You really love putting things out of context don't you?

"With some people its not about stupid or smart, its how bad they want to kill the other guy. Iran's leader (I refuse to call him their president) says he'd love to Erase Israel off the map, do you think he'd hesitate to use a nuke?"-Wolfen

As you can see Redneck I didn't take anything out of context, a legitimate question was asked by a fellow member and I gave my answer in how i see things in regards to Iran..... So what is it that i took out of context Redneck? or do you just enjoy stoking, hope you have a great time trying to always find ways to come after me.

How can nations like U.S and Israel who have fought more wars in the last 50 years than Iran/Persia have fought in thousand years judge others as unreliable and gun ho.

Because non of those countris said it wants t owipe someone off the map.Also Iran may not have invaded anyone but they support terror groups around the world and their hands are red with western blood.

"Because non of those countris said it wants t owipe someone off the map.Also Iran may not have invaded anyone but they support terror groups around the world and their hands are red with western blood."-Sherman

Well the thing is that if Iran has the blood of Westerners on its hands, Israel and U.S also are not benevolent they too have the blood of Muslims and Arabs on their hands. You never see Iranian blowing himself up or terrorizing others, Iran's political and moral support of Hezbollah and Hamas can't be translated as Iran itself carrying those acts out, just like U.S supports Israel but can't be held responsible for every act Israel carries out.

If Israel does not want to be bothered by Hezbollah it needs to give up the every inch of Lebanese territory such as the Sheba farms and if it does not want to be bothered by Hamas it needs to end the occupation of Palestine. Israel just like the U.S. does not have the moral authority to accuse others of warmongering while it occupies others and wages wars on nations. Iran has better track record than both Israel and U.S when it comes to wars and attacking others, its plain simple lets compare records.

Let's put it this way: Korea's record of invading other countries is actually quite low. In fact, other than Korea's intervention in Vietnam, the only major invasions or fights it's ever had is with itself.
This is not because Koreans are nice. It's because that was the limitations of Korea's means.
Iran's record of invading hasn't been very good because for the most part, they were the weaker side in the Iraq-Iran conflict until the 1991 Gulf War. But we know they have a hostile intent and will as they admit it themselves quite freely.
As for the whole thing with having Muslim blood. I guess you are right in a way... but having grown up around Muslims I find it fascinating how it is so easily forgotten that:
In 1993 when Muslim Somali gunmen used poor and starving Muslim Somalis as bait to lure in foreign aid so they could plunder and steal even more, America took the lead and many other countries followed in an effort to HELP Muslims get food.
Throughout the '90s when Muslims throughout the former Yugoslavia were getting slaughtered by Slobodan Milosevic, NATO with America's lead helped bring that to a close. Americans spilled blood protecting Muslims.
In 1991 when Iraq (under a Muslim Saddam Hussein .. yes he ran his government as a secular government but he was a Muslim nonetheless) and its thousands of Muslim soldiers invaded Muslim Kuwait and slaughtered innocent Muslim civilians there, many countries following America's lead drove the Iraqis out. I'm pretty sure you'll be hammering away about the motivations but the truth of the fact is, Americans HAVE DIED protecting Muslims, often from other Muslims.
Oh and I'm totally leaving out Afghanistan in the 80s.

It's funny... it's like that over here as well. If a North Korean soldier or sailor kills a South Korean serviceman, no one cares. No one gives a damn. But if a civilian dies in a road accident involving a member of the US Army.... HOLY SH1T half the city's on fire.
I guess if a Korean kills another Korean, that's not really dying so it's okay.
So if a Muslim kills another Muslim, that's not really dying. No, they'll get up and go to work tomorrow. The usual.

Here it goes I'm about to dissect and dismember you argument

"Let's put it this way: Korea's record of invading other countries is actually quite low. In fact, other than Korea's intervention in Vietnam, the only major invasions or fights it's ever had is with itself.
This is not because Koreans are nice. It's because that was the limitations of Korea's means."-Redneck

Well South Korea had to worry about its Northern brethern, who has invaded it once already and who was much stronger than it for much part of their hostile history. So South Korea could never really afford to engage in other wars in a much larger scale because of their need of having their army available to take on the defense of their territory from North Korea, they could never deploy in foreign wars and leave their homeland defenseless they need as much of their military within South Korea to defend themselves so this is a bad comparison attempt.


