Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

[alexa]

Iran has been murdering Israeli civilians for years through its Hamas and Hezbollah proxies, and yet Israel has not blasted it off the face of the Earth.

No. Israel has indeed retaliated to attacks which can be put down to Hamas and Hezbolla in ways which are describe as disproportional and worse so that is not a true answer.

Iran is in danger of being bombed only because of its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons it does not need for defensive reasons.

There will be plenty of time to talk to Iran again after its nuclear weapons program is blown up.

Given that it was the US who got Iran when she was under the Shah to start building nuclear facilities this sounds a tad hypocritical. People have been dying while Iran has been allowing inspectors in. Peace was offered years ago. The US turned it down.

Iran has a need to protect herself. The continual aggression on her shows this. Unfortunately this attitude is setting the scene for Iran feeling she has no other choice but build nuclear weapons which she will do in her underground bunkers. You are creating a Self Fulfilling Prophesy and one which may well lead to WW3.

Learn to talk. It hurts less in the long run.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No. Israel has indeed retaliated to attacks which can be put down to Hamas and Hezbolla in ways which are describe as disproportional and worse so that is not a true answer.

After WWII, the western allies executed nearly 1,000 Japanese military and political leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity not because these people participated directly in these actions but because they enabled them. By the same principle of international law, virtually all the Iranian military and political leaders are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity every time their Hezbollah or Hamas proxies targets Israeli civilians, and even if Iran were not trying to acquire nuclear weapons this would provide Israel with legitimate grounds for attacking Iran, however, allowing an aggressor nation like Iran which is also a state sponsor of international terrorism to acquire nukes would be irresponsible of any Israeli government.

Given that it was the US who got Iran when she was under the Shah to start building nuclear facilities this sounds a tad hypocritical. People have been dying while Iran has been allowing inspectors in. Peace was offered years ago. The US turned it down.

Iran has a need to protect herself. The continual aggression on her shows this. Unfortunately this attitude is setting the scene for Iran feeling she has no other choice but build nuclear weapons which she will do in her underground bunkers. You are creating a Self Fulfilling Prophesy and one which may well lead to WW3.

Learn to talk. It hurts less in the long run.

The US helped Iran, Brazil and many other nations to build small nuclear reactors under its old Atoms for Peace program and it has never objected to any country using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but if Iran were not trying to build nuclear weapons it would have no need for all the secrecy and lies that have characterized its nuclear program, and if you didn't also believe Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons, you wouldn't be talking about its need to defend itself.

The simple fact is that no one attacked Iran or any of it facilities or personnel until it was clearly trying to build nuclear weapons in violation of international law and at the same time attacking Israel, US forces, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and calling for the extinction of Israel as well as being a state sponsor of international terrorism. Clearly, Iran wants nuclear weapons to support its ongoing aggressive actions, not to defend itself against unprovoked attacks. The easiest way for Iran to defend itself is to give up its nuclear weapons program.

Too much talking when military action was clearly called for led to 40,000,000 people being killed in WWII, and allowing an aggressor nation and state sponsor of international terrorism like Iran to build up a nuclear arsenal along with missile delivery systems is likely to lead to future wars that will kill millions or tens of millions of people. We should not make the same mistakes made by the blundering diplomats who who claimed to have saved peace in their time but really led the world into WWII and the deaths of 40,000,000 people.

The time to talk to Iran is after we have blown up their nuclear weapons program.

 

[grip]

It's something we did tolerate when Iran supplied weapons to Shi'ite militias that were attacking US forces in Iraq, and when Russia supplied weapons to North Vietnam and when China not only sent weapons to North Korea but also "volunteers". I'm sure there are other examples I haven't thought of.

We fought in Iraq, Vietnam and Korea, so we didn't tolerate it we went to War.

 

[justabubba]

After WWII, the western allies executed nearly 1,000 Japanese military and political leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity not because these people participated directly in these actions but because they enabled them. By the same principle of international law, virtually all the Iranian military and political leaders are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity every time their Hezbollah or Hamas proxies targets Israeli civilians, and even if Iran were not trying to acquire nuclear weapons this would provide Israel with legitimate grounds for attacking Iran, however, allowing an aggressor nation like Iran which is also a state sponsor of international terrorism to acquire nukes would be irresponsible of any Israeli government.





