embargo on Iran

[Madgrenade]

@Geoff

I was gonna post a long reply detailing how the US is engaged in all those countries but It got deleted.

But it's kind of off topic and I am not responsible for your education. You don't believe me? Look it up. I presume you have the Internet?

The only country that doesn't strictly speaking belong on that list is Bahrain, base of the US 5th fleet, where the peopel rose at the same time as the rest of the Arab spring and their ongoing rebellion continues. It had to be put down by a brutal cross border incursion by the forces of Saud, and even though more people have been killed by saudi forces aiding the Bahraini monarchy than have been killed by Assad you won't hear about their struggle on the TV and you won't hear international cries for intervention. But anyway.


Iran.

@Arkanados

As to why Iran wants a reactor you are twisting the debate. Now you seem to think they have no right to the reactor.

I am pointing out that legally the Iranian government, regardless of whether they eat babies or persecute bunnies, have the legal right to develop a nuclear reactor. Why they want to is their business, not ours.

Yes Algeria and Turkey have reactors but they purchased those systems from the West. The Iranians are trying to develop the technology themselves.

I am simply trying to make it clear that we have no legal right to impose sanctions on Iran, let alone call for a military strike. Unless they violate the NPT which as far as we know they have not done. Being a democracy was not a condition of joining the UN. Nor was it a condition of the NPT. Working toward a democracy is a condition of UN membership, one which Iran was a leader in pursueing, right up until the aforementioned coup d'etat circa 1953.

But lets be clear, this isn't an issue about nukes or reactors. The US didn't build those bases around Iran for nothing. This is simply a propaganda war where the government sends out bots like haki baba to guage opinion before the strike. If it wasn't nuclear enrichment it would be something else. Iran is going down, the decision was made years ago.

Also with rigged candidates in the US, rigged parties in Britain, Troikas being parachuted into Greece and soon elsewhere our lofty talk of democracy is increasingly amusing abroad. Did you vote for the banker bailouts? So please don't drag democracy into this discussion. In the words of Ghandi: "I think it would be a very good idea."

[Madgrenade]

I actually think that I was the first persont o put a sly Godwin into this debate. Surprised you missed it.

"We really need to take back our foreign policy before we all end up dressed in black uniforms with skulls on the caps shooting people in pits."

[GeoffS]

I was gonna post a long reply detailing how the US is engaged in all those countries but It got deleted.

But it's kind of off topic and I am not responsible for your education. You don't believe me? Look it up. I presume you have the Internet?

My education (and my internet) is fine, thank you for asking. Now perhaps you'll answer the questions I asked...

When did the West occupy Yemen in the last 10 years? Or Somalia? Or Libya? Or Syria? Or Pakistan? Or Uganda? Or Bahrain? Note the word "occupy" there, since that is the core of the questions. You said that the West had occupied all of those countries in the last ten years, I'm asking you to back it up. Provide your sources.

[Madgrenade]

Firstly any country that operates a Rothschild owned private central bank could be considered "occupied" by the west.

Pkistan 2009 1000 marines to quard us mission Islamabad.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...bad-mission-FO

Uganda: US send "advisors" after frankly laughable Kony 2012 meme

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/wo...pagewanted=all

Somalia: US sends troops to Mogadishu (again)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1516943.html

Yemen: US troops fighting "ALQeada" OUT of Yemeni capital.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...or-first-time/

Libya: Nato no fly zone topples Gaddafi (we all know that happened) leading to Al Qeada flags flown over benghazi court house

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Al-Qaeda.html

Syria: NATO Turks support "Rebel" forces cross border raids

http://syria360.wordpress.com/2012/0...army-for-nato/

UN peacekeepers is Syria pictured with AlQeada fighters

http://www.infowars.com/al-qaeda-reb...vers-in-syria/

[GeoffS]

So none of those countries was actually occupied by the West then. I thought so.

[Madgrenade]

Umm when you take control of a nations capital and their government centres then they are occupied. You don't have to put a soldier on every corner.

Ok Syria isn't yet occupied. But it's clear they are being railroaded.

[Akranadas]

As to why Iran wants a reactor you are twisting the debate. Now you seem to think they have no right to the reactor.

No, the question is why does Iran want a nuclear reactor, it is as simple as that. Nuclear power isn't cheap, it's expensive, produces a lot of waste and requires a lot of technology to work. Coal, Gas, Wind or Solar are effectively cheaper, easier to setup and require a lot less technical expertise to build. My question is as simple as it can get, what benefits does Iran get from pursuing nuclear power under the current regime? Answer is... they get a nuclear reactor build by the Russians; what negitives do they get? well, Methuselath has a friend that would be able to tell us all about how those sanctions are working out for Iran.

The Iranians are trying to develop the technology themselves.

No, Iran is getting a lot of help from the Russians who are in fact finishing a German designed reactor; Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant isn't at all designed by the Iranians. They actually contributed less than half of the materials required to build a actual working reactor, pre-revolution German work did a large chunk and the Russians finished off the best as they could. That's not to say that there isn't going to be issues, considering its built right near a active fault line, but you know... got to have that reactor. Which if it goes it melt down... will only affect say... Kuwait City, Riyadh, Manama, Doha, Abu Dhabi, and Muscat well before Tehran.

