Iran , Why ? - Page 8




 
--
Boots
 
March 8th, 2015  
hamidreza
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
There's a remote possibility that the US would as a last ditch effort take out Iran's nuclear faculties via bombers B1 and or B52's using bombs that no one else has. But the US has no interest in a land war with Iran. Yes it could, but no it won't. It doesn't make any sense for the US and nobody in the US is even advocating such a war.
haha..., yea you have B1, B2, B52, F22, F18, F15, aircraft carrier and many other advanced weapon and Hollywood, money, CIA, media .... But for the ME this is not enough!
It is funny to see the US politicians when they are unable to make any decision for the ME! If they support the Arab regimes, what is their respond to Arab spring? If they support Arab spring what should they do against Islamic extremist rising?! If they want to fight against Islamic extremist what should be their relation with Iran? If they want to improve their relation with Iran what will be their respond to Israel, Zionist lobby and Arab regimes?!
You attacked to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. and now what is the result. If Afghanistan Taleban hasn't been destroyed yet. In Iraq you can see the Islamic caliph and in Libya ISIS forces are parading in Libya cities!
Using your power in The ME is the same as using an elephant to fight against a bee colony! For ME people democracy and freedom is not first issue, For them religion was/is the first issue!
because of above reasons I told that the US don't dare to attack Iran as a country who has the most influence in the ME!
March 8th, 2015  
hamidreza
 
IS destroying another ancient archaeological site in Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-investiga...134330229.html
March 8th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamidreza
haha..., yea you have B1, B2, B52, F22, F18, F15, aircraft carrier and many other advanced weapon and Hollywood, money, CIA, media .... But for the ME this is not enough!
It is funny to see the US politicians when they are unable to make any decision for the ME! If they support the Arab regimes, what is their respond to Arab spring? If they support Arab spring what should they do against Islamic extremist rising?! If they want to fight against Islamic extremist what should be their relation with Iran? If they want to improve their relation with Iran what will be their respond to Israel, Zionist lobby and Arab regimes?!
You attacked to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. and now what is the result. If Afghanistan Taleban hasn't been destroyed yet. In Iraq you can see the Islamic caliph and in Libya ISIS forces are parading in Libya cities!
Using your power in The ME is the same as using an elephant to fight against a bee colony! For ME people democracy and freedom is not first issue, For them religion was/is the first issue!
because of above reasons I told that the US don't dare to attack Iran as a country who has the most influence in the ME!
It sounds like you didn't read my post 56 in which I speak about this enigma, where we basically agree. In fact it doesn't even sound like you understand my previous post. Besides what is there about Iran that makes Iran so unattackable from the air strike? The US is not about to attempt to topple Iran, where are you getting the idea that I said this? Again read my previous post.
--
Boots
March 8th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamidreza
IS destroying another ancient archaeological site in Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-investiga...134330229.html
This kind of thing is just another crime these nut cases are committing.
March 9th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
For one thing ~ 1 million (and it was higher >> 1.5 million, if we included civilians killed incidental to combat) in the Red army's taking the eastern provinces. Stalin and the leaders did turn a blind eye to the barbaric behavior of the Red army once they reached the German frontier. Although much of the loot was taken by the Red army for the Soviet Government as well, never to be returned. Yes seeing as the Germans were directly responsible for the deaths of at least 15 million Soviet civilians (depending on which historian you follow the number could be higher) it would seem a relatively small revenge. The Soviet atrocities in Germany were not planned state genocide, but more that of a vengeful opportunistic victorious army. Had you been a women or just a civilian in Germany facing the invading Red Army you didn't deserve the atrocities imposed on you anymore than the Soviets who suffered under the Nazi's. Stalin's own moto was death to the German invader. At wars end Stalin made effort to restore order to eastern Germany and banned any more such behavior. However directly after the war several million displaced Germans died of starvation, the elements, homelessness and such as they were forced out of Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States. Stalin was either directly or indirectly in control of these area's and did nothing to stop this tragety.
1)There is a difference between 1 million German civilians murdered by the Soviets and 1 million who died during the Soviet invasion and during the expulsion

2)there were no several million displaced Germans that died :in 1945 the German population east of the Oder-Neisse was not much more than 10 million

3) That the Germans were responsible for the death of 15 million Soviet civilians is also questionable : the defense of Leningrad caused a lot of civilian casualties,as were the defense of Köningbergen and Breslau and the responsability of these casualties can be attributed to those who defendec the cities .