The US helped Iran, Brazil and many other nations to build small nuclear reactors under its old Atoms for Peace program and it has never objected to any country using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but if Iran were not trying to build nuclear weapons it would have no need for all the secrecy and lies that have characterized its nuclear program, and if you didn't also believe Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons, you wouldn't be talking about its need to defend itself.

The simple fact is that no one attacked Iran or any of it facilities or personnel until it was clearly trying to build nuclear weapons in violation of international law and at the same time attacking Israel, US forces, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and calling for the extinction of Israel as well as being a state sponsor of international terrorism. Clearly, Iran wants nuclear weapons to support its ongoing aggressive actions, not to defend itself against unprovoked attacks. The easiest way for Iran to defend itself is to give up its nuclear weapons program.

Too much talking when military action was clearly called for led to 40,000,000 people being killed in WWII, and allowing an aggressor nation and state sponsor of international terrorism like Iran to build up a nuclear arsenal along with missile delivery systems is likely to lead to future wars that will kill millions or tens of millions of people. We should not make the same mistakes made by the blundering diplomats who who claimed to have saved peace in their time but really led the world into WWII and the deaths of 40,000,000 people.

The time to talk to Iran is after we have blown up their nuclear weapons program.

the hypocrisy of that post is staggering
the state of israel refuses to acknowledge it possess nuclear weapons ... tho that it wields them is widely known. yet you dare speak of iran's secrecy

you insist iran wants nuclear arms to "continue support its ongoing aggressive actions" when - IN FACT - iran has not been an aggressor nation in 200 years! pity we cannot say the same about israel for 200 weeks

the easiest way to get iran to stand down on its nuclear development is for israel to relinquish its nuclear arms capacity. we all know what the chances are of that happening. about the same as the government of israel not building within the disputed territories

 

[toomuchtime_]

We fought in Iraq, Vietnam and Korea, so we didn't tolerate it we went to War.

When we were fighting in Iraq, the Iranians supplied Shi'ite militias with weapons to kill US soldiers, and we tolerated Iranian interference and didn't strike back at Iran.

When we were fighting in Vietnam, the Soviets supplied the North Vietnamese with weapons to kill US soldiers, and we tolerated Soviet interference and didn't strike back at the Soviet Union.

When we were fighting in North Korea, the Chinese supplied the North Koreans with weapons and "volunteers" and we tolerated it and didn't strike back at China.

In modern times, the disruptions wars can cause and the outcomes of wars can be of as much importance to non participants as to the participants in those wars. This was especially true in the Iran-Iraq war because of the importance of the Gulf oil supply to the global economy. During the war, both sides attacked Gulf shipping, driving up the price of oil and threatening to cause critical shortages around the globe, and if either of these two very aggressive countries emerged from the war with effective control of the Gulf oil supply, it would have endangered the global economy by giving that country effective control over global oil prices.

Iran and Iraq were fighting over an area of coastline on the Gulf and some oil fields, essentially economic issues, and the course of the war and the possible outcomes raised economic issues for the US and most other countries that were arguably as important to them as the reasons for the war were to the Iraqis and Iranians. Just as Iran intervened in Iraq, the Chinese intervened in Korea and the Soviets intervened in Vietnam to protect what they considered their vital interests, so the US and other countries intervened in the Iran-Iraq war to protect Gulf shipping and to prevent either side from emerging in control of the Gulf oil supplies. It was a good policy that would have protected the interests of every nation if Saddam had not then invaded Kuwait and again endangered the Gulf oil supply.

 

[toomuchtime_]

the hypocrisy of that post is staggering
the state of israel refuses to acknowledge it possess nuclear weapons ... tho that it wields them is widely known. yet you dare speak of iran's secrecy

you insist iran wants nuclear arms to "continue support its ongoing aggressive actions" when - IN FACT - iran has not been an aggressor nation in 200 years! pity we cannot say the same about israel for 200 weeks

the easiest way to get iran to stand down on its nuclear development is for israel to relinquish its nuclear arms capacity. we all know what the chances are of that happening. about the same as the government of israel not building within the disputed territories

No matter how many times you pretend it's not true, the fact is Iran supplied weapons to Shi'ite militias in Iraq to kill US forces and Iraqi Sunni. That makes it an aggressor nation.

Iran supplies its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies with weapons to use to try to kill Israeli civilians, which makes Iran an aggressor nation, a state sponsor of international terrorism and the military and political leadership of Iran guilty of thousands of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In addition, Iran is guilty of unprovoked attacks on Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which makes it an aggressor nation.