"Iran's record of invading hasn't been very good because for the most part, they were the weaker side in the Iraq-Iran conflict until the 1991 Gulf War. But we know they have a hostile intent and will as they admit it themselves quite freely."-Redneck

Iran has always been the dominant power in the Persian Gulf region even in times of the imperial army of the Shah, also lets remember the Shah was America's biggest ally in the region at the time besides Israel. Iran had the luxury of having a powerful military and the diplomatic support of America they could have invaded their weak neighbors if they wanted to their was nothing stopping them, they were quite powerful at the time. Lets remember also when Iran diplomatically settled their border disagreement peacefully with Saddam in Algiers with an accord in the 70s when they could have taken it militarily because Iran was stronger than Iraq at the time, Iran has never been the one to wage wars it only fights when someone attacks them. Iran had the means to expand their borders from the 50s to the 90s and never attempted to, this is a testament to their non aggression foreign policy.


"As for the whole thing with having Muslim blood. I guess you are right in a way... but having grown up around Muslims I find it fascinating how it is so easily forgotten that:
In 1993 when Muslim Somali gunmen used poor and starving Muslim Somalis as bait to lure in foreign aid so they could plunder and steal even more, America took the lead and many other countries followed in an effort to HELP Muslims get food."-Redneck

America was never suppose to go into Somalia, the only countries that were suppose to be their were only countries that contributed UN peacekeepers and were flying the UN flag, America sent their military without it being under the UN command; therefore, they did what they pleased such as going into Mogadishu in helicopters and trying to capture a warlord Hussein Aidid, they expected the Somalis not to react. Who wouldn't react when a foreign troops are raiding their capital, no one takes foreign troops in their capital kindly. They could have put their troops under the UN mandate and the UN flag and carried out that mission a lot more peacefully, but America aggressiveness and gun ho mentality took over and that mission ended horribly.


"Throughout the '90s when Muslims throughout the former Yugoslavia were getting slaughtered by Slobodan Milosevic, NATO with America's lead helped bring that to a close. Americans spilled blood protecting Muslims.
In 1991 when Iraq (under a Muslim Saddam Hussein .. yes he ran his government as a secular government but he was a Muslim nonetheless) and its thousands of Muslim soldiers invaded Muslim Kuwait and slaughtered innocent Muslim civilians there, many countries following America's lead drove the Iraqis out. I'm pretty sure you'll be hammering away about the motivations but the truth of the fact is, Americans HAVE DIED protecting Muslims, often from other Muslims.
Oh and I'm totally leaving out Afghanistan in the 80s."-Redneck

Americans were never about saving Muslims give me a break, were all intelligent people and we see right through the politician's lies and deceptions. They went into Yugoslavia not to save the Muslims but because their European allies such as France, Germany, Britain and etc asked for American involvement, their military or air forces I should say didn't have the capabilities to strike Yugoslavia around the clock which was needed in order to subdue Milosevic army and bring them to the table; they needed the U.S. air force to do most of the bombings and heavy work and they were obligated to help their European allies.

Saddam after the war with Iran became very powerful with a million man army, thousands of armor, 800 jets air force, long range missiles and WMDs, so America viewed him as a liability now that he crippled Iran and was no longer useful. The American Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam:
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."(Saddam smiles)
During their meeting when Saddam was discussing with her the Kuwait situation and how Kuwait was angle drilling and stealing oil from the Rumeila oil fields that were well within Iraq. The Americans set Saddam up, they gave him the green light by saying his problem with Kuwait doesn't concern them, they could have explicitly told him not to go into Kuwait, so naturally he though this was an implicit support and that America in the end will back him up like they did in Iran. The fault here lies in America for misleading Saddam. And when he invaded Kuwait they used that opportunity to cut him down to size and also to gain a foothold in the strategic Persian Gulf.

America didn't help Afghanistan in the 80s, they used the Mujaheddin as proxies to bloody the Soviets and for revenge in the Vietnam debacle, American politicians remarked how they would make Afghanistan the Soviet's Vietnam. The Americans support for Afghanistan ended as soon as the Soviets left, America was furthering America's interests not Afghanistan. Also The American's accused Saddam in 1991 for invading Kuwait who is a sovereign country, the UN charted states no member nation shall attack or invade another member nation without the authorization and backing of the UN but they hypocritically turned around and did exactly what they accused Iraq of in 1991, they invaded and trespassed on Iraqi sovereignty without the authorization of the UN in 2003.

So to sum up, Americans did not die to save Muslims, Americans died furthering America's interests and foreign policies, it may look like they are helping the Muslims because that is how they portray themselves in order to look legitimate but lets get pass the media and their politicians lies, America never intervenes unless something is in it for them.


"It's funny... it's like that over here as well. If a North Korean soldier or sailor kills a South Korean serviceman, no one cares. No one gives a damn. But if a civilian dies in a road accident involving a member of the US Army.... HOLY SH1T half the city's on fire.
I guess if a Korean kills another Korean, that's not really dying so it's okay.
So if a Muslim kills another Muslim, that's not really dying. No, they'll get up and go to work tomorrow. The usual."-Redneck


Their are Christians that kill other Christians too. The fact of the matter is, people within the same culture or religion may fight each other but when a foreigners come and attacks them they set aside their differences in order to fight the outsiders. Its like to brothers fighting and when some other neighbor's kid comes and fights them, no matter how mad they were at each other they would set aside their infighting to fight the other kid. Just because Muslims are killing each other doesn't give the Americans the right to kill them, if they kill each other that is their prerogative but its not right when the Americans go in and kills them in order to control their oil. Fighting each other is not the same as getting killed by an outsider who comes to occupy your land and steal your resources.

