Mr Smith:
Iran HAS NOT sent its armies abroad since Persia got thumped by Alexander the Great. And what about U.S. support for the Contras and U.S. meddling in other countries such as support for the SPLA in Sudan? Please stop trying to paint the U.S. Way as holier than thou and the ONLY way to sort out world affairs. You’ve got blood on your hands too. Compromise a little and at least ‘acknowledge’ with respect others’ opinions.
Broon Ale:
So Iran and the US are equally “good” or equally “bad” world citizens? Is that how you would put it? Hmmm.
Now, I “acknowledge” that your comment was not very “nice” of you so in a way we have become morally equivalent because of that not so “nice” thing I said earlier?
Iran is a problem. I acknowledge that I am not sure what we can do about it. Ditto for North Korea but we did a good job with Iraq and perhaps may wish to consider expanding this or at least talk about expanding this effort to rein Syria in. Would that be acceptable?
Well, technically, maybe. But Iran did invade Iraq during the war started by Iraq.
[quote]In May 1982, Iranian units finally regained Khorramshahr, but with high casualties. After this victory, the Iranians maintained the pressure on the remaining Iraqi forces, and President Saddam Hussein announced that the Iraqi units would withdraw from Iranian territory. Saddam ordered a withdrawal to the international borders, believing Iran would agree to end the war. Iran did not accept this withdrawal as the end of the conflict, and continued the war into Iraq. In late June 1982, Baghdad stated its willingness to negotiate a settlement of the war and to withdraw its forces from Iran. Iran refused.
In July 1982 Iran launched Operation Ramadan on Iraqi territory, near Basra. Although Basra was within range of Iranian artillery, the clergy used “human-wave” attacks by the Pasdaran and Basij against the city’s defenses, apparently waiting for a coup to topple Saddam Hussein. Tehran used Pasdaran forces and Basij volunteers in one of the biggest land battles since 1945. Ranging in age from only nine to more than fifty, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks. All such assaults faced Iraqi artillery fire and received heavy casualties. The Iranians sustained an immmense number of casualties, but they enabled Iran to recover some territory before the Iraqis could repulse the bulk of the invading forces.
fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm[/quote]
Once the Iraqi troops withdrew from Iran and Saddam indicated a desire to settle for peace, the Iranians became the aggressors.
Now, on the other hand, if you believe that the Iranians were simply fighting a defensive war (the best defense being a good offense), then certainly you agree that the US doctrine of preemptive war is nothing more than another type of defensive war, no?
What if Saddam had indicated a desire to settle for peace earlier this year, would that have made the U.S. aggressors? The U.S. has indicated that Saddam has lied and been involved in deceit for decades and droned on about that as a justification (or part thereof) for war. Maybe the Iranians didn’t believe him either. So the Iranians, using current U.S. logic, were therefore justified in going on the offensive. I sense that this is something that you can agree with? Point still is, leave Iran alone. They aren’t perfect but they have behaved very well recently which was all I was trying to say in the first place.
Very possibly.
See, brune ale does NOT dull the senses… 
Well, I agree with fred smith that Iran hasn’t exactly been acting saintly… and I state again that the US is not, IMO, acting in a particularly threatening way toward Iran… yet. As I stated, the UNSC is not a very threatening entity.
Tigerman:
Maybe not saintly but restrained. The who attacked who first thing is quibbling. I know it is difficult for right wing Americans to actually acknowledge anything other than dastardly sinister coming from Iran but I really do think that the U.S. is not really giving Iran ANY credit where SOME is due. Can you? Or are you too firmly entrenched politically that giving such credit would erode your credibility?
[quote=“BroonAle”]Tigerman:
Maybe not saintly but restrained. The who attacked who first thing is quibbling.[/quote]
No, its very important in deciding who is the aggressor and thus who is “right” and who is “wrong”.
I’m certain that if I strained hard enough, I could find some good things about the current Iranian leaders. But, to heck with my credibility, I think Iran has been a pretty bad apple. Nonetheless, I am not in favor of using force against Iran at this or any reasonably foreseeable time… I would much prefer to see Iran pressured from without into initiating real reform.
The U.S. would be better off initiating dialogue with Khatami and allowing some economic activity between the two countries thereby encouraging reform from WITHIN. Overtly pressurising Iran from without with veiled threats only serves to strengthen the hand of Ayatollah Khamanei and the clergy and weakening Khatami. If that economic activity were to be seen to benefit the Iranian people (who overwhelmingly support the reformists), then Iran could be perceived as an asset in the Middle East and not the threat/liability it is viewed as at present by primarily the U.S. The U.S. should swallow her pride and take the lead from the Europeans (particularly Britain) on the Iran issue.