The only problem Israel has with Iran is the thousands of war crimes and crimes against humanity Iran has participated in against Israeli civilians, so if Iran believes it needs nuclear weapons to protect itself against a possible Israeli retaliation for Iranian aggressions then it wants nukes to support its aggressions.

 

[justabubba]

No matter how many times you pretend it's not true, the fact is Iran supplied weapons to Shi'ite militias in Iraq to kill US forces and Iraqi Sunni. That makes it an aggressor nation.

Iran supplies its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies with weapons to use to try to kill Israeli civilians, which makes Iran an aggressor nation, a state sponsor of international terrorism and the military and political leadership of Iran guilty of thousands of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In addition, Iran is guilty of unprovoked attacks on Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which makes it an aggressor nation.

The only problem Israel has with Iran is the thousands of war crimes and crimes against humanity Iran has participated in against Israeli civilians, so if Iran believes it needs nuclear weapons to protect itself against a possible Israeli retaliation for Iranian aggressions then it wants nukes to support its aggressions.

i noticed that you have elected not to document anything which you insist to be true
one can then only conclude that all you are doing is continuing to spew unsubstantiated propaganda

 

[EagleAye]

you insist iran wants nuclear arms to "continue support its ongoing aggressive actions" when - IN FACT - iran has not been an aggressor nation in 200 years! pity we cannot say the same about israel for 200 weeks

the easiest way to get iran to stand down on its nuclear development is for israel to relinquish its nuclear arms capacity. we all know what the chances are of that happening. about the same as the government of israel not building within the disputed territories

I think you missed toomuchtime's mention of the constant proxy war Iran has been fighting. Iran's proxy fight via Hezbollah and Hamas is well-known by everyone.

Do you honestly believe Iran would stop nuclear development if Israel disarmed? C'mon man! Iran isn't building nukes because Israel has them. Iran is building nukes to exterminate Israel. They've made their intentions very clear.

 

[grip]

When we were fighting in Iraq, the Iranians supplied Shi'ite militias with weapons to kill US soldiers, and we tolerated Iranian interference and didn't strike back at Iran.

When we were fighting in Vietnam, the Soviets supplied the North Vietnamese with weapons to kill US soldiers, and we tolerated Soviet interference and didn't strike back at the Soviet Union.

When we were fighting in North Korea, the Chinese supplied the North Koreans with weapons and "volunteers" and we tolerated it and didn't strike back at China.

In modern times, the disruptions wars can cause and the outcomes of wars can be of as much importance to non participants as to the participants in those wars. This was especially true in the Iran-Iraq war because of the importance of the Gulf oil supply to the global economy. During the war, both sides attacked Gulf shipping, driving up the price of oil and threatening to cause critical shortages around the globe, and if either of these two very aggressive countries emerged from the war with effective control of the Gulf oil supply, it would have endangered the global economy by giving that country effective control over global oil prices.

Iran and Iraq were fighting over an area of coastline on the Gulf and some oil fields, essentially economic issues, and the course of the war and the possible outcomes raised economic issues for the US and most other countries that were arguably as important to them as the reasons for the war were to the Iraqis and Iranians. Just as Iran intervened in Iraq, the Chinese intervened in Korea and the Soviets intervened in Vietnam to protect what they considered their vital interests, so the US and other countries intervened in the Iran-Iraq war to protect Gulf shipping and to prevent either side from emerging in control of the Gulf oil supplies. It was a good policy that would have protected the interests of every nation if Saddam had not then invaded Kuwait and again endangered the Gulf oil supply.

I think we didn't strike back at Russia and China because they obviously could give us some serious problems. And we didn't hit Iran because of what you just said about oil.

 

[justabubba]

I think you missed toomuchtime's mention of the constant proxy war Iran has been fighting. Iran's proxy fight via Hezbollah and Hamas is well-known by everyone.

he can say it all he wants. doesn't mean his assertion is not bogus
he has offered us nothing to document the veracity of his assertions in that regard

Do you honestly believe Iran would stop nuclear development if Israel disarmed? C'mon man! Iran isn't building nukes because Israel has them. Iran is building nukes to exterminate Israel. They've made their intentions very clear.

the iranians have attacked no one in 200 years
why believe they want to do so now - and with nuclear weapons
if i were iranian, confronted by a nuclear armed israel - a VERY aggressive nation - i would want my nation to possess the ability to thwart any future israeli aggression. having nuclear weaponry provides that deterrent

 

