Europe Resists U.S. Push to Curb Iran Ties

[cherokee]

Would there be an Iran or islamic fundamentalist threat today like there is now if not for the way the US and the UK reacted after 911, and Yes, I am thinking especially about Iraq.

Yes there would be!
The islamic crap started back in 1979 for the US.
You act like 9/11 was the first attack........Do you live in a cave?
These islamic retards wish only to see the world under islamic control what the SAM HELL DOES THAT TELL YOU!

 

[Gardener]

The fact that you still balk at going back on topic and continue with your absurd personal attacks here indicates that you're a troll who only wants to disturb this thread.

No, I am reacting TO the troll.

Once again, (and I say this not for you, but for honest people), the thread asked whether Europe should resist the U.S. push to curb Iran ties. The troll Moot has turned the thread into a bashfest against Israel and CONTINUES to do so through its intentional and patently dishonest twisting of the discussion to frame it in such a way as it just framed it. Further, it indulged in hate speech through its spurious and unsubstantiated libel.

I'm not balking at anything. The topic was NOT "Israel aggression", and just because you hateful antisemites want to turn the discussion into yet another exercise in politically correct hatred, the topic was about the U.S., Europe and Iran.

 

[cherokee]

Grow a foreign policy brain? :mrgreen:

Here we go again Its all about "foreign policy"...:roll:

When I hear someone saying that it translates into that person saying:

"I'm a lazy sob who wont work hard to build a better life so I join a violent religious group hell bent on controlling the world. My religion doesn’t believe people have the right to decide anything for themselves but that they must submit blindly. I blame all my personal failures on the Jewish and the US".

 

[Gardener]

I blame all my personal failures on the Jewish and the US".

And, of course, this is true for the haters living within the west as well. It's the projection of a form of self-loathing as far as I'm concerned.

 

[cherokee]

And, of course, this is true for the haters living within the west as well. It's the projection of a form of self-loathing as far as I'm concerned.

I agree...........

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

And, of course, this is true for the haters living within the west as well. It's the projection of a form of self-loathing as far as I'm concerned.

This to me is a highly accurate statement.

 

[Volker]

No, I am reacting TO the troll.

You are the only troll we have in this thread so far.

Once again, (and I say this not for you, but for honest people), the thread asked whether Europe should resist the U.S. push to curb Iran ties. The troll Moot has turned the thread into a bashfest against Israel and CONTINUES to do so through its intentional and patently dishonest twisting of the discussion to frame it in such a way as it just framed it. Further, it indulged in hate speech through its spurious and unsubstantiated libel.

No, you try to develop this Israel sub thread here, because it is your favorite topic.

I'm not balking at anything. The topic was NOT "Israel aggression", and just because you hateful antisemites want to turn the discussion into yet another exercise in politically correct hatred, the topic was about the U.S., Europe and Iran.

You very much balk on it, otherwise you would have written at least one sentence here which actually discusses the original topic. I wonder who this hateful anti-Semites should be who want to turn this thread into something else since almost everybody you are talking to here actually told you to go back on topic.

You obviously balk while saying "I'm not balking at anything", yes, tell me more about honesty here.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

Here we go again Its all about "foreign policy"...:roll:

When I hear someone saying that it translates into that person saying:

"I'm a lazy sob who wont work hard to build a better life so I join a violent religious group hell bent on controlling the world. My religion doesn’t believe people have the right to decide anything for themselves but that they must submit blindly. I blame all my personal failures on the Jewish and the US".

I think the lazy part of what you say is something a lot of people aren't grasping.

They are blaming everybody else for their failures. Totally true.

 

[cherokee]

I think the lazy part of what you say is something a lot of people aren't grasping.

They are blaming everybody else for their failures. Totally true.

Its like they want everything to be given to them.
They dont want to put the hard work in to build anything, to make a better life or to build a better country.

 

[Volker]

I blame all my personal failures on the Jewish and the US".

And, of course, this is true for the haters living within the west as well. It's the projection of a form of self-loathing as far as I'm concerned.

I agree...........

This to me is a highly accurate statement.

Newsflash, this is a thread about a topic, not a self-help group.

 

[EAGLE1]

But surely by sending troops to defend Iran as you surgest your defending its theocratic government and thus defending theocracy. I dont think a full scale war with Iran is the best way to deal with the situation at the moment but that doesnt mean that if i joined the brittish army ild want to fight to defend such an appaling regime. An invasion of Iran would doubtlessly end in a bloodbath but at the same time the world would be a safer place if it wherent for the mullahs. Is theocracy really worth defending?