If Israel does not want to be bothered by Hezbollah it needs to give up the every inch of Lebanese territory such as the Sheba farms and if it does not want to be bothered by Hamas it needs to end the occupation of Palestine. Israel just like the U.S. does not have the moral authority to accuse others of warmongering while it occupies others and wages wars on nations. Iran has better track record than both Israel and U.S when it comes to wars and attacking others, its plain simple lets compare records.

I think your stepping out of history and into propoganda. Firstaly, PLO and other palestinian troor groups operated long before the 67 war, so oviously the claim ending the occupation will stop trror is false. secondly,Israel dose not hold one inch of lebanese land, the shbaa farms are syrian not lebanese. thirdly, hezbollah, supported by iran, launched attacks to specifically hurt civilians which is somthing that neither the israeli or american army dose intentionaly. I whole, your supporting the nuclear arming a country that wants to wipe another country off the map. Israel never once threatend to do that, and never did it denie its enemies right to exist. what the irani president is duing is prelude to mass murder. Its against morality and last i checked against islam. but since you oviously share zero precent of my poltical and moral ideas, ill put it in simpler terms:
I am western. The west dose not want Iran to have a bomb. THe west is far stronger, in any way, than Iran. We there for can and should enforce this on Iran to prevent it from risking our intrests.

Dose that real-politics statement make it easier for you?

"I think your stepping out of history and into propoganda. Firstaly, PLO and other palestinian troor groups operated long before the 67 war, so oviously the claim ending the occupation will stop trror is false. secondly,Israel dose not hold one inch of lebanese land, the shbaa farms are syrian not lebanese. thirdly, hezbollah, supported by iran, launched attacks to specifically hurt civilians which is somthing that neither the israeli or american army dose intentionaly. I whole, your supporting the nuclear arming a country that wants to wipe another country off the map. Israel never once threatend to do that, and never did it denie its enemies right to exist. what the irani president is duing is prelude to mass murder. Its against morality and last i checked against islam. but since you oviously share zero precent of my poltical and moral ideas, ill put it in simpler terms:
I am western. The west dose not want Iran to have a bomb. THe west is far stronger, in any way, than Iran. We there for can and should enforce this on Iran to prevent it from risking our intrests.

Dose that real-politics statement make it easier for you?"

I don't mean to digress from the original topic, but bear with me while I explain and dismember you argument.

In 1948, Palestine was partitioned into an Israel section and a Arab-Palestinian section. The Arab population was larger at the time, they also received the larger chunk of Palestine. The Palestinians felt all of Israel belonged to them, the Israelis felt that they should have received more share of land, so they started fighting. The Israelis had the upper hand in 1948 so they conquered many Palestinian areas that the UN gave to the Arabs. Then the Palestinian groups such as PLO were formed to win back the territories that were allocated to the Arabs by the UN in 1948. As decades passed and in 1967 when Israel conquered the rest of Palestine, the Palestinians knew that trying to get back the territories that were lost in 1948 was lossed cause, so they settled for trying to reclaim the territories that were lost in 1967 and Jerusalem.

So you state that, "Firstaly, PLO and other palestinian troor groups operated long before the 67 war, so oviously the claim ending the occupation will stop trror is false." This is were you statement falls apart, the reason that Palestinian groups existed in before 1967 is because at that time those Palestinian groups were trying to regain the Arab territories that were allocated to them by the UN that the Israelis captured in 1948 war. So I doubt those groups would have existed before 1967 if their was no Palestinian territory lost before 1967, so you statement would have had some truth and substance if only we forget the territories lost in 1948.

The Sheba farms is Lebanese, the Israelis are the only ones that claim it belong to Syria. The Syrians themselves say its not theirs, who ever heard someone disclaiming their own territory if it was really theirs? No one, its all Israeli propaganda that its Syrian territory in order to portray that Hezbollah has no reason to exist because Israeli is not occupying Lebanese territory, since Hezbollah says they exist in order to liberate all Lebanese land, so basically its an Israeli attempt to take the carpet right under the Hezbollah feet and deny them credibility in the eyes of the Lebanese. The international community even recognizes that the Sheba farm is Lebanese territory, because when Syria and Lebanon demarcated their border it went to Lebanon, it also was historically Lebanese.