[EagleAye]

he can say it all he wants. doesn't mean his assertion is not bogus
he has offered us nothing to document the veracity of his assertions in that regard

the iranians have attacked no one in 200 years
why believe they want to do so now - and with nuclear weapons

Here's documentation (including some from wikileaks no less):
Wikileaks Revelations on – Iran – Hamas – Syria and Turkey | IsraelSeen.com
Iran and its Proxies » Center For Defense Studies
The Enduring Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Axis :: Middle East Forum
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/iran_e004.pdf

if i were iranian, confronted by a nuclear armed israel - a VERY aggressive nation - i would want my nation to possess the ability to thwart any future israeli aggression. having nuclear weaponry provides that deterrent

Israel has to be aggressive. It's neighbors are MORE aggressive and their aggression is very nearly constant (this is mostly Hamas). Moreover, Israel's MORE aggressive neighbors are supported in their attacks while ONLY Israel is ever criticized. Israel must demonstrate a strong hand at all times or risk appearing weak and suffering mass assaults by multiple countries like it has in the past.

Getting ready to crash for the night. I'll chop it up more with you later. Cheers!

 

[toomuchtime_]

I think we didn't strike back at Russia and China because they obviously could give us some serious problems. And we didn't hit Iran because of what you just said about oil.

Of course we had reasons for tolerating interference from these countries, but the point is that the US is not unique, as you suggested, in interferring in other nations' wars when we believe our important interests are in jeopardy.

 

[grip]

Of course we had reasons for tolerating interference from these countries, but the point is that the US is not unique, as you suggested, in interferring in other nations' wars when we believe our important interests are in jeopardy.

I'm not suggesting we're unique rather I believe possibly unjustified. We put all our eggs in one basket energy wise with oil. How long ago did the government collude with industry to have a single majority source, who knows. But there you are a world full of problems and probably from greed and corruption. I can't believe if we had not put 50 years into electric cars they wouldn't be perfected by now. Unfortunately we have to protect our interests now for the sake of economic stability world wide. We could do it a little less arrogantly though and spread the butter a little better.

 

[justabubba]

Here's documentation (including some from wikileaks no less):
Wikileaks Revelations on – Iran – Hamas – Syria and Turkey | IsraelSeen.com
Iran and its Proxies » Center For Defense Studies
The Enduring Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Axis :: Middle East Forum
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/iran_e004.pdf


Israel has to be aggressive. It's neighbors are MORE aggressive and their aggression is very nearly constant (this is mostly Hamas). Moreover, Israel's MORE aggressive neighbors are supported in their attacks while ONLY Israel is ever criticized. Israel must demonstrate a strong hand at all times or risk appearing weak and suffering mass assaults by multiple countries like it has in the past.

Getting ready to crash for the night. I'll chop it up more with you later. Cheers!

ok
when you wake up, how about providing something which will actually prove that islamic groups are undertaking their activities against israeli interests as proxies of the iranian government
thus far, you have offered nothing which does that

 

[alexa]

After WWII, the western allies executed nearly 1,000 Japanese military and political leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity not because these people participated directly in these actions but because they enabled them. By the same principle of international law, virtually all the Iranian military and political leaders are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity every time their Hezbollah or Hamas proxies targets Israeli civilians, and even if Iran were not trying to acquire nuclear weapons this would provide Israel with legitimate grounds for attacking Iran, however, allowing an aggressor nation like Iran which is also a state sponsor of international terrorism to acquire nukes would be irresponsible of any Israeli government.

Oh I am not going to reply to this. It would go on and on. People were killed because we won. If they had won they would have chosen a different course. But it you are interested in International Law then I suggest you start at home first and get Israel and indeed the US to get itself in order.

You may want to kill all the Iran Military and Political leaders - that is your attitude.

The US helped Iran, Brazil and many other nations to build small nuclear reactors under its old Atoms for Peace program and it has never objected to any country using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but if Iran were not trying to build nuclear weapons it would have no need for all the secrecy and lies that have characterized its nuclear program, and if you didn't also believe Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons, you wouldn't be talking about its need to defend itself.

The simple fact is that no one attacked Iran or any of it facilities or personnel until it was clearly trying to build nuclear weapons in violation of international law and at the same time attacking Israel, US forces, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and calling for the extinction of Israel as well as being a state sponsor of international terrorism. Clearly, Iran wants nuclear weapons to support its ongoing aggressive actions, not to defend itself against unprovoked attacks. The easiest way for Iran to defend itself is to give up its nuclear weapons program.

