is REALLY fighting Bush right now on pulling out.

Again- I totally see why you guys have had enough with "America" But I ASSURE you the majority of US people agree with you! =( I appoligize for us- but what is one person's apology worth? =(

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:24 PM
Well, I lost any respect for the author of the article when he said that John Edwards was a war-mongerer :tape:

Um, last I checked John Edwards is supporting the full withdrawal of troops form Iraq and from the entire Middle East region except for a very small force on some U.S. bases and has said repeatedly he would not use force against Iran.

The author is an idiot and is just trying to stir up fear of the U.S. and Israel just like the right-wing nuts do on the other side for Islamic countries.
I don't know about Edwards but he was right about Clinton. (Both of them)

ronim1
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:25 PM
There are many binational states out there, like Belgium. Canada can also go as binational, since Quebec was declated a nation within Canada. Lebanon was never a bi or a multinational state. Anyway, this isn't really about the validity of that solution, it's just that it isn't what it was interpreted in the West. Hysteria run through the media, comparing Ahmedinajad to Hitler, and that he wants to genocide Jews wherever he finds them. It created idiots like Lovefifteen (a poster on this board) who thinks every single Muslim out there wants to spill the blood of Jews. People just didn't bother to do their own research before getting brainwashed.

I think Belgium or Switzerland are the exception. They share the same religion, so it's not the same.
Look at the Balkans.
Ahmedinajad holding a holocaust denial convention a few weeks doesn't give him much credit either.

As long as we talk, it's OK.
It's the threatening and killing we need to stop.

Anyway, I have to leave.
Bye
:wavey:

ptkten
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:28 PM
I don't know about Edwards but he was right about Clinton. (Both of them)

Well, I don't think Bill's too much of a war-mongerer, he showed some restraint after the embassy bombings, most people in the U.S. wanted us to retaliate more forcefully.

I am a little worried about Hillary though, I think she's worried that because she's a woman she'll be perceived as weak on national security so you may have a point with her.

Sam L
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:30 PM
That's my point, Iran also has the right to protect themselves.

Yes, except they're not building those nukes to protect themselves. Do you know that the Iranian president denies the Holocaust? :rolleyes:

BUBI
Apr 19th, 2007, 02:33 PM
Yes, except they're not building those nukes to protect themselves. Do you know that the Iranian president denies the Holocaust? :rolleyes:
Does he? Judge yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY

aussie12
Apr 19th, 2007, 11:47 PM
Because Australia does not think it is the leader in its area? It is competing with Indonesia as the master of Oceanic sea.

we only go into the pacific nations because the people of those countries ask us to. there is a difference. should we not help out the fijian and solomon islands when there is a military coup. and we are not battling to become the master of oceania. we already are :p . no but seriously we are working to get closer to many of our asian neighbours.

Apoleb
Apr 20th, 2007, 12:50 AM
I think Belgium or Switzerland are the exception. They share the same religion, so it's not the same.
Look at the Balkans.
Ahmedinajad holding a holocaust denial convention a few weeks doesn't give him much credit either.

As long as we talk, it's OK.
It's the threatening and killing we need to stop.

Anyway, I have to leave.
Bye
:wavey:

Well I think the point is that a bi-national state as a solution shouldn't be completely rejected because it failed elsewhere. It can work and it has worked before. And I disagree about Switzerland. Religion was an improtant factor when the country was first formed from all those confedericies. To be realistic however, I don't see it ever happening, because ofcourse the crushing majority of Israelis will never accept to share a state with Palestinians. But if you ask me, the conflict will end up with some kind a loose confederacy, because there has to be cooperation on a lot of levels for Palestinians to successfully have a state on the West Bank and Gaza.

Anyway,we were discussing the intentions of Ahmedinajad. I agree that the whole Holocaust questionning thing is pathetic. He didn't deny it, but he asked for an investigation about it, but yeah, I do think it's very insulting to Jews and plain stupid. But I still don't think that this is evidence he wants to genocide Jews like it has been suggested by a lot of people. I mean, he makes it very clear that he doesn't see expelling the Jews as a solution.

CCCP1
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:17 AM
When it comes down to it Israel has nuclear weopons, America has nuclear weopons, why should Iran not have nuclear weopons.

Plus the US has actually used these weopons several times, so why should it still have them??