Brume Ale:
How has the European position succeeded? True there has been no conflict with Iran but Iran has NOT complied with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty so the Europeans have won how exactly when Iran has done precisely what it wanted. Hell, we heard more squealing from Europe after the US negotiated an exit from the ABM treaty with Moscow and Moscow agreed and it was a treaty between our two nations and had nothing to do with Europe.
Yes, always negotiations and dialogue. The Iranian government knows this and effectively plays off the US and Europe depending on what it wants. No, there has been no meaningful move toward reform and most of Iran’s population is rabidly pro-American NOT pro-European. If Europe is the peaceful nation, the nonagressor and all that, why would the vast majority of Iranians prefer the Americans. Have you considered this? I notice that you too have few qualms about using black-shirted, right-wing, etc. etc. so should I be offended here or are you just pointing out facts?
Mr Smythe (you could at least get my name right)
It is a fact that you are right wing. Black Shirt…I’ll take that back. How exactly do you know that the “vast majority” of Iranians are “rabidly pro-American and NOT pro-European”? That remark is absolute, total crap. Iranians are moderate in their outlook and like some aspects of the American way but “rabid”. Bullshit. You have embellished an assumption to re-inforce your own view. Have you ever been there and talked to Iranians on the street, sat in their houses and discusssed their “rabid” pro-American positions? have you? You are wrong.
BruNeale:
Well, now what would you say if I did in fact talk to Iranians on the street and in their homes? But numerous newspapers have commented on the fact that the Iranian population tends to be very pro-American. Iran’s population is pro-American. Do you have proof otherwise? I believe that I am right on this.
But how has your European dialogue succeeded when Iran has spent the past 20 years trying to develop nuclear weapons despite international law and treaties, etc. So while everyone can be for peace, etc. why are European governments too worried about nuclear weapons in Iran if we are all civilized countries and equally good?
Gauleiter Schmidt,
Well, you can believe the numerous newspaper articles and take them as gospel if you like. I note that you went from “rabid” to “very”. I am not saying that there are not aspects of American culture and ideals that do not appeal to Iranians, there are. You just went too far in your appraisal of the level of pro-American feeling in Iran. And you do this based on newspaper articles. Presumably articles in newspapers that suit your political leanings. That’s convenient. Myself, well I didn’t actually record or write down any of my many many many conversations with Iranians in their homes, on buses, trains, planes, tea houses or on the street but I know I am in a much better position than you to “know” what the sentiment on the ground amongst the people of Iran really is (with apologies for the structural clumsiness of that last sentence). That’s all the ‘proof’ I have to offer but that probably isn’t good enough for you, is it?
Your last point: just go back to my earlier post about engagement.
BroomAle:
Sorry to disappoint but I have spent time in Iran as well “talking to the people.” I believe that they are very very pro-American. Is my opinion now acceptable?
Oberfuhrer von Insterburg
BroomAle:
Khatami is no reformist. He is part and parcel of the system. When push comes to shove, he ain’t going to be on “our” side.
While you and I may like the Iranian people and find them very hospitable, I believe that perhaps you are mistakenly drawing the wrong conclusion. Just because the average Iranian is quite nice does not mean that the government is. The government is one of the most ruthless in the world and should be treated as such. Dialogue may be effective but not if a big club ain’t hanging over their heads. More club I say.
Herr Oberfuhrer von Insterburg-Schmidt,
Your opinion is not “acceptable” but it has greater credence so I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You can’t therefore discount my opinion either. You, as I, will just have to agree that we find each other’s opinions unacceptable to each other and that perhaps there is validity in both. I would be interested to hear of your experiences there.
Gruppenfuhrer Starkbier vom Fass
Brume Ale vom Fass:
Well I guess we can agree to disagree. Better to discuss in private over beer. I think that some of this stuff would still be kind of sensitive if I were to talk about it too openly. Never know if people would get into trouble if you know what I mean.
That’s right. I mean you’d be in deep s**t if your acolytes thought for one minute that you were going soft on those murderous towel heads by saying something nice about them. Heaven forbid!
Hauptmann Witzig
This thread has gotten way off topic…
Very good point. Will US companies be held liable for aiding and abetting Saddam’s use of chemical weapons? Will Rummy be called to testify as an accomplice?
Sure they may be tried for their role in aiding and abetting Saddam, but by the time the courts are finished dealing with the Russians, French, Chinese, Poles, Czechs, Germans in that order, before getting to that 1 percent involving Rummy and Bush and Blair and Thatcher who will long have faded from the scene. But I think it is a good idea. So who first? Yeltsin or Chirac? Shall we take a vote?