Too much talking when military action was clearly called for led to 40,000,000 people being killed in WWII, and allowing an aggressor nation and state sponsor of international terrorism like Iran to build up a nuclear arsenal along with missile delivery systems is likely to lead to future wars that will kill millions or tens of millions of people. We should not make the same mistakes made by the blundering diplomats who who claimed to have saved peace in their time but really led the world into WWII and the deaths of 40,000,000 people.

The time to talk to Iran is after we have blown up their nuclear weapons program.

You want to attack Iran that is clear. You are incapable of any line of thought which does not engage war that is clear.

I think you should read this. You have been swallowing too much propaganda to suit your partisan desires.

Iran's Nuclear Program by Muhammad Sahimi

The author of the above

[SIZE=-1]About the author: Muhammad Sahimi is Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, and NIOC Professor of Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Since 1986 he has been a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists - an organization dedicated to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons - and a contributor to its Partners for Earth Program. He has also been a visiting professor in Australia, Europe, and the Middle East, and a consultant to many energy firms around the world. In addition to his scientific work, his political articles have appeared as book chapters, on various websites, and in such publications as the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal.

[/SIZE]

Read that and come back to speak reality not propaganda.

 

[EagleAye]

ok
when you wake up, how about providing something which will actually prove that islamic groups are undertaking their activities against israeli interests as proxies of the iranian government
thus far, you have offered nothing which does that

So when you read this:

Hezbollah thrived under Syrian occupation. Both the Syrian and Iranian governments used Hezbollah to conduct proxy warfare against Israel. Symbolism is important in the Middle East. In April 2001, when Nasrallah met Khamenei, Nasrallah kissed Khamenei's hand, symbolizing fealty.[10] In the decade before Israel's 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah conducted more than three dozen suicide attacks against Israeli forces in Lebanon.[11] Between Israel's withdrawal and the eruption of war between Israel and Lebanon, Hezbollah conducted twenty-one additional operations against Israel itself.[12]

...and this

The arms trade continues through Syria. As the German military prepared to enforce the prohibition on Hezbollah resupply under terms of its UNIFIL mandate, the German news magazine Focus reported on October 9, 2006, that Germany's Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND) had concluded that the Islamic Republic had already resupplied missiles to Hezbollah in the aftermath of the war. The BND reported that the resupply had occurred over land through Syria.[19] In 2008, Akhtari estimated that the volume of total trade ranged from $2.5 to $3 billion.[20] While illegal arms are but a tiny fraction of that figure, such trade traditionally provides cover for arms transfers. On May 29, 2007, for example, a Turkish train carrying construction supplies from Iran to Syria hit a mine allegedly laid by a Kurdish terrorist group and derailed. Police discovered an undeclared cache of Iranian arms, including rocket launchers and rifles.[21] The Turkish route into Syria may become more important as Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoˇgan tightens relations with both Tehran and Damascus. Regardless, Iranian cargo planes land frequently at Damascus International Airport.[22] Suspicion over their role in the illicit weapons trade led the European Union to sanction Iran Air Cargo.[23]

...and this

Iran aid to Hamas during the two years which preceded Operation Cast Lead were the
following: weapons, including hundreds of 122mm Grad rockets, with ranges of 20-40 km,
and advanced anti-tank missiles; technological knowhow which made it possible for
Hamas to manufacture lethal Hezbollah-inspired IEDs (Shawaz projectiles); advanced
training in Iran for hundreds of operatives from all the terrorist organizations; several
hundred million dollars a year for Hamas’s political and military wings; political and
propaganda support; as well as efforts to prevent the lull arrangement, to encourage
terrorist attacks, and to oppose Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (the Annapolis process).

...and this

The standard rockets and mortars supplied by Iran and smuggled to Hamas and the other
terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip improve their military capabilities. Iran has also
transmitted the technological knowhow that enables Hamas to increase the range of the
rockets it manufactures. In addition, standard rockets enable Hamas to increase its attack
range and cause more accurate and greater destruction than its homemade rockets. The
rockets supplied by Iran are standard 122mm rockets with ranges of between 20 and 40
km. During 2008, that made it possible for Hamas to put close to a million Israeli people
living in the cities of Beersheba, Ashdod and Ashqelon in range of Hamas rockets, cities with
vital strategic facilities.5 The 122mm rockets with a 40-km range Iran supplied to Hamas are
apparently identical to those it supplied to Hezbollah and were fired during the second
Lebanon war.