But lets be clear, this isn't an issue about nukes or reactors. The US didn't build those bases around Iran for nothing. This is simply a propaganda war where the government sends out bots like haki baba to guage opinion before the strike. If it wasn't nuclear enrichment it would be something else. Iran is going down, the decision was made years ago.

Iran is only a target because it wants to be a target, just like North Korea. If it's leader was freely elected by the people of the country in a fair and just election and they weren't some nut job who thinks denying the holocaust and blaming the west because of drought in Iran then Iran would be a complete non issue. Ahmadinejad likes having the idea that Iran is being picked on by the west and that he is standing up for the whole middle east against the big bully called the United States, but he fails to realise; the US and the West wouldn't care if it just wasn't run like a crazy show.

[GeoffS]

Umm when you take control of a nations capital and their government centres then they are occupied.

As I said, none of those countries was occupied by the West, even using your definition of the word.

[Madgrenade]

Ok granted they have had help building the reactor. But they certainly haven't bought an off the shelf system.

If we didn't want bunny haters and people we don't loike to have nuclear reactors then we should have written it into the UN charter. Since we didn't thats just our tough titties. We cannot act against Iran while still acting within the law.

I presume they want it so they can turn the lights on and off.

[Stripe7]

Iran has threatened several times to shut down the straits or Hormuz. They threaten Israel with annihilation almost on a daily basis. They act just like North Korea without the Nuclear weapons, with them there is little doubt in my mind they will behave just like North Korea. The moment they have nukes they will threaten not only Israel with it but every nation around them, using it as a bludgeon to get better diplomatic terms. The net result would be Saudi Arabia going nuclear within weeks, with other Arabian nations following as soon as possible. Putting nukes into that powder keg of nations is a very bad idea.

[Madgrenade]

"As I said, none of those countries was occupied by the West, even using your definition of the word."

So I state that these countries have been occupied by the west. You say you don't believe me.

I then post links showing how US troops are in the capitals of all these countries and Im still wrong. Can't really help that mate.

[GeoffS]

We cannot act against Iran while still acting within the law.

What "law", specifically, are you talking about?

[Madgrenade]

Stripe7 again you are missing the point.

NO CREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE that Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

Just like there was no credible intelligence about Iraqs WMD. The prime ministers spin doctor made it all up. Look what happened there. You want to repaeat that scenario against a racially united country four times the size then please be my guest. Hope it all works out for you.

[Madgrenade]

What law? Try the UN charter all civilised nations are signatory to. Basically guarentees we won't attack them if they play within the rules, the rules in this case clearly allowing for the development of a civilian nuclear power program*. I didn't write it so don't blame me. It was written by the post ww2 leaders to try to prevent total global war. And funnily the more we disregard it the closer we come.

According to the Nuclear nonproliferation treaty signed by Iran USA Britain France and many otherrs (not Israel)

[Sinogrim]

You didn't just Godwin this debate, did you?

Looks like I did. Damn you nazis!

Is that even at all related to nuclear power? Not really, considering the main nuclear deterrent is getting hit by one in return. Germany didn't fear hitting someone with an army because they wagered their army would take out the opposition (and it did). You can't easily hit a nuclear missile with another one (and then think of the fallout) with one missile beating the other in some kind of air-based combat before continuing onto its objective unharmed.

Well, you can't use nukes in a traditional sense, but you can probably get away with blowing something up by simply making some terrorist cell do it. Sure, the chance of something like that happening isn't exactly high I believe, but still. There is a possibility of doing it. The US has been using proxies against Iran for a long time, what stops them from using proxies against the west?

That said, I wasn't trying to make a direct link between Nazi-Germany and Iran, simply cause the situation is different as you stated. However, the base of the events are similar in a more basic way. You're giving a nation you're not trusting the right to basically build up military hardware that could potentially be used against you or other nations.

It's fair that you don't trust nuclear power in certain hands. That's perfectly fine. It's fair that you don't trust a delusional maniac with the Big Red Button. But to deny Iran nuclear power flat out simply because you think their religious views are unfair to women? That's not really fair, in my opinion.

It's not simply that their religious views are unfair to women and gays, it's the fact that there's no argueing with these people. You cannot argue with religious leaders of this sort, simply cause they'll always claim divine right and whoever oposses them, oposses "God".

Religion and weapons has always been a dangerous combination, no matter what religion wields them. I wouldn't be giving the vatican nuclear energy either, even if they were in charge of a nation the size of Iran.

[Methuselath]

When I said Afghanistan I don't mean Afghanistan 'now' but Afghanistan circa 1980s. Remember those mujaheddin that Rambo fought with against USSR? Well guess what, they became Al-Qaeda later, armed with US weapons, using US training. Saying that Iran shouldn't have a nuke because they have terrorist link is ridiculous, considering that US, not only the ONLY country that used nukes against human targets, but also a country that have been openly supporting terrorist groups (and might still be, considering the track record) in the past.

Sure, Iran is a religious fucknut, but I don't think US can claim to be completely secular either, what with the whole debacle of little Georgie and his crusade and well, the whole foamy right wing.

