Iran 'to release British sailors'

[Karmashock]

I'm not talking about organizations who sided with Iran, I talk about Arab organizations which were active in Afghanistan for instance.

On that point then you're just wrong. There are several terror organizations that were active in both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to 9/11 and most of them operated with some support from saddam.


You have to understand that terrorism is generally accepted as morally acceptable by most of the middle east... at least by their governments. As a result they're commonly used as "cat's paws" by most of the regimes there.

I don't even think, the coalition follows a plan to strengthen security in this region, but maybe it's just because I don't know about such a plan.

that's unacceptable. That is literally the Bush doctrine. How can you claim to have a knowledgeable opinion about the war when you don't know anything about it?

It has changed a lot during the time Ronald Reagan was president, it changed a lot after 911, this is what I'm talking about.

It changes practically under every single president. It changed under Carter, it changed under Nixon, it changed under Clinton, It changed under U.S. Grant... It changed under Eisenhower.


SO I don't really see what "you're talking about". Each president has their own view on foreign policy which they enact. You can't hold Bush responsible for what was don in the 70's anymore then you can hold bush accountable for Clinton. What's more I think people like to refer to times that long ago because the memory of what was really going on has faded.


The Sha of Iran whatever he might have been was a better ruler of that country then the current regime. Was he what I would prefer there? Absolutely not. However, under him they might have transitioned to a constitutional monarchy which is what England has... Under the current regime they have no hope of attaining freedom without a revolution or an invasion.


However, the overriding problem with this area is not that htey're nasty to their own people but that they cause problems in other countries. If they kept to themselves I wouldn't mind leaving them alone forever... literally until the end of time... the sun would explode before I'd care.


But they do interfere with other countries... they spread chaos, terrorism, tyranny, and destruction. As such they are our problem... and htey have to be dealt with.

 

[Volker]

On that point then you're just wrong. There are several terror organizations that were active in both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to 9/11 and most of them operated with some support from saddam.

These organizations I am talking about were hostile to the Iraqi government, actually one of these organizations proposed to the Saudi government to go to war against Iraq in the early nineties. The leaders of this organization attacked the US later.

that's unacceptable. That is literally the Bush doctrine. How can you claim to have a knowledgeable opinion about the war when you don't know anything about it?

I don't think, it is a good idea to talk with you much longer, I will stop after this post, I don't like your way of debating or however you call it.

It changes practically under every single president. It changed under Carter, it changed under Nixon, it changed under Clinton, It changed under U.S. Grant... It changed under Eisenhower.

Sure it changes under presidents, but not necessarly with the election of new presidents.

SO I don't really see what "you're talking about". Each president has their own view on foreign policy which they enact. You can't hold Bush responsible for what was don in the 70's anymore then you can hold bush accountable for Clinton. What's more I think people like to refer to times that long ago because the memory of what was really going on has faded.

I don't hold Mr. Bush accountable for things which he did not decide, I don't hold him accountable for mistakes of the former government.

But they do interfere with other countries... they spread chaos, terrorism, tyranny, and destruction. As such they are our problem... and htey have to be dealt with.

It's not Iran, which spreaded chaos and destruction in the Middle East, it's the USA.

 

[Karmashock]

These organizations I am talking about were hostile to the Iraqi government, actually one of these organizations proposed to the Saudi government to go to war against Iraq in the early nineties. The leaders of this organization attacked the US later.

As I said those that have ties to Iran did not have a strong base in Saddam's Iraq. However, others did.

I don't think, it is a good idea to talk with you much longer, I will stop after this post, I don't like your way of debating or however you call it.

I make no appologise for citing your apparent ignorance of basic facts concerning this topic. What's more if anything you should be apologetic or inquisitive to compensate for that ignorance.

Sure it changes under presidents, but not necessarly with the election of new presidents.

It changed between carter and Regan.

It changed between Reagan and Bush Sr.

It changed between Bush Sr and Clinton

It changed between Clinton and Bush Jr.


It certainly changes too much for you to blame the current administration for actions done by a past administration.

I don't hold Mr. Bush accountable for things which he did not decide, I don't hold him accountable for mistakes of the former government.

Then you too disagree with this statement which I was refuting:

Hows dismantleing the iraqi baathist state supossed to stop the same from happening again? Do you think the american government is intrested in bringing democracy to the middle east? bearing in mind it overthrew irans last secular democracy and supports the saud royal family?

It's not Iran, which spreaded chaos and destruction in the Middle East, it's the USA.

No, Iran has been spreading terrorism in the middle east for well over 25 years. What's more our "chaos" was to over throw a bloody tyrant and replace it with a sensible republic. The chaos that has resulted there after has largely been a consequence of other nations doing their best to destabilize the region to make sure the new government fails. Too many terrorists use Iranian weapons for you to credibly claim otherwise.

 

[Volker]

If I agree with a statement, I say so, if I disagree with a statement, I say so, this is only a general note to avoid misunderstandings.

 

[Karmashock]

If I agree with a statement, I say so, if I disagree with a statement, I say so, this is only a general note to avoid misunderstandings.

No, you don't have a choice. Logically there are only so many options. As 1+1=2, you must disagree with that statement if you don't hold current or future administrations accountable for the actions of past administrations.


It's one or the other.