4) The Sudeten Germans were expelled by the Czechs,by the "good democrat" Benesj with the consent of the Western Allies

5)About Stalin : he publicly reprimanded Ehrenburg at the start of the Soviet invasion,not after the war:Stalin knew he would need the Germans after the war and mass murder would hinder his plans :in 1922 the SU did business with Weimar (Rapallo) ,in 1939 with Hitler.After the war, the Soviet strategy
was the realisation of a neutral Germany, not of a partition,not of 2 Germanys .Mass-murder during the invasion would result in a hostile Germany

6) Most of the territories Germany lost were lost to Poland, not to the SU.All Poles (communist and non communist) agreed that the Oder-Neisse would be the Western border of Poland .
March 9th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
1)There is a difference between 1 million German civilians murdered by the Soviets and 1 million who died during the Soviet invasion and during the expulsion

2)there were no several million displaced Germans that died :in 1945 the German population east of the Oder-Neisse was not much more than 10 million

3) That the Germans were responsible for the death of 15 million Soviet civilians is also questionable : the defense of Leningrad caused a lot of civilian casualties,as were the defense of Köningbergen and Breslau and the responsability of these casualties can be attributed to those who defendec the cities .

4) The Sudeten Germans were expelled by the Czechs,by the "good democrat" Benesj with the consent of the Western Allies

5)About Stalin : he publicly reprimanded Ehrenburg at the start of the Soviet invasion,not after the war:Stalin knew he would need the Germans after the war and mass murder would hinder his plans :in 1922 the SU did business with Weimar (Rapallo) ,in 1939 with Hitler.After the war, the Soviet strategy
was the realisation of a neutral Germany, not of a partition,not of 2 Germanys .Mass-murder during the invasion would result in a hostile Germany

6) Most of the territories Germany lost were lost to Poland, not to the SU.All Poles (communist and non communist) agreed that the Oder-Neisse would be the Western border of Poland .
This is going to continue without resolution, Apparently we are not going to agree. I stand by the statements made earlier. It's just not worth the time for an extensive research project. to hunt down all the sources. I've studied these topic's and these are my finding.
March 10th, 2015  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
This is going to continue without resolution, Apparently we are not going to agree. I stand by the statements made earlier. It's just not worth the time for an extensive research project. to hunt down all the sources. I've studied these topic's and these are my finding.

I feel you on that one, the fact checking and numerical blame game takes focus away from the real subject here and isn't entirely relevant.

I feel the U.S. can and should explore it's entire position with Iran. Ultimately Iran is trying to hassle with the U.S. over regional security and economic issues with this nuclear debate, the positive outcome could be Iran not relying on the nuclear card to solve it's issues, but if Iran goes ahead anyway, then obviously they lose their current moral grounding. At that point I would support a military option. But only then as hostile intent would be genuine, at the moment it just isn't and doesn't appear to be anytime soon.
March 10th, 2015  
tetvet
 
99/44 /100% Of ME Countries are artificial Countries created by European powers out of the Ottoman Empire , Syria , Iraqi , Jordan , Leaders were installed that were not always the ones that people wanted .
March 10th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
but if Iran goes ahead anyway, then obviously they lose their current moral grounding. .

What moral grounding ?
March 12th, 2015  
hamidreza
 
Tikrit war:




 


Similar Topics
De-Arabization of Iran
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis
'We've Got To Bring the Hammer Down on Iran'
Rice warns Iran of UN sanctions
Iran's Military