[GeoffS]

1. You defined "occupied" as "when you take control of a nations capital and their government centres", then post links showing that none of those nations have had their nations capital or government centres taken over by the West, and then claim that they were occupied by the West anyway. You have proven your own claims wrong, using your own definitions.
2. If you want to claim that something is against the law, you need to be able to give specific details of the law you are relying on. Just saying "UN Charter" isn't good enough. You claim that some international "law" clearly allows for the development of a civilian nuclear power program, I'm asking you to support that claim. Give me some source for that claim, a link so I can read it for myself.

[Madgrenade]

The Treaty on the Non proliferation of Nuclear weapons. Third pillar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...uclear_Weapons

As to your 1st point im sorry they didn't send in Obama down a street of cheering children to proudly plant the US flag in the middle of the state parliment but people build their empires with more subtlety these days.

[Inquisitor Lok]

"As I said, none of those countries was occupied by the West, even using your definition of the word."

So I state that these countries have been occupied by the west. You say you don't believe me.

I then post links showing how US troops are in the capitals of all these countries and Im still wrong. Can't really help that mate.

Nowhere does it state in any of the articles that the US has taken control over the capitals...

Going link by link here:
1. The US Forces were deployed into Pakastan under a mutual agreement between the countries.
"Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit Khan has said that 1,000 US Marines who will be coming to Pakistan will be deployed at US Mission in Islamabad.
He said that there was no restriction on the number of personnel that a foreign mission could station at its mission but it is done through mutual understanding. "

2. The US forces are aiding the Central African troops in the search for kony, nowhere does it say that they are occupying government buildings. Also they arent there for an actual combat role and are just advising the African troops.
"One hundred of America’s elite Special Operations troops, aided by night vision scopes and satellite imagery, are helping African forces find a wig-wearing, gibberish-speaking fugitive rebel commander named Joseph Kony who has been hiding out in the jungle for years with a band of child soldiers and a harem of dozens of child brides. "

"The Americans emphasize that they have no interest in participating in actual combat — “This is strictly an advise and assist role,” Captain Wright said, meant to strengthen the capabilities of African troops."

3. Again the US forces are there helping the Ugandan Military to help combat the insurgants in the country, they did not invade the country or seize control of it.
"American military advisers in Uganda are drawing on lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan to help train African Union soldiers to fight Somalia's most powerful insurgent group, al-Shabab."

4. Yet again, the Americans are helping another country attack insurgant/ terrorist factions and have not seized control of the capital.
"Yemeni warplanes and troops backed by heavy artillery waged a four-front assault on al Qaeda militants Tuesday, trying to uproot their hold in the southern desert with the help of a team of U.S. troops at a nearby air base."

And these troops located at an airbase were providing Logistical support. They were not actively engaged in the fighting directly.
"The officials said an air base called al-Annad in the southern province of Lahj is serving as a command center for nearly 60 U.S. troops who were providing advice, information and logistical support to Yemeni troops."

5. So Al Qeada Forces (who the US in the previous article were helping fight against) taking control over Libya is considered as the US Occupying them?? Also to my knowledge, the nofly zone was enforced by NATO countries off of Naval Vessels.. They were not occupying the nation.

6. There is no mention of the US/Western or even Turkish troops being in control over Syria. Only that Turkey is known to have harbored Terrorists and is helping the rebellion in the country.

7. Peace keepers that are in a country are considered as occupying it? Last time i checked, Peace keepers cant even fire at troops unless its in self defense, and even then they are hardly equipped to seize control of a capital or anything.
http://www.unac.org/peacekeeping/en/.../chapter10.pdf, see Rules of Engagement and the use of force on pg. 5

Participants discussed rules of engagement and the use of force. The fundamental principles of UN peacekeeping — consent, impartiality, and the non-use of force except in self-defence

So nowhere did i see any mention of the US or any NATO country being in control of another countries capital or government building without the direct support of that nation.

EDIT:

What law? Try the UN charter all civilised nations are signatory to. Basically guarentees we won't attack them if they play within the rules

Yet in the same article you link saying what law, it states that Iran has not been playing by the rules and has not met the safeguard requirements multiple times.

[Madgrenade]

All proxies. Why wont the US send in forces to help Assad and Gaddafi (dead by bayonet sodomisation) deal with their terrorists? I thought Al'Qeada were the enemy? But we help them overthrow secular governments.

The US troops in Uganda aren't their for Kony. They are there to prop up unelected US patsy president for life Yoweri Museveni.

[Inquisitor Lok]

The US troops in Uganda aren't their for Kony. They are there to prop up unelected US patsy president for life Yoweri Museveni.

Really? Because none of these articles you posted show that they are there for anything other than helping countries who either asked for help, training and/or logistical support (with the exception of Libya, and did the people of the country not ask for international support)

[Stripe7]

Madgrenade, I have been pretty convinced that Iran's goal has been nuclear weapons since I was in college. That was when the Shah fell very many years ago. Most of my friends in college were Iranians, I saw them get pulled out from class to be informed of their families getting killed by the Khomeni's followers. There was a group of Iranian students who were sent there by the Khomeni, the brightest one of which told me that he was there only to learn how to make nuclear weapons. fyi I majored in Nuclear Physics at Cal Berkeley.

[GeoffS]

You keep making these ridiculous claims with nothing to support them. What is your evidence that they are there to "prop up" anybody, or that the Ugandan President is a "US patsy"? Sources please.

And I'd also suggest you find out what the difference is between an international treaty and a law before you confuse them again.