Sam L
Apr 20th, 2007, 01:52 AM
When it comes down to it Israel has nuclear weopons, America has nuclear weopons, why should Iran not have nuclear weopons.

Plus the US has actually used these weopons several times, so why should it still have them??

You mean against Japan? Please read up on what Japan was doing in Asia before you speak. :rolleyes:

mykarma
Apr 20th, 2007, 02:18 AM
Yes, except they're not building those nukes to protect themselves. Do you know that the Iranian president denies the Holocaust? :rolleyes:
How do you know that? Whether he believes in the Holocaust are not is his personal opinion but he can't be any worse than you talking about bombing Iran.

Volcana
Apr 20th, 2007, 03:04 AM
Because they are a threat to global security...The United States is a much greater threat to global security than Iran, at least measured by actual attacks on others, and actual people killed.

Iran certainly is an impediment to American dominance of the Middle East.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 20th, 2007, 03:19 AM
The United States is a much greater threat to global security than Iran, at least measured by actual attacks on others, and actual people killed.

Iran certainly is an impediment to American dominance of the Middle East.

Everyone with Nuclear power can become as equally as a threat as the US would be...

It is a very touchy subject...

CCCP1
Apr 20th, 2007, 04:01 AM
You mean against Japan? Please read up on what Japan was doing in Asia before you speak. :rolleyes:

So the Americans had the right to deploy nuclear weapons on a civilian population due to the actions of Japan's government. The ramifications of these weapons are still being felt in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which has the highest rates of cancers in Asia besides North Vietnam, where again America used nuclear weapons agianst a civillian population. :confused: :tape:

lakeway11
Apr 20th, 2007, 04:29 AM
The United States is a much greater threat to global security than Iran, at least measured by actual attacks on others, and actual people killed.

Iran certainly is an impediment to American dominance of the Middle East.


yeah, as long as the crazed neocons are in control or the scum who love to bomb innocents (Belgrade)

CCCP1
Apr 20th, 2007, 04:51 AM
yeah, as long as the crazed neocons are in control or the scum who love to bomb innocents (Belgrade)

Agreed

MistyGrey
Apr 20th, 2007, 06:25 AM
Why should a country, which is as small as a large sized city in the world should get rid of the only real deterrence it possesses? As long as Israel is not in peace with all it's neighbors, this would be suicide.
One nuke on Israel, and it's just gone.
I don't see any similarity here with the USA or England.

So its OK for Isreal to have nuclear weapons to protect itself, but not for Iran or anyother Muslim country? OK good, got your point.


Hypocracy :rolleyes:

ronim1
Apr 20th, 2007, 04:21 PM
So its OK for Isreal to have nuclear weapons to protect itself, but not for Iran or anyother Muslim country? OK good, got your point.


Hypocracy :rolleyes:


Wouldn't the world be better off with no wars!!!

But as long as we are not in such a world, countries- every country -
have the right to self defense.

Picture this- one nuke on Israel- the whole country is destroyed.
Many on Iran, maybe millions of dead people, but the country will keep on to exist.

I don't remember Israel threaten Iran's existence in any way.Even bombing Iran's atomic plants is no threat to the states existence.
The Iranian President had some saying about Israel's existence.
:fiery: :fiery:

El Nino
Apr 20th, 2007, 05:49 PM
Yes, he said that Israel ...ups ... the occupation regime of Palestina should be wipped of the m ... ups ... should be finished.

Incredible to see that such small country (Israel) has the bomb and that they can influence US and EU policy. I'm sure they were elected by someone to be the Holy State. I don't know who or even why, but if someone can explain me how some people can believe and understand this, it would be very useful. Very strange to see that people feel above some international laws. :rolleyes:

Lord Nelson
Apr 20th, 2007, 06:55 PM
So its OK for Isreal to have nuclear weapons to protect itself, but not for Iran or anyother Muslim country? OK good, got your point.


Hypocracy :rolleyes:
Pakistan has nuclear weapons don't forget. I for my part don't care if Iran has it or not. Iran is a friend of India.

ronim1
Apr 20th, 2007, 09:09 PM
Pakistan has nuclear weapons don't forget. I for my part don't care if Iran has it or not. Iran is a friend of India.

What about countries who are not "friends if Iran?" Should they be afraid?

Lord Nelson
Apr 20th, 2007, 10:58 PM
What about countries who are not "friends if Iran?" Should they be afraid?