The mullahs are happy to pledge there support to people that are trying to kill me for the crime of getting on a train while english. Of course its my buissness:roll:

No actually Im defending the Iranians who, even today would sooner have the mullahs running the place despite their misgivings than have the west coming their again to run the place.
In the end, unlike a communist regime, the Iranian Islamic council runs the place on religious authority, therefore are much more entrenched naturally in hearts of Iranians. The iranians and every shia in the ME will therefore make martyrs of themselves in the event of invasion.
Plus their is no chance of getting rid of the mullahs in the event of invasion, they'll have more legitimate authority than they ever have before.

Lastly, due to our historical record in persia we have no right to tell them we're going to impose democracy there. We didnt before when we put the Shah and you cant expect us to believe us this time either.

Im not sure the iranian mullahs ever supported the 7/7 bombers. Although being English should be a crime I suppose.

 

[EAGLE1]

This somehow raises the question if this conflict with Iran is communicated this way because it does have a function within the American politics.

These are fresh ideas :mrgreen:
However, if Iran actually want to have this weapon, for not Israel having it would not solve the problem. As long as the US has one and they are shipping around with like 50 warships in the Persian Gulf, the motivation for them to have such a weapon would be not removed.

:mrgreen:

Yes, having the big Iranian 'threat' is very useful in American politics to keep up the tempo of the war on terror. The more threats there are around the easier it is to get your way.

I suppose thats true. Having a mighty nuclear nuclear fleet off its coast is quite unsettling for Tehran, but having no land nation in the ME with nukes undermines their own argument for having an arsenal. I still think theyll want nuclear power of course. Its a matter of national pride now. To prove they can reach first world standards.

 

[Volker]

Yes, having the big Iranian 'threat' is very useful in American politics to keep up the tempo of the war on terror. The more threats there are around the easier it is to get your way.

They were running into problems after the end of the Cold War to explain why they need so much tax money for the military.

I suppose thats true. Having a mighty nuclear nuclear fleet off its coast is quite unsettling for Tehran, but having no land nation in the ME with nukes undermines their own argument for having an arsenal.

I have never heard them using such an argument so far.

I still think theyll want nuclear power of course. Its a matter of national pride now. To prove they can reach first world standards.

They have first world standards, maybe it's more about they do not like to hear, these things are ok for others, but not for you.

 

[EAGLE1]

This somehow raises the question if this conflict with Iran is communicated this way because it does have a function within the American politics.

These are fresh ideas :mrgreen:
However, if Iran actually want to have this weapon, for not Israel having it would not solve the problem. As long as the US has one and they are shipping around with like 50 warships in the Persian Gulf, the motivation for them to have such a weapon would be not removed.

:mrgreen:

Would there be an Iran or islamic fundamentalist threat today like there is now if not for the way the US and the UK reacted after 911, and Yes, I am thinking especially about Iraq.

No its goes a bit deeper than that. The sunni Islamic threat started after the first gulf war and just simply increased dramatically since the Iraq invasion. Due to the continued presence in the ME of Western forces.
The shia islamic threat began when we crushed their first attempts at democracy in the 50s thus leaving the way open for the mullahs, who were the only ones who could or would oppose the Shah. When the mullahs took power they feared a second Western intervention and took the US embassy in Tehran hostage to prevent such a thing. Since then they have supported Hizboallah in Lebanon because its a Shia movement that was determined to check Israeli expansionism and even today will fight to get the Shatila farms back. Oh and they didnt appreciate our helping Saddam to gas their troops.

 

[EAGLE1]

They were running into problems after the end of the Cold War to explain why they need so much tax money for the military.

I have never heard them using such an argument so far.

They have first world standards, maybe it's more about they do not like to hear, these things are ok for others, but not for you.

Yeah maybe. Its a real driver of their economy.

Actually neither have I so fair enough. Its just something Ive assumed because if I had the US breathing down my neck Id want a bomb or two.

Yes, they want to prove they can reach first world technical standards and they dont like the idea of being denied the right to develop their economy as they see fit. I wouldnt like it either. In fact no nation accepts it really. The US wouldnt give us the original bomb secrets even after they were our allies, so we stole it anyway. The Germans were denied the right to an army after WW1, so they planned and practiced away from prying eyes and ended up with the most powerful army the world had ever seen by the 30s.

 

[EAGLE1]

BTW sorry for the confused quoting.

 

[Volker]

No its goes a bit deeper than that. The sunni Islamic threat started after the first gulf war and just simply increased dramatically since the Iraq invasion. Due to the continued presence in the ME of Western forces.

You talk about the war with Kuwait being involved, I guess.