[Madgrenade]

Umm hes been in power twenty years unelected and recieves US military support. Thats the evidence he is a patsy.

[Madgrenade]

No fine I agree we should just chuck out all the treaties and start a fat war. We've already decided they are guilty so why not?

@Stripe

Who inflicted the Ayatollah on Iran?

http://disquietreservations.blogspot...installed.html

[GeoffS]

@Madgrenade, your opinion does not equal "evidence".

[Madgrenade]

Its not my opinion. He HAS been in power twenty years unelected and he DOES recieve US military support therefore he IS a US patsy.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck the the chances are it's a duck.

[Starblade]

Madgrenade, your opinion is not fact. Your definition of "Occupation" is not the definition the rest of the planet uses. While I do not disagree with you on several issues (I personally am a-ok with Iran having nuclear reactors), you need to do a better job of backing up your posts with fact. For example, "Umm hes been in power twenty years unelected and recieves US military support. Thats the evidence he is a patsy. " isn't good enough. Just receiving US support doesn't mean anything. The US supports and influences practically every nation on Earth. This goes for everyone else too. This is an interesting thread and it's good to have opinions on the other side of things like Madgrenade's again, but the quality of the posting is going downhill fast.

Also, stop making unique posts for each response. Keep them all in one post, and separate them by who you're talking to or with [quote] [ /quote] tags with the text you want quoted in the middle. Try to limit responses to four or so or under.

[roflmao]

There's something I'm not clear about. Everyone seems to be assuming that nuclear power and nuclear missiles are the same technology just because they have the word "nuclear" in them.

Is it really true that if you obtain nuclear power, that converting that power into nuclear missiles is a piece of cake?

I don't know, I'm just wondering.

[GeoffS]

@Madgrenade, your opinion is that accepting US military support makes you a US patsy, that's not evidence, unless you also want to claim that Uganda is a Russian patsy as well...

[Madgrenade]

Apologies Starblade.

I am more than happy to back up points I am making on topic with evidence. On topic being with regards to the Iran embargo.

Sure you may not consider US military interference an Occupation but when people are denied access to government by corrupt military dictators supported by armies recieving US weapons and training as far as I am concerned they are occupied and they will begin fighting back.

And I stand by my comments regarding ducks.


The SU-30 is a special case as it's the only half decent manned strikecraft on the market at the moment, unless you fancy taking a punt on the US snub winged F-35

[GeoffS]

Read to the end of the article I linked, to the bit about Russian pilots flying helicopters for the Ugandan Air Force...

[Mac_Bug]

are we really naive enough to play the democracy card? do people really think that whether a country is democratic and supports human rights is a prerequisite for financial and military aid? i mean after all the regime changes and dictators the west propped up in the cold war it is pretty clear the only qualifier that matters is do they like us. toppling a dictator is always a good excuse for collateral damage, and if you are a democracy well your citizens are guilty of everything your government does.

the problem with small nations such as iran obtaining nukes is that madd doesnt really work - nuclear exchange will wipe iran off the map, but it wont really hurt a bigger country like the us all that much in comparison. there seems to be little incentive then for a country like iran to use nukes as an aggressor, but it does give them the swagger to enforce regional blockade and possibly take out say some us naval task force. iran is banking on the fact that the un doesnt have any money for military intervention anyway, but the west may not have much choice if israel jumps the gun

[Madgrenade]

MAD as a military doctrine is falling apart anyway thanks to developments in missile interceptors. There is now no guarentee that your ICBM is gonna get through. You can try smuggling the nuke through Israeli customs but good luck with that.

Israel may appear to jump the gun but teh US sent eight raptors to UAE recently so it is likely that they would be the unit to strike at a hardened facility.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-depl...ssage-to-iran/

As for Uganda maybe the US wouldn't sell him any aircraft cos they want to be able to take him down easily. But even a patsy can play a wildcard, like Saddam Husseins Kuwait invasion.

[GeoffS]

So accepting military training from the US makes him a US patsy, but accepting Russian pilots to fly your military helicopters doesn't make him a Russian patsy? Is that really the position you want to take?

[Methuselath]

Heh, I always assumed that in politics EVERYONE is a patsy to someone and that someone is a patsy to someone else (and so on), and that it all ends up in a big and complicated circle-jerk where one side thinks that they are working for another, only to work for another, and another until it just goes on and on like a wheel. Yes, even US, Israel, Iran or Timbuktu.

[Gorb]

Looks like I did. Damn you nazis!

Well, you can't use nukes in a traditional sense, but you can probably get away with blowing something up by simply making some terrorist cell do it. Sure, the chance of something like that happening isn't exactly high I believe, but still. There is a possibility of doing it. The US has been using proxies against Iran for a long time, what stops them from using proxies against the west?

That said, I wasn't trying to make a direct link between Nazi-Germany and Iran, simply cause the situation is different as you stated. However, the base of the events are similar in a more basic way. You're giving a nation you're not trusting the right to basically build up military hardware that could potentially be used against you or other nations.

It's not simply that their religious views are unfair to women and gays, it's the fact that there's no argueing with these people. You cannot argue with religious leaders of this sort, simply cause they'll always claim divine right and whoever oposses them, oposses "God".