I am pro-Israeli my friend. Unfortunately for you there is no stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. But I feel that sunni arab nations would be more of threat to Iran then Israel. Iran really wants to be the superpower of the region. It has a far greater population than any other nation in region and being nuclear will give it more influence......When Pakistan got the bomb many Indians thought that they would use it against us. That was not the case and it won't be so with Iran which is one of few shiite nations in the world. Unlike Pakistan I don't see it giving it out to sunni nations, even shiite terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

ronim1
Apr 21st, 2007, 06:55 AM
I am pro-Israeli my friend. Unfortunately for you there is no stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. But I feel that sunni arab nations would be more of threat to Iran then Israel. Iran really wants to be the superpower of the region. It has a far greater population than any other nation in region and being nuclear will give it more influence......When Pakistan got the bomb many Indians thought that they would use it against us. That was not the case and it won't be so with Iran which is one of few shiite nations in the world. Unlike Pakistan I don't see it giving it out to sunni nations, even shiite terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

I share with you the bereave that it quite impossible to stop Iran from getting the bomb- Thanks to Russia and Europe countries which all they think about is their trade income.

It's hard to compare rational countries like Pakistan or India with a state like Iran- suinni or shiite.

BUBI
Apr 21st, 2007, 07:02 AM
I share with you the bereave that it quite impossible to stop Iran from getting the bomb- Thanks to Russia and Europe countries which all they think about is their trade income.

It's hard to compare rational countries like Pakistan or India with a state like Iran- suinni or shiite.

Rational countries like Pakistan? :lol: Pakistan is much more unstable than Iran and actually supports terrorism. And they get billions of aid from USA :help:

BUBI
Apr 21st, 2007, 07:23 AM
Unfortunately for you there is no stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

I don't think such nuclear weapons program exists. So far CIA/IAEA have found no sign of it. If Bush wants his war he has to provoke Iran to attack first, then he doesn't need approval from congress :rolleyes:

ronim1
Apr 21st, 2007, 07:29 AM
Rational countries like Pakistan? :lol: Pakistan is much more unstable than Iran and actually supports terrorism. And they get billions of aid from USA :help:

You mean to say that Iran doesn't support terror?
Number two in Hizbullah just said a few days ago that for any military action against Israel they have to get an approval form their religious leaders-e.g Iran.
Iran is providing the with weapons for years now.

BUBI
Apr 21st, 2007, 07:35 AM
You mean to say that Iran doesn't support terror?
Number two in Hizbullah just said a few days ago that for any military action against Israel they have to get an approval form their religious leaders-e.g Iran.
Iran is providing the with weapons for years now.
So does Russia and Syria too. Hizbullah is not a terrorist organisation, they don't support bombings against civilians.

ronim1
Apr 21st, 2007, 11:16 AM
So does Russia and Syria too. Hizbullah is not a terrorist organisation, they don't support bombings against civilians.

The bombing with katiusha rockets on Israeli cities wasn't not aimed at civilians
last summer, or at at the city of Qiriat Shmone since June 2000 ( and also before the Israeli withdrael from Lebanon?)

But we are getting off the topic here.

BUBI
Apr 21st, 2007, 12:04 PM
In a war terrorism is a tactic. I don't think Hizbullah uses this tactic more often than Israel does. Considering what kind of rockets Hizbullah had, I think they hit military targets with quite good percentage.

CCCP1
Apr 21st, 2007, 01:08 PM
The bombing with katiusha rockets on Israeli cities wasn't not aimed at civilians
last summer, or at at the city of Qiriat Shmone since June 2000 ( and also before the Israeli withdrael from Lebanon?)

But we are getting off the topic here.

And the bombing of half of beirut was justified :p :mad: and the airport of beirut? Imagine if Iran did that to isreal what would happen :angel:

ronim1
Apr 21st, 2007, 01:46 PM
And the bombing of half of beirut was justified :p :mad: and the airport of beirut? Imagine if Iran did that to isreal what would happen :angel:

I didnt't talk about justification. Only targeting civilians or not.

ronim1
Apr 21st, 2007, 01:48 PM
In a war terrorism is a tactic. I don't think Hizbullah uses this tactic more often than Israel does. Considering what kind of rockets Hizbullah had, I think they hit military targets with quite good percentage.