...you honestly feel no proof was given? I cannot provide you with physical proof via the internet if that's what you're demanding.

Additionally, from wikileaks, we can see that leaders from Egypt, the UAE, and Abu Dhabi all agree that Iran is waging a proxy war. Are you claiming you know more about the situation than they do?

 

[grip]

leaders from Egypt, the UAE, and Abu Dhabi all agree that Iran is waging a proxy war.

I agree Iran has been fighting a proxy War through Iraq and Afghanistan also but are they justified? We've been messing with their culture and government since the days of the Shah and for what? I surely don't think everything they do is correct but as a people they should have the freedoms and rights that we expect from others. Might doesn't make right and so far we've been chasing the wind thru the deserts and wasting tons of funds. I hope our fear of attacks and need for oil doesn't become our undoing.

 

[Antiderivative]

When we were fighting in Iraq, the Iranians supplied Shi'ite militias with weapons to kill US soldiers, and we tolerated Iranian interference and didn't strike back at Iran.

Iran was assisting us after 9/11 until the neocons branded them as part of the axis of evil

 

[sangha]

Seriously?

Obama and Netanyahu Clash Over Israeli Settlements - NYTimes.com

So if the US doesn't do everything that netanyahu demands, it means the US doesn't support Israel?

Seriously?

 

[sangha]

Of course we can stop the program. The question is, can we stop the program with a single surgical strike? We can probably do enough damage to effectively end the program with one strike, but will the Iranians try to rebuild it and force us to bomb the program out again? When you start thinking about stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program as a process instead of an event, it becomes clear we can do it.

I have no doubt that we could invade and conquer Iran and that would stop their program. However, that wasn't what we are discussing.

And no, we can't end the program with one strike. We could set the efforts back a few years with a series of bombings, but we can't end it that way. Even our military admits that

 

[sangha]

or we could let the saudis fend for themselves
if we had done that before we might not have provoked 9/11

And paying $10/gal for gas

 

[EagleAye]

We've been messing with their culture and government since the days of the Shah and for what? I surely don't think everything they do is correct but as a people they should have the freedoms and rights that we expect from others.

Can you please explain how the US or Israel has "messed with their culture," between 1979 until 2003 (when Iran nuclear concerns arose)? I don't see how either country denied Iran freedoms or rights.

 

[sangha]

So when you read this:

...and this

...and this

...and this

...you honestly feel no proof was given? I cannot provide you with physical proof via the internet if that's what you're demanding.

No, none of that is proof. No one is disputing that Iran has supported those organizations, but nothing you have posted proves that the intent is to wage a proxy war

Additionally, from wikileaks, we can see that leaders from Egypt, the UAE, and Abu Dhabi all agree that Iran is waging a proxy war. Are you claiming you know more about the situation than they do?

Umm, people's opinions are not proof that your opinion is fact.

And for the record, both Israel and the US have supported organizations and individuals who have aggressed against Iran. Does that mean that the we're waging a proxy war against Iran, and if so, why is it OK for us, but wrong for them?

 

[sangha]

Can you please explain how the US or Israel has "messed with their culture," between 1979 until 2003 (when Iran nuclear concerns arose)? I don't see how either country denied Iran freedoms or rights.

Umm, some of us consider our helping to bring down their democratically elected govt, and training the Shah's police to torture citizens to be intrusive, but YMMV

 

[EagleAye]

No, none of that is proof. No one is disputing that Iran has supported those organizations, but nothing you have posted proves that the intent is to wage a proxy war

So supplying weapons to organizations actively engaged in hostilities with Israel is not fighting a proxy war??? Really?

Umm, people's opinions are not proof that your opinion is fact.

It seems to me that these heads of state, with access to information from their own intelligence services, who's job it is to know what's happening in their own backyard, would know more about it than you, me, or justabubba don't you think?

And for the record, both Israel and the US have supported organizations and individuals who have aggressed against Iran. Does that mean that the we're waging a proxy war against Iran, and if so, why is it OK for us, but wrong for them?

Please explain exactly what that aggression was.

Umm, some of us consider our helping to bring down their democratically elected govt, and training the Shah's police to torture citizens to be intrusive, but YMMV

I'll grant you that the US screwed up prior to 1979. I don't like that either. But my question was about after 1979 and before 2003. Can you answer?

Lastly, my internet acronym knowledge is poor, sorry. What is "YMMV?"