Religion and weapons has always been a dangerous combination, no matter what religion wields them. I wouldn't be giving the vatican nuclear energy either, even if they were in charge of a nation the size of Iran.

There is no arguing with a lot of people. I thought politics was about stringing an argument along for as long as possible and conceding as little ground as humanely (or inhumanely ) possible along the way?

People latch onto religion as a way to attack their personality/inability to concede ground and it's something of a misnomer. You may not like religion. You may not like the idea of religious people/superpowers with powerful/nuclear technology. However, that's about it. Plenty of people like religion and don't see it as some kind of a cockblock to obtaining a particular piece of technology.

Hence why Krandy's point about the lead guy in Iran being something of a Holocaust-denying nutter is more valid. There is some evidence that he could be deranged, or at least living so far in his own fantasy world that real-world consequences don't register in his head. That would be Bad News if combined with a Big Red Button.

Slating a nation because of the religion they happen to believe in? Not so valid. The construction workers, the nuclear engineers and physicists, the architects . . . these are all people that would be able to benefit their country (nuclear power is, I believe, the way forward compared to other non-renewable sources of fuel. I would also prefer more was invested in renewable technology but I feel the real breakthrough lies in a functional fusion plant. As do most sci-fi novels, apparently ) and denying that based on their religion is a bit unfair.

EDIT: someone roflmao mentioned a good point. Nuclear technology doesn't actually mean nuclear weaponry . . . or does it? I'm not as well-versed on the subject as I'd like to be either, but I do recall reading that weaponising uranium is a rather difficult process (though I don't know how difficult processing it to be used in a nuclear reactor is either).

[Akranadas]

EDIT: someone roflmao mentioned a good point. Nuclear technology doesn't actually mean nuclear weaponry . . . or does it? I'm not as well-versed on the subject as I'd like to be either, but I do recall reading that weaponising uranium is a rather difficult process (though I don't know how difficult processing it to be used in a nuclear reactor is either)

Correct, However the issue is that Iran wants to be able to enrich it's own uranium within the country. The fear is that Iran could turn their supposed 'civilian low-grade' enrichment centers into ones that could be able to produce high grade enriched uranium, or weapons grade uranium, Although you can use highly enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. But it is more likely that you are producing highly enriched uranium for weaponry, specifically nuclear weapons.

There is also the fear that nuclear waste from Iran's nuclear reactor could be sold to various terrorist groups in order to create a 'dirty bomb' in which the sole purpose is to spread nuclear material.

[Methuselath]

Not that it amount to much though, but the mullahs of Iran (which several of my friends affectionately called lying bastards sonovabitches, so yeah, dunno if it accounts to much) have released a fatwa declaring that nukes are haram against Islamic war ethics. I recall some videos earlier but too lazy to search for it. In any case, I can attest to this fatwa, it is haram against war ethics (destruction of property, livestock, women and children etc.) but whether this is political posturing nobody knows. They been known to go back on their words before, so well...

Also Madgrenade (finally go over to reading your posts) holy conspiracy theory batman!

[Alliance Navy]

@ Madgrenade

Rebels? so you consider the post election Iranian riots rebellions too?
have you ever been to Iran/Syria? because of a shitty nuclear reactor that might turn Iran into another Chernobyl, we must endure all sorts of sanctions so some perverted mullah is happy.So hell yeah I'd shake a hand that offers me help if I'm going to die either way.

@ Methuselath

It is political posturing.They also claim there are no political prisoners in Iran, but not long ago a dear friend of mine was imprisoned with the charge of "spreading Baha'i faith" and some other crap.

[Methuselath]

You from Iran Alliance Navy? There seem to be a weird political dissonance going there from what I can tell. The people are bloody pissed at the theocracy and the government, but this is also complicated with the fact that they are also bloody pissed at Israel, USA and the Arab neighbours. Getting sandwiched between US-influenced govt in Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't seem to help with the paranoia and Israel is definitely not making Iranian friends with the targeted strikes on the scientists. Understandably they'll feel like the world is try to piss on them and let me tell you, embargo is definitely not helping towards an Arabian-spring like movement with the people.

One of my friends put it well, who you might note is a Zoroastrian in a theocracy-Shi'a majority. He said that he hates the govt and the mullah with all his heart, but if USA/Israel goes on the offensive, he will definitely not take it without fighting- even with a Shi'a-led resistance. Whatever happened to heart and minds?

[Nurizeko]

"As I said, none of those countries was occupied by the West, even using your definition of the word."

So I state that these countries have been occupied by the west. You say you don't believe me.

I then post links showing how US troops are in the capitals of all these countries and Im still wrong. Can't really help that mate.

You seem to be confused as to what an occupation is.

As to your 1st point im sorry they didn't send in Obama down a street of cheering children to proudly plant the US flag in the middle of the state parliment but people build their empires with more subtlety these days.

Your appeal to absurdity aside, you yet again confuse terms. An alliance/relationship with a regional/local polity/regime/faction/whatever is not an empire.

Others have answered your argument.

The occupation argument is a flawed line of debate anyway seeing as any military solution to the 'Iranian problem' is going to involve bombing campaigns and little else. There is no desire (or even practical possibility) of the US, west or any of the anti-Iranian sphere to occupy the country.