I think after 10.000 or so launches , a few hit also military targets.
:eek:

BUBI
Apr 21st, 2007, 02:59 PM
I think after 10.000 or so launches , a few hit also military targets.
:eek:
Surely they could have killed more than 43 civilians if that's what they tried? Israel killed 1187

MistyGrey
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:09 PM
Rational countries like Pakistan? :lol: Pakistan is much more unstable than Iran and actually supports terrorism. And they get billions of aid from USA :help:

Whatever is going on in Pakistan was started by the USA. Most of the 'terrorist camps' were started with American backing, because the Americans wanted to use them in the cold war against USSR. When the cold war ended, rather than making sure the military training camps were taken care of, the Americans just backed off. Thats probably the reason why the Americans dont havent yet targetted Pakistan. Because the started the whole thing in the late 70's and early 80's.

Sam L
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:11 PM
Surely they could have killed more than 43 civilians if that's what they tried?

No, their weapons aren't good enough.

MistyGrey
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:22 PM
Its funny, when you say Isreal's nuclear weapons are justified coz its a small state, and it needs them for defense. Same can be said about Iran. I remember when Pakistan tested its nuclear weapons, everybody thought a nuclear war would ensue. Instead, it created more of a balance between India and Pakistan. The Indian prime minister was making highly aggressive statements, and after Pakistan had 'come out' that kinda shut him up .The Indians started talking about having a peaceful relationship between the 2. India had tested its nuclear weapons a few weeks earlier and the Indian government was claiming to have a stronger defense than Pakistani and wanted an upper hand in talks with the Pakistanis. Its almost 10 years now, both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and the relationship between the two has never been better!

If one nation is going to develop nuclear weapons, its only fair others develop it too. However scary it may sound. If one nations can have weapons to ensure its safety, why make a fuss when another wants to do the same.
I loved this quote from cold mountain
"They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'Shit, it's raining"

MistyGrey
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:24 PM
No, their weapons aren't good enough.

the terrorists killed 43 civillians, the targetted side killed more than 1100. pretty lousy terrorists! :lol:

Isreal was the terrorist there. Not hard to do simple maths.

MistyGrey
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:26 PM
No, their weapons aren't good enough.

Trust me , they could've killed more civillians even with those lousy ass weapons if they wanted to.

BUBI
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:35 PM
Trust me , they could've killed more civillians even with those lousy ass weapons if they wanted to.
And weren't those weapons one reason that was used for the invasion? Hizbullah had to be "disarmed" because Iran had supposedly supplied them some longer range missiles :shrug: Some say that the whole war was orchestrated by Bush administration so they could point a finger on Iran.

Sam L
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:39 PM
Its funny, when you say Isreal's nuclear weapons are justified coz its a small state, and it needs them for defense.

It's because when Israel became a sovereign state, it was declared war upon by virtually on the states surrounding it. It needs to defend itself.

Iran doesn't face that threat.

Anyway, I'd laugh if Iran gets into a conflict with another Islamic country and hopefully uses those nuclear weapons on it. Then we'll see who still wants Iran to have weapons just like the US. :rolleyes:

BUBI
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:52 PM
It's because when Israel became a sovereign state, it was declared war upon by virtually on the states surrounding it. It needs to defend itself.

Iran doesn't face that threat.

Anyway, I'd laugh if Iran gets into a conflict with another Islamic country and hopefully uses those nuclear weapons on it. Then we'll see who still wants Iran to have weapons just like the US. :rolleyes:

They don't??? Bush just has ALL options on the table :tape:

mykarma
Apr 21st, 2007, 04:21 PM
It's because when Israel became a sovereign state, it was declared war upon by virtually on the states surrounding it. It needs to defend itself.

Iran doesn't face that threat.

Anyway, I'd laugh if Iran gets into a conflict with another Islamic country and hopefully uses those nuclear weapons on it. Then we'll see who still wants Iran to have weapons just like the US. :rolleyes:
Do you think b4 you speak? :tape: What would be funny for any country to use nuclear weapons on any country? People are people no matter what country they're from.

Apoleb
Apr 21st, 2007, 06:18 PM
Do you think b4 you speak? :tape:What would be funny for any country to use nuclear weapons on any country? People are people no matter what country they're from.

Muslims are NOT people.

ronim1
Apr 21st, 2007, 06:31 PM
Surely they could have killed more than 43 civilians if that's what they tried? Israel killed 1187

They tried!