The shia islamic threat began when we crushed their first attempts at democracy in the 50s thus leaving the way open for the mullahs, who were the only ones who could or would oppose the Shah. When the mullahs took power they feared a second Western intervention and took the US embassy in Tehran hostage to prevent such a thing. Since then they have supported Hizboallah in Lebanon because its a Shia movement that was determined to check Israeli expansionism and even today will fight to get the Shatila farms back. Oh and they didnt appreciate our helping Saddam to gas their troops.

Well, these are the Shebaa farms.

 

[Red_Dave]

Would there be an Iran or islamic fundamentalist threat today like there is now if not for the way the US and the UK reacted after 911, and Yes, I am thinking especially about Iraq.

Thats exactly what ive been saying for the past 2 years. However this doesnt justify those you defend in killing inocent people . What did those who died in 7/7 have to do with the war in Iraq? Using your logic murdering Northern Irish catholics was ok because of there support for Sien Fein/I.R.A.

 

[Red_Dave]

No actually Im defending the Iranians who, even today would sooner have the mullahs running the place despite their misgivings than have the west coming their again to run the place.
In the end, unlike a communist regime, the Iranian Islamic council runs the place on religious authority, therefore are much more entrenched naturally in hearts of Iranians. The iranians and every shia in the ME will therefore make martyrs of themselves in the event of invasion.
Plus their is no chance of getting rid of the mullahs in the event of invasion, they'll have more legitimate authority than they ever have before.

Lastly, due to our historical record in persia we have no right to tell them we're going to impose democracy there. We didnt before when we put the Shah and you cant expect us to believe us this time either.

Im not sure the iranian mullahs ever supported the 7/7 bombers. Although being English should be a crime I suppose.

Im not argueing for an invasion. Im argueing we should not defend the government in the event of an invasion given the fact its so damageing the rest of the world. Like i say Iran arms hezzbolah and other extremist factions. Surely this amounts to support for islamic terroism?

As the artitcle i posted points out the current Iranian regime is both damageing to and unpopular with the iranian people. Bearing this in mind surely its more constructive back our fellow progressives then pledge our defence to the regime that opressing them? Surely it would be better to arm them then to arm libya and columbia as we currently are.

P.S Enough of the racial slurs thanks

 

[Volker]

Yes, they want to prove they can reach first world technical standards and they dont like the idea of being denied the right to develop their economy as they see fit. I wouldnt like it either. In fact no nation accepts it really. The US wouldnt give us the original bomb secrets even after they were our allies, so we stole it anyway. The Germans were denied the right to an army after WW1, so they planned and practiced away from prying eyes and ended up with the most powerful army the world had ever seen by the 30s.

Yes, the German military was limited by the peace contract conditions to 100,000 soldiers in the army, 4,000 officers and 15,000 seamen and officers in the Navy, no airplanes, no tanks, no submarines. There have been paramilitaric units from the beginning, the biggest of them had about 500,000 men in 1930.

 

[Volker]

BTW sorry for the confused quoting.

No problem :mrgreen:

 

[Volker]

Thats exactly what ive been saying for the past 2 years. However this doesnt justify those you defend in killing inocent people . What did those who died in 7/7 have to do with the war in Iraq? Using your logic murdering Northern Irish catholics was ok because of there support for Sien Fein/I.R.A.

He did not say it is justified or ok.

 

[Red_Dave]

He did not say it is justified or ok.

Only by proxy. He,s backing those who belive such policys are justified. Those who back hezzbolahs tendancy to kill jews for being jewish are of the same ilk as those who are in favor of killing brittish people for being brittish.

 

[Volker]

Only by proxy. He,s backing those who belive such policys are justified. Those who back hezzbolahs tendancy to kill jews for being jewish are of the same ilk as those who are in favor of killing brittish people for being brittish.

I can not find something there he backed those who believe such policies are justified.

The way I understood him, was, these bombings had a connection to the Iraq war. According to a Guardian poll two thirds of the Britons see things this way, only 28% said, there is no connections.

Two-thirds believe London bombings are linked to Iraq war | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

 

[Red_Dave]

I can not find something there he backed those who believe such policies are justified.

The way I understood him, was, these bombings had a connection to the Iraq war. According to a Guardian poll two thirds of Britons see this connection, only 28% said, there is none.

Two-thirds believe London bombings are linked to Iraq war | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

I assumed he was backing up the idea that we should defend Iran. Iran backs the policys i mentioned through its support of islamic terroism. I agree absolutely that theres a connection to the iraq war but this doesnt mean we should defend Iran.