The west has chosen sides in the Syrian conflict, but again this is a step short of occupation or even open involvement, the west again has no desire for ground forces involvement in those theatres (aside from at a stretch bombing or covert special ops). Turkey's involvement in Syria is part of a long history of Turkish interests and influence over the area, chances are the west could have chosen Assad's side and Turkey would still support the rebels.


Back onto the Iranian nuclear issue, Iranian posturing an hostility with the west aside, if Iran wanted nuclear power so much, they could have so easily played by the rules, as has been stated, accepted some conditions which otherwise nets them nuclear power, but instead Iran has consistently chosen to be a pariah state by not working with the international community.

Maybe like MG, they consider the international community to be the west's 'patsies' but if a country insists on threatening the very existence of a regional neighbour, threatening other neighbours and generally not making friends, and even making an enemy of its own people then it's not unreasonable to see their headlong rush for nuclear technology as a play for the bomb so that an isolated and deeply unpopular regime at home or abroad can have a dangerous card to play.


I am personally not a fan of western military adventurism and expeditionary war but in this case I fail to see the problem, not all conflict is unjustified.

Fact is the Iranian regime is not very well liked by a vast bulk of the world (including Iranians) and they do not make much of an effort to be part of that global community.

The reason Iranian nuclear technology seems so bomb-orientated is because that is how the regime's behaviour is indicating, amongst it's other actions which all point to a regime more interested in its own power at the expense of it's country's well-being.


Also as a last point, the idea of Iran being surrounded is fairly flawed seeing as Iraq is already lost to US influence for the most part and the occupation there has ended.

Afghanistan is unsurprisingly a quagmire of endless low level conflict with a weak central government that can't effectively project influence and force and who's life-span is measurably shortened following western withdrawal.

The reason Iran has very few friends is as stated, that it doesn't behave like much of a friend.

[Madgrenade]

@ Alliance Navy

No I regret I have not yet been able to travel to the mideast although I would certainly like to take the trip someday.

I appreciate that Iranians don't like the Mullahs, but I have great fears as to the consequences of military intervention in the Iran case.

As you have correctly pointed out a military strike on a reactor would cause a lot of fallout, (although hopefully the facility is buried so far underground there is a possibility that the mountain could collapse on the site and bury it, minimising pollution.

But in the event of a fullscale bombing campaign the US wont confine itself just to the nuke site. They will destroy everything else too. First any fixed anti air installations will go. Then your armies barracks will take a good pounding. Then regular powerplants, water treatment facilities. We know this because they have done it before. Anything they can do to make everyones life a misery. You live in Iran so I presume you have a better idea than me regarding the scale of suffering and devastion unleashed by Operation Iraqi Freedom (they were gonna call it Operation Iraqi Liberation but thought that was a bit too obvious). So if you wanna see a firestorm like that up close and personal then don't worry because it's on it's way. Personally I think it may be a good time to arrange an extended visit to your relatives in the countryside. That or order a metal umberella.

The US has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in bases all around Iran, American military doctrine being to bomb to a 90% reduction of enemy force capacity so they can lightning march on the Capital, taking in days while your military commanders (Those who survive) are scrambling around trying to see if they actually have any functioning units left. But even if they don't invade your still going to have plenty of DU from the bombing.

Once again I am not advocating that Iran should aquire a nuke, but we can't just keep on bombing everything. Otherwise we are going to end up with a free fire zone that extends from the Hindu kush to the shores of the Med. Basically WW3.

Good luck with your rebellion, but beware Yanks bearing gifts. Cos their gifts go boom.

@ Nurizeko

Not an empire eh? Ok lets examine this with a little recent historical perspective.

Col. Gaddafi (RIP)

Stalwart of the international community and dictator of 40+ years you would have thought he had the dictatorship game down.

Indeed he was courted bu the west in recent years. Britain sold him crowd control equipment and the French were happy to supply him with a total surveillanc system. Yes, things were looking good for Gaddafi.

While being a no doubt brutal opponent for his enemies, noone can deny that in the main he spent his oil money wisely and well, investing heavily in social housing and agricultural infrastructure. Not for him the mile high towers and artificial islands of some oil rich states we could care to mention.

Then one day he made a fatal mistake. You see Gaddafi wanted to form a north African union with a gold backed dinar currency, freeing his people from the fiat debt based currency we are having so much trouble with now, while also eliminating the cut the US takes on every dollar based oil transaction. This move would also undermine the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. So like any good leader does he started holding conferences and mustering the support of other north African leaders.

That is what seals his fate. Suddenly he has a "spontaneous" colour revolution emmanating from Benghazi. A revolution he would have had no trouble putting down if it weren't for NATO all of a sudden being up his ass (along with a bayonet.)

Yes having destroyed his armoured divisions the rebels were free to take the capital and murder him. Hey Saddamn gased the Kurds and he got a trial. But Gaddafi couldn't live as he still had a lot of popular support out there.

And the first thing the "rebels" did upon declaring victory was to set up a Rothschild owned private central bank. Way to go you anti-establishmentarians!

You see you don't even realise the empire exists until you try to free yourself from it. Then it comes and bites you REAL hard. Now Libya is a fractured state ruled by warlords and assorted armed gangs. Another brilliant military triumph.