Lord Nelson
Apr 21st, 2007, 07:01 PM
Its funny, when you say Isreal's nuclear weapons are justified coz its a small state, and it needs them for defense. Same can be said about Iran. I remember when Pakistan tested its nuclear weapons, everybody thought a nuclear war would ensue. Instead, it created more of a balance between India and Pakistan. The Indian prime minister was making highly aggressive statements, and after Pakistan had 'come out' that kinda shut him up .The Indians started talking about having a peaceful relationship between the 2. India had tested its nuclear weapons a few weeks earlier and the Indian government was claiming to have a stronger defense than Pakistani and wanted an upper hand in talks with the Pakistanis. Its almost 10 years now, both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and the relationship between the two has never been better!

If one nation is going to develop nuclear weapons, its only fair others develop it too. However scary it may sound. If one nations can have weapons to ensure its safety, why make a fuss when another wants to do the same.
I loved this quote from cold mountain
"They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'Shit, it's raining"
Relationship has been stable between India and Pakistan because Pakistan is ruled by the military which provides stability unluke the unstable and wholly inadequate civilian governments of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Muscharaf can be criticized all he wants to but under him Pakistan's economy is booming and nation is stable. Sure, Bin Laden and extremists are lurking in the country but those who have power is the military which remains secular.

Having said that Pakistans could have done a better job stopping nuclear scientists giving info on how to bulit nuclear weapons to other muslim nations.

By the way, what you said is not quite correct. Pakistan really had the nuclear weapon in late 80s-early 90s and when Pakistan attacked India in Kargil in late 90s which resulted in a war it already had nuclear weapons. Yes having nukes can make a nation think in defense terms and not attack mode but that is not always the case. Nation needs to have stable regime, democratically elected or otherwise.

Anyway here is a brief synoposis on Kargil war.
'The area shot into the spotlight in spring of 1999, when under a covert plan hatched by the then Army Chief Pervez Musharraf, armed infiltrators from Pakistan, aided by the Pakistani army, occupied vacant high posts belonging to India in the Kargil and Drass regions. The result was a limited scale conflict (Kargil War) between both nuclear equipped nations that ended with India regaining the Kargil region through military power and diplomatic pressure'.

Lord Nelson
Apr 21st, 2007, 07:13 PM
Whatever is going on in Pakistan was started by the USA. Most of the 'terrorist camps' were started with American backing, because the Americans wanted to use them in the cold war against USSR. When the cold war ended, rather than making sure the military training camps were taken care of, the Americans just backed off. Thats probably the reason why the Americans dont havent yet targetted Pakistan. Because the started the whole thing in the late 70's and early 80's.
I could not believe what I read here. The Pakistan terrorist camps and you can remove the quatation marks here, were not started by Americans. What rubbish are you saying? The madrassas and terrorist camps are financed either by Pakistan or by arab nations. Why would U.S. finance an ideology that is anti-non-Muslim and preaches hatred?

Perhaps you were talking about Afghan mujahedins who were financed by CIA during Afghan war. Yes, that happened indeed. CIA would give money and weapons to Paistan wjhich would give them to the mujahedin. That was a serious mistake but then again USSR was foolish to have invaded Afghanistan. I understand why they did that for fear of fundemetalism spreading in central Asian USSR states. But what they did had opposite effect.

U.S. does not target Pakistan because it is a friendly nation. The country is a land of contrasts. Government remains secular but fundemtalism is a real threat. India is more threatened by this then U.S. It would be crazy for U.S. to attack a friendly nation. You sure don't understand geo-politics too much but since I have no idea if you are teen or younger and if so you are excused.

BUBI
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:15 AM
Iranian TV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A12iqKP19jE

MistyGrey
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:06 PM
Relationship has been stable between India and Pakistan because Pakistan is ruled by the military which provides stability unluke the unstable and wholly inadequate civilian governments of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Muscharaf can be criticized all he wants to but under him Pakistan's economy is booming and nation is stable. Sure, Bin Laden and extremists are lurking in the country but those who have power is the military which remains secular.

Having said that Pakistans could have done a better job stopping nuclear scientists giving info on how to bulit nuclear weapons to other muslim nations.

By the way, what you said is not quite correct. Pakistan really had the nuclear weapon in late 80s-early 90s and when Pakistan attacked India in Kargil in late 90s which resulted in a war it already had nuclear weapons. Yes having nukes can make a nation think in defense terms and not attack mode but that is not always the case. Nation needs to have stable regime, democratically elected or otherwise.