Yes Hezbollah did launch 4,000 rockets at Israel, but you are also absolving Israel of all wrong doing themselves by stating "thirdly, hezbollah, supported by iran, launched attacks to specifically hurt civilians which is somthing that neither the israeli or american army dose intentionaly."Both parties showed no mercy in that war, Israel completely leveled large sections of Lebanon, they launch an air blitz, bombing Lebanese infrastructures, airports, highways, towns, electricity and water supplies, the ports, complete towns leveled. I can post pictures of how complete towns were leveled, the houses demolished, how can you say that you don't attack civilians intentionally when you attack locations and level town knowing that their are civilian occupants? If that is not intentional I don't know what is. The use of cluster bombs in cities knowing their are civilians everywhere, that is not intentional? What did the civilians just magically disappear when the Israelis are bombing civilian centers. The Israelis deliberately wanted to punish the Lebanese people, by bombing towns and infrastructure as a message that this is a wholesale collective punishment for their support of Hezbollah. This is the 21st century where communication and information is the click of a button, the news videos and pictures alone are a testament of the civilian damage that Israel did.

I don't support the nuclear arming of any country, if it could be possible I would love to have a world and Middle East free of WMD. But I believe that if Israel has 200-400 nuclear arsenal, with no IAEA inspections, with no oversight of any kind, what gives them the moral authority to say Iran can't develop nuclear energy capability. The IAEA has stated that Iran abandoned any research that may have seemed nuke related in 2003, that their is no prove Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels, that their is no prove that Iran is doing anything more than nuclear energy research. I say if Iran wants to be technically independent in nuclear energy research and to secure the future of their country, once the oil dries out, I see that a prudence and a nation that is trying to secure their energy and development in the future once oil dry out. The Israelis and the Americans are just beating the war drums again and creating false pretexts like Iraq in order to eliminate yet another challenge to Israeli military might in the region.

Lets look at this, Egypt and Jordan are no longer a threat they made peace with Israel, Iraq is eliminated as a military obstacle in the drive to have Israel reign over the Middle East, and now they want to eliminate Iran as the other major obstacle to Israeli supremacy dictates in the region. Then after Iran is eliminated Syria will be left alone and vulnerable surrounded by Israel or American leaning regimes, and they will be left with 2 choices A. Sign peace with Israel on Israeli terms or B. You will be eliminated the same way as Iraq and Iran. Then Israel will have reign supreme over the whole Middle East. You see I believe its not a coincidence that America is going after one Muslim country after another who had nothing to do with 9/11 under the false pretexts of war on terrorism and nukes. North Korea tested a nukes and the missiles capable of carrying them, but America never once stepped up to them militarily in order to control their nuke building. But they militarily go after Muslim countries that have no nukes, while they make peace and sit at the table with North Korea as equal partners. If they can negotiate without preconditions and dictates with the erratic, WMD proliferating, Hermite regime of North Korea, they can't negotiate with Iran without preconditions and dictates which is more responsible and less erratic than the North Korea regime?

You may see things differently, and I'll agree to disagree. But I am educated and what I said is not propaganda, its just how things seem. Its not more than coincidence that one Muslim country after one is eliminated as an obstacle to Israeli designs in the Middle East while North Korea test, builds and taunts America and the world?

Originally Posted by UnitedSomalia

America was never suppose to go into Somalia, the only countries that were suppose to be their were only countries that contributed UN peacekeepers and were flying the UN flag, America sent their military without it being under the UN command; therefore, they did what they pleased such as going into Mogadishu in helicopters and trying to capture a warlord Hussein Aidid, they expected the Somalis not to react. Who wouldn't react when a foreign troops are raiding their capital, no one takes foreign troops in their capital kindly. They could have put their troops under the UN mandate and the UN flag and carried out that mission a lot more peacefully, but America aggressiveness and gun ho mentality took over and that mission ended horribly.

Yeah ......well you have your facts confused, there high speed.

The 15th MEU (SOC) deployed to Somalia in Dec of 1992 in support of UNSOM II , Operation Restore Hope II. BLT 2/9 was the lead element that secured the port and air field at Mogadishu to allow the UN aid coming into the country to actually make it to distribution points before it was stolen and redistributed to the War Lords.

2/9 also provided security at the port and airfield and at distribution points as well as escorting convoys carrying UN aid.

All of this was done under the UN mandate UNSOM II and 2/9 was considered part of the UN force in Somalia. You would think that you would know this ....but of course it doesn't fit your agenda now does it.

Incidentally I was assigned to 2/9 during the period in question.

How was it UN mission to go in helicopters commando style into someone else capital? The Americans may have been their to support the UN, but my main argument still stands, that the American units that were their were never under UN command or supervision they were under American command and took orders from their own leaders not the UN; therefore, the Americans were acting as they seen fit without UN authorization to go raid Mogadishu.