So yes I stand by my comments regarding a subtle empire.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi 1942-2011

[GeoffS]

The US has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in bases all around Iran

Actually, if you discount those in Afghanistan since they are already in a combat zone and therefore unable to be involved in any action in Iran, there are probably less than 50 thousand in the Middle East in total, including reserves and Navy personnel on ships protecting the Gulf. Just counting ground troops available for action in Iran, that number comes down to somewhere around 30 thousand, up against some 500 thousand active Iranian military personnel and 650 thousand reservists.

[Alliance Navy]

@Madgrenade
I know exactly your point. Did you read my first post? I think this is all too complicated but if someone's going to kill me either way I'll take my enemies down with me. A lot of Iranians think this way.
@GeoffS
You forgot the civilian branch of IRGC.

[Nurizeko]

@ Alliance Navy

No I regret I have not yet been able to travel to the mideast although I would certainly like to take the trip someday.

I appreciate that Iranians don't like the Mullahs, but I have great fears as to the consequences of military intervention in the Iran case.

As you have correctly pointed out a military strike on a reactor would cause a lot of fallout, (although hopefully the facility is buried so far underground there is a possibility that the mountain could collapse on the site and bury it, minimising pollution.

But in the event of a fullscale bombing campaign the US wont confine itself just to the nuke site. They will destroy everything else too. First any fixed anti air installations will go. Then your armies barracks will take a good pounding. Then regular powerplants, water treatment facilities. We know this because they have done it before. Anything they can do to make everyones life a misery. You live in Iran so I presume you have a better idea than me regarding the scale of suffering and devastion unleashed by Operation Iraqi Freedom (they were gonna call it Operation Iraqi Liberation but thought that was a bit too obvious). So if you wanna see a firestorm like that up close and personal then don't worry because it's on it's way. Personally I think it may be a good time to arrange an extended visit to your relatives in the countryside. That or order a metal umberella.

The US has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in bases all around Iran, American military doctrine being to bomb to a 90% reduction of enemy force capacity so they can lightning march on the Capital, taking in days while your military commanders (Those who survive) are scrambling around trying to see if they actually have any functioning units left. But even if they don't invade your still going to have plenty of DU from the bombing.

Once again I am not advocating that Iran should aquire a nuke, but we can't just keep on bombing everything. Otherwise we are going to end up with a free fire zone that extends from the Hindu kush to the shores of the Med. Basically WW3.

Good luck with your rebellion, but beware Yanks bearing gifts. Cos their gifts go boom.

@ Nurizeko

Not an empire eh? Ok lets examine this with a little recent historical perspective.

Col. Gaddafi (RIP)

Stalwart of the international community and dictator of 40+ years you would have thought he had the dictatorship game down.

Indeed he was courted bu the west in recent years. Britain sold him crowd control equipment and the French were happy to supply him with a total surveillanc system. Yes, things were looking good for Gaddafi.

While being a no doubt brutal opponent for his enemies, noone can deny that in the main he spent his oil money wisely and well, investing heavily in social housing and agricultural infrastructure. Not for him the mile high towers and artificial islands of some oil rich states we could care to mention.

Then one day he made a fatal mistake. You see Gaddafi wanted to form a north African union with a gold backed dinar currency, freeing his people from the fiat debt based currency we are having so much trouble with now, while also eliminating the cut the US takes on every dollar based oil transaction. This move would also undermine the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. So like any good leader does he started holding conferences and mustering the support of other north African leaders.

That is what seals his fate. Suddenly he has a "spontaneous" colour revolution emmanating from Benghazi. A revolution he would have had no trouble putting down if it weren't for NATO all of a sudden being up his ass (along with a bayonet.)

Yes having destroyed his armoured divisions the rebels were free to take the capital and murder him. Hey Saddamn gased the Kurds and he got a trial. But Gaddafi couldn't live as he still had a lot of popular support out there.

And the first thing the "rebels" did upon declaring victory was to set up a Rothschild owned private central bank. Way to go you anti-establishmentarians!

You see you don't even realise the empire exists until you try to free yourself from it. Then it comes and bites you REAL hard. Now Libya is a fractured state ruled by warlords and assorted armed gangs. Another brilliant military triumph.

So yes I stand by my comments regarding a subtle empire.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi 1942-2011

While I don't disagree about all your points about the Libyan situation (I did not support the intervention and I am well aware that he was previously being courted by western states) you seem to still fail to grasp simple definitions.

Empires by their nature are not subtle.

em·pire
? ?[em-pahyuhr; for 8–10 also om-peer] Show IPA
noun
1.
a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
2.
a government under an emperor or empress.
3.
( often initial capital letter ) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
4.
supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
5.
supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.

The U.S. neither claims to be an empire by governance nor an empire by sheer domination.
It can be claimed to be interventionist, it can be claimed to be meddling, to support its allies and work against it's opponents, but the U.S. does not subjugate peoples. It just kills some.

[Madgrenade]

Originally by Nurizeko
The U.S. neither claims to be an empire by governance nor an empire by sheer domination.
It can be claimed to be interventionist, it can be claimed to be meddling, to support its allies and work against it's opponents, but the U.S. does not subjugate peoples. It just kills some.