Anyway here is a brief synoposis on Kargil war.
'The area shot into the spotlight in spring of 1999, when under a covert plan hatched by the then Army Chief Pervez Musharraf, armed infiltrators from Pakistan, aided by the Pakistani army, occupied vacant high posts belonging to India in the Kargil and Drass regions. The result was a limited scale conflict (Kargil War) between both nuclear equipped nations that ended with India regaining the Kargil region through military power and diplomatic pressure'.


I know what went on in Kargil. India did reclaim the region, but only after the Pakistani army had a fall out with the government. The then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, apperently didnt approve of Musharraf's plan of occupying Kargil.Sharif wanted the army to surrender the occupied region. That was the begining of the Sharif-Musharraf rift, which eventually resulted in the coup of 99. Musharraf was convinced Pakistan would've continued to occupy Kargil if it hadn't been for the Nawaz Sharif government. Ofcourse, there are other versions of the story, but the Indians claimed victory coz they reclaimed the region and the Pakistanis claimed they were successful because the damage done to the Indian army was far greater than the other way around.

Musharruf and the military is not solely responsible for the India-Pakistan friendship. It all started in 1999 during Nawaz Sharif's government, with the bus service and what not. After the military coup, India's main concern was that the mastermind behind Kargil was now leading their arch rival! But thats not my point. What I meant was in early 98, both India and Pakistan were on the verge of another war, which was averted by the knowledge on both sides that the enemy has nuclear weapons. I can dig up quotes from Vajpai and his ministers before and after the Pakistani nuclear tests if u want me to!
Kargil was not a full fledge war. Pakistan didnot accept that the army was helping the nfiltrators even until the whole fued was near its end.

MistyGrey
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:20 PM
I could not believe what I read here. The Pakistan terrorist camps and you can remove the quatation marks here, were not started by Americans. What rubbish are you saying? The madrassas and terrorist camps are financed either by Pakistan or by arab nations. Why would U.S. finance an ideology that is anti-non-Muslim and preaches hatred?


Yea, because the US government is the biggest preachers of peace, right? :lol: you're naive!
I have lived in both India and Pakistan, and have actually studied the religious sentiments in both the countries. The madrassas boomed when pakistan was ruled by the dictator Gen. Zia, one of America's biggest allies during the cold war. In the madrassas that existed before Zia, the main emphasis was on the study of Quran. The military training was started by the madrassas during the cold war. It was believed that the USSR wanted to occupy the port of Karachi, after it had gained the control over the Afghan territory. Do you know that about 40% of the Afghan mujahideen that died in the war were infact from Pakistan. Ofcourse nothing has been proved, but it is common knowledge among most observers that the Americans and the Zia regime used the madrassas to prepare an army of civillians to be used in the war against USSR. Anybody who has been to India and Pakistan knows that one thing the people of these countries hold very dear is religion. The madrassas and the Maulanas over emphasized the importance of Jihad. The whole thing could not have developed without the knowledge of the government, and it is generally believed that CIA was the mastermind.

Lord Nelson
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:44 PM
I know what went on in Kargil. India did reclaim the region, but only after the Pakistani army had a fall out with the government. The then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, apperently didnt approve of Musharraf's plan of occupying Kargil.Sharif wanted the army to surrender the occupied region. That was the begining of the Sharif-Musharraf rift, which eventually resulted in the coup of 99. Musharraf was convinced Pakistan would've continued to occupy Kargil if it hadn't been for the Nawaz Sharif government. Ofcourse, there are other versions of the story, but the Indians claimed victory coz they reclaimed the region and the Pakistanis claimed they were successful because the damage done to the Indian army was far greater than the other way around.

Musharraf and the military is not solely responsible for the India-Pakistan friendship. It all started in 1999 during Nawaz Sharif's government, with the bus service and what not. After the military coup, India's main concern was that the mastermind behind Kargil was now leading their arch rival! But thats not my point. What I meant was in early 98, both India and Pakistan were on the verge of another war, which was averted by the knowledge on both sides that the enemy has nuclear weapons. I can dig up quotes from Vajpai and his ministers before and after the Pakistani nuclear tests if u want me to!
Kargil was not a full fledge war. Pakistan did not accept that the army was helping the nfiltrators even until the whole fued was near its end.
Sorry to say this but Nawaz's Sharif's credibility is close to 0. He says that he was not aware of Muscharaf's plans to attack India. If you lived in India you would know that not many people believe him. Both he and Bhutto were horrible leaders. Muscharraf is better then them.