Ah but this is why the US empire is such a slice of genius cake. You can't rebel against an empire that doesn't right? And as to your assertion that the US issues no mandates and subjugates no peoples then I invite you to examine and research General Patreaus' infamous (in some circles) "100 orders". A positive litany of juicy imperial mandates for Iraq including a nice 0% corporate tax rate amid plenty of of other beutiful dictats.

But I would like to draw your attention in particular to the odious order 81, which mandates by law that every Iraqi farmer MUST purchase Monsato's (A company which I hope requires no introduction) suicide seeds annually instead of using their own seed which Iraqi (mesoptamian) farmers have been carefully cross breeding for millenia.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=47991

Yup, nothing oppressive or imperialistic going on here. Move along. Move along.

It's things like this, along with the US rabid responses to anyone who even even dreams about the idea of a gold backed currency or trading for oil in anything other than US dollars that makes the idea of the US as a non imperialistic power not hold water.

I must at this juncture point out that it's a bit unfair to lay the blame for imperialism at the door of the US people. They are just the ones fronting the troops and hardware. They don't get any of the juice. Its monsantos empire. It's goldman sachs empire. It's raytheons empire. It's boeings empire. It's rio tintos empire. It's royal dutch shell and bps empire more than it is an American empire.

Please take a look at that link it took me a while to find it

[Sohtaraz]

You can rebel against a government last time I checked regardless of it being an empire or not. I'm not sure how biased and stubborn you come off as considering you were given the actual dictionary's meaning to the word "Empire" and somehow managed to try convincing its wrong. I like how you failed to list even Democratic empire or discussing it as such. I could go in to great detail how empire actually requires having direct power over anything and wanting more of it, not trying to make a government become selfsuccifient. I would argue still to this day that US is as a country is not dumb enough to try making an actual empire because they have all died for a reason.

Oppression does not mean imperialism. The fact you seem to be forgetting is that Iraq still needs help from other countries and that cannot be given if the local laws etc. are making it extremely unappealing as well as being just flat out dangerous to go there in the first place. I'd say something to do with new government is a good start for discussing how stable laws are.

The whole way of you discussing this Madgrenade feels more like demonizing of everything western countries do regardless of situation. And for the record its considered 'bias' to only read one side of the story, specially when its a story not a collection of facts. I can see multiple reasons why after being in a conflict zone you would encourage planting well succeeding crops over the traditional ones if there is any question of having to import food. Also your article 'forgot' to mention exactly how long does the 81 order last. Your assuming that this is a for ever and the crops Iraq has on its own can never be planted for this reason.

[Madgrenade]

LOL I quess order 81 is gonna last as long as it takes to destroy every naturally occuring seed in the country. The reason I am so antagonstic is because we've all had to put up with this for ten years now and I don't see it letting up anytime soon. I'm tired of seeing the cream of my country sent to die for corporate profit while my domestic taxes spiral to cover the never ending tide of war costs. I'm tired of the hypocracy. Most of all I'm tired of people with their heads in the sand pretending this is all going to go away and get better on its own. Cos it's not.

Need I remind you that there is no need to build governments if you refrain from destroying them in the first place. And I gotta be biased toward my point of view, even a little melodramatic, because of the massive slant of corporate bias we all face everytime we watch one of our sanitised (non biased lol) news reports. As to the lenght of duration of order 81 again addressed: why is it necessary to mandate Iraqis buy Monsantos seed in the first place? The whole thing reeks.

So I gotta speak up as loud as I can because if thanks to me theres one less person cheering when the tanks roll in then I feel it was worth it.

Maybe I'm just angry at myself for believing the hype ten years ago. But there's a million dead people thanks to our "liberation" and it isn't one of teh things that makes me proud to be British. Free speech and rule of law based on unquestionable moral principles are. This aint the west I grew up in.

EdIT: I don't care about your dictionary definitions, even though I have given an example of the US clearly behaving imperiously. The whole point is it isn't an overt empire, they redefine empire, it's a series of client states but the end result is the same. They syphon off the profits and dictate the law. You disobey you die. You are less likely to rebel against your own patsy national government than you are an obviously foreign overseer but they are still there, behind the curtain, as it were. AS to monsantos suicide seeds being better than the Iraqis and good for farming please don't even get me started down that road (oops). They teminate year after year so farmers cant save seed. It also means that a disruption in the supply chain could cause mass starvation. Plus the varieties they have produced are a monoculture and recently farmers in India have been killing themselves when their GMO crops fail them, often by drinking Roundup. (off topic so Google it if you don't believe me. )

[GeoffS]

And as to your assertion that the US issues no mandates and subjugates no peoples then I invite you to examine and research General Patreaus' infamous (in some circles) "100 orders". A positive litany of juicy imperial mandates for Iraq including a nice 0% corporate tax rate amid plenty of of other beutiful dictats.

Perhaps you should research it yourself before posting such biased misinformation. The "100 orders" were transitional regulations of the Coalition Provisional Authority which was led by Paul Bremer, not General Petraeus, and they were only in place for the period of transition to the new Iraqi Government. They were only in effect from 16 May 2003 until 30 June 2004. Order 81, which was only in effect from 26 April 2004 until 30 June 2004, did NOT mandate that Iraqi farmers could only buy particular seeds at all, but provided protection for new trademarked seed varieties by preventing the reproduction or resale of those varieties without authorisation. It's basically the same as trademark provisions in most other countries in the world.