When 1000s of people die on both sides due to a conflict it is a war. So what happens in Iraq is not a war? ;)

India won all of the wars it fought with Pakistan. They lost Bangladesh which means that it was a victory for us and they wanted to have Kargil and lost that too. Pakistan won nothing and everytime they lose a war with us their government falls. :lol:

Lord Nelson
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:55 PM
Yea, because the US government is the biggest preachers of peace, right? :lol: you're naive!
I have lived in both India and Pakistan, and have actually studied the religious sentiments in both the countries. The madrassas boomed when pakistan was ruled by the dictator Gen. Zia, one of America's biggest allies during the cold war. In the madrassas that existed before Zia, the main emphasis was on the study of Quran. The military training was started by the madrassas during the cold war. It was believed that the USSR wanted to occupy the port of Karachi, after it had gained the control over the Afghan territory. Do you know that about 40% of the Afghan mujahideen that died in the war were infact from Pakistan. Ofcourse nothing has been proved, but it is common knowledge among most observers that the Americans and the Zia regime used the madrassas to prepare an army of civillians to be used in the war against USSR. Anybody who has been to India and Pakistan knows that one thing the people of these countries hold very dear is religion. The madrassas and the Maulanas over emphasized the importance of Jihad. The whole thing could not have developed without the knowledge of the government, and it is generally believed that CIA was the mastermind.
Yes you dos eem to have losts of knowledge on the subcontinent. Zia was the worst leader that Pakistan had. Muscharraf is no way like him. Army should remain secular. I am aware that Pakistan heavily funded Mujahedin and that many of them came from Paksitan. Taliban was a Pakistan product. Pkaistan should realize that they can never win a war against us. We are not foolish. We know that of we give Kashmir to Paksitan then they would want more. Look at what happened when Russia got out of Chechnya during the first Chechen war in the 90s. Basayev thought that they coul beat Russia and started to atatck Dagestan. In Somalia, The Islamists thought that they could defeat Ethiopians. There is a trend there.

CIA was not the mastermind. The Mujahedin were already getting lots of aid from Pakistan ad other muslim nations. CIA then worked with the Pakistan secret services to give weapons and money to Mujahedin groups like that of Massoud and especially the notorious Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

MistyGrey
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:22 PM
Sorry to say this but Nawaz's Sharif's credibility is close to 0. He says that he was not aware of Muscharaf's plans to attack India. If you lived in India you would know that not many people believe him. Both he and Bhutto were horrible leaders. Muscharraf is better then them.

When 1000s of people die on both sides due to a conflict it is a war. So what happens in Iraq is not a war? ;)

India won all of the wars it fought with Pakistan. They lost Bangladesh which means that it was a victory for us and they wanted to have Kargil and lost that too. Pakistan won nothing and everytime they lose a war with us their government falls. :lol:
Using that logic, they actually won the 65 war against you. ;) Indians wanted Lahore, didnt get it! same with the 47 war, neither side got the Kashmir they wanted! With the exception of the 71 war, which was a clear Indian victory, all other wars were pretty close with both sides claiming to be victorious. Its debatable who won what, but in both the 65 and Kargil wars, the damage done to the Indian side was greater than the that of the Pakistani side. So dont act like the typical crowd that exists on both sides of the border, believing whatever their government feeds them. One thing I have to say, that the talent in both India and Pakistan is tremendous, in every walk of life! People are a little difficult to understand, but with proper guidance they are very hard working as well. Take away the animosity between these two countires, reduce the defense budgets and you'll see a much better economy on both sides of the border.

Anyways, this is not an India Pakistan thread. I dont have anything further to contribute to this thread.

Lord Nelson
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:56 PM
India never wanted to have Lahore unless you are talking about 1947 with the split of India. We won 1965, 1971 and Kargil wars. But you are right about 1947 war on Kashmir. Pakistan took parts of the state. But we got the good parts and they can keep what they took from us. That war was a stalemate but we did not lose any wars. Oh China who took a piece of Kashmir from us can keep it. I rather have parts of Kashmir be in Chinese hands then in Pakistani hands. At least they don't fund god-fearing extremists.

I agree on your last sentence-1st paragraph and I agree with you on your last paragraph-last sentence too. :wavey: