Civil war in Iraq started?

[Ome_Vince]

Source

U.S. commanders in Baghdad are focused on cracking down on Iraqi death squads responsible for killing hundreds of citizens in the capital in recent months, a military spokesman said Monday.

Most death squad killings appear to be sectarian, with Sunni Muslim gunmen targeting Shia neighborhoods, and Shiite attackers going after Sunnis. Victims are sometimes abducted by the dozens, their bodies often turning up later with signs of torture.

Good luck US, though i'm afraid this shitpool can't be fixed

 

[VictimOfScience]

Mission Accomplished?

 

[CptStern]

Source



Good luck US, though i'm afraid this shitpool can't be fixed

a shithole created by the US

iraq has been fighting a civil war in all but name since the start of the occupation

 

[Cole]

I don't see you over there CptStern trying to help getting it all straightened out? You can critize the U.S. all you want, and I know you will. However at least our Government is trying to hold it togeather they are trying.

Was it not good getting Saddam out of there? The guy who gave money to terrorists? Who aided them?

Yes Iraq isn't in the best shape, but you wanna know something... lets go back to when Iraq had it's first election. The vote turnout was amazing considering people were threatening there lives for voting. Iraqi's have shown that they have freedoms now and no one will take them away. A city blows up, you think they will give in to oppression? Iraqi's havn't taken freedom for granted like us. They are willing to die for it as we all should, every single one of us who has taken it for granted.

There is terrorism and people are dying. Yet they are dying because they are exercising there right of freedom. They are willing to die for it. If you are not willing to die for freedom then you shouldn't have it.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Hopefully all of this violence (iraq, israel, lebanon, syria, iran) over there will lead to a more stable region. Civil Wars can be good after all. We had one right here in the US and TONS of people died, but we are that much better for it. Its a cathartic purgative and a necessary evil sometimes.

 

[CptStern]

I think it will escalate terrorist attacks world wide for generations to come. This (and the war on terror) is one giant terrorist recruiting drive

I don't see you over there CptStern trying to help getting it all straightened out? You can critize the U.S. all you want, and I know you will. However at least our Government is trying to hold it togeather they are trying.

why arent you there? it's your country's interests you're defending right? Your government LIED their way into iraq ...you created this madness

Was it not good getting Saddam out of there?

not at the expense of the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents ..more have died during the sanctions/war then in over 25 years of saddam's rule

The guy who gave money to terrorists? Who aided them?

careful where you go with that because the US has done the same thing countless times

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1614977&highlight=posadas#post1614977
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1976343&highlight=Luis#post1976343

Yes Iraq isn't in the best shape,

I cant stress this enough: caused by the US invasion/occupation/sanctions/desert storm

but you wanna know something... lets go back to when Iraq had it's first election. The vote turnout was amazing considering people were threatening there lives for voting. Iraqi's have shown that they have freedoms now and no one will take them away. A city blows up, you think they will give in to oppression? Iraqi's havn't taken freedom for granted like us. They are willing to die for it as we all should, every single one of us who has taken it for granted.

what good is freedom if you cant excercise it? what good is freedom if you rely on food rations? what good is freedom if you have no medical supplies, if your drinking water is unsafe, if you no electricity, if walking the streets means taking the risk that you will be kidnapped and ransomed or worse

There is terrorism and people are dying. Yet they are dying because they are exercising there right of freedom. They are willing to die for it. If you are not willing to die for freedom then you shouldn't have it.

no, they are dying because the US ILLEGALLY invaded iraq. They fabricated evidence, they willfully put the lives of tens of thousands on the balance just so they could further their goals ..not the goals of the iraq people ..Iraq will continue to be a humaitarian problem in my grandchildren's lifetime, mark my words

 

[gick]

Hopefully all of this violence (iraq, israel, lebanon, syria, iran) over there will lead to a more stable region. Civil Wars can be good after all. We had one right here in the US and TONS of people died, but we are that much better for it. Its a cathartic purgative and a necessary evil sometimes.

TBH, I really can't see it helping matters at all. More angry people = more terrorism, wars and death.

 

[VictimOfScience]

I think it will escalate terrorist attacks world wide for generations to come. This (and the war on terror) is one giant terrorist recruiting drive

Lets hope not. Generations? I don't think attacks will escalate for generations to come, though of course there will always be terrorism in one form or another for the rest of the course of human existence. ;(

I also think that the War on Terror is a misnomer. Its should be World War III since its a global conflict affecting nations from here to the other side of the world. Unconventional, to be sure, and a war that no side can ever truly "win".

TBH, I really can't see it helping matters at all. More angry people = more terrorism, wars and death.

Well, it cetrtainly helped us here in the US and hopefully it can help Iraq too, even though there are so many other forces outside of that country looking to exploit each side for their own (economic/political) advantage.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

ISLAM
----------
"The Islam religion was founded by Mohammed in the seventh century. In 622 he founded the first Islamic state, a theocracy in Medina, a city in western Saudi Arabia located north of Mecca. There are two branches of the religion he founded."
----------


SUNNI MUSLIMS
-----------
"The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War." Sunni Muslims are the largest denomination of Islam.
-----------

SHIITE MUSLIMS
"Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed. In 931 the Twelfth Imam disappeared. This was a seminal event in the history of Shiite Muslims. According to R. Scott Appleby, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, "Shiite Muslims, who are concentrated in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, [believe they] had suffered the loss of divinely guided political leadership" at the time of the Imam's disappearance. Not "until the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978" did they believe that they had once again begun to live under the authority of a legitimate religious figure." Shiites are the second largest denomation of Islam

Source
http://hnn.us/articles/934.html

So much death and destruction in Iraq is due to these differences. There are some people in Iraq that are so absolutely screwed in the head. People so brainwashed, so insane they'll walk into a crowd of their country men with an ak47 and empty the entire clip leaving bullet ridden groaning bodies and corpses all over the place. This stuff is happening WEEKLY. It is ****ing nuts over there. Lets not understate that - > IT IS ****ING NUTS.

Now it's no secret Saddam actually had these groups under a level of control. Control which stemmed from fear backed up by his goons. These random car bombings and civillian butcherings did not happen under Saddam on a daily/weekly basis. There was a level of safety but certain freedoms were lacking. There was running water and electricity. Liveable? Most definitely.

From a short term point of view, America has completely ****ed up the stability Iraq once had. From a long term point of view, yeah it might end up being a good thing. From a longer term point of view when the oil runs out the country is screwed anyway.

Was it not good getting Saddam out of there? The guy who gave money to terrorists? Who aided them?
.

huh? Can you give me some evidence of that? Just a few links will do fine.

 

[Absinthe]

Was it not good getting Saddam out of there? The guy who gave money to terrorists? Who aided them?

I shot off a wart on my foot the other day. I reckon it was good to get rid of it, but now I have a massive bleeding hole in my leg.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

huh? Can you give me some evidence of that? Just a few links will do fine.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html

http://husseinandterror.com/

It's well known and Hussein was proud to have it as public knowledge.

 

[CptStern]

hold on a sec, you'd be hard pressed in proving that the money encouraged suicide bombing ..after all the money was doled out after they commited the terrorist act ...oh and btw did you miss this part or is the fact that they're US allies make it ok?:

But Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both U.S. allies — pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.

or how about training and supplying death squads in el salvador, niceragua, Iran etc?

Iraq is no different:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1433353,00.html

 

[Ome_Vince]

Stern, yes even though the US have toppled this Dictator shattering a balance (what kind of balance one might ask), indirectly "setting a stage" for Civil War, you cant simply lash out all 100% of the responsibility for it to the US.
The US for instance didnt create Sunni - Sjite hatred,....

Even though, yes i disagree with the Iraq war, the US is doing its best to stop this Civil War while they could have just left. They deserve a bit of credit for sticking this through.

 

[CptStern]

only because they have their interests in mind ..and yes the US is directly responsible for this yet the fact is ignored almost as if the deaths of 10's of thousands of iraqis is completely meaningless

btw does anyone actually think that the US is there out of a sense of honour or duty? come on, you dont manipulate evidence, you dont lie to your own people if you're trying to justify a humanitarian mission.

 

[Ome_Vince]

I didnt say that. But they could have left some time ago, but decided to stay.
And those American commanders are actually trying to stop this Civil War.

 

[CptStern]

only when and if it suits them

 

[Lt. Drebin]

I didnt say that. But they could have left some time ago, but decided to stay.
And those American commanders are actually trying to stop this Civil War.

Iraq is a mess and a complete folly, it's the US's fault and we have to clean up our sh*t before we leave....it's as simple as that. And, there's no way we would have just left months ago.....it's probobly the only way we could look worse in this issue. It was utter nonsense to begin with.

Stern, I'm having trouble with your statement that more people hate us because of the war on terror...it's not that I disagree with your statement, but more that I disagree with what it represents. I don't believe that people with this kind of hatred and anger can be reasoned with...diplomatic routes run their course before they even begin. Yes, war is terrible and many innocent people lose their lives.....and people will no doubt hate us and others for that, but do you allow the behavior of terrorists to persist.

I'm really torn on this issue.....but let's look at Lebanon....very consistant with what we're talking about. What's happening to the country of Lebanon is terrible, but Israel has taken it up the rear-end for roughly 6 years now.....after resolutions were signed, agreements made, hands shaken, Hezbollah continued to shower northern Israel with random rocket attacks....so you scratch your head and ask what to do?? My feeling has become that you con't worry about people in the future hating you when everyone in the present already does. In the case of Israel, they've taken an us or them approach....and I can agree...if someone has a knife pointed at me and wants to fight...we're going to fight because I'm not interested in getting stabbed in the back or dying. In the case of the US, it's different because those that hate us are separated from us by oceans, but that's not always a deterent.

So, I guess my question is, do you want a world devoid of violence? I don't think that's going to happen....someone will always hate someone else for some reason. I've come to accept a natural level of chaos from 6-7 billion people occupying one planet. But, I wouldn't feel right allowing others to attempt to kill me or my family for no better reason than fear of more people hating me in the future.

 

[CptStern]

Iraq is a mess and a complete folly, it's the US's fault and we have to clean up our sh*t before we leave....it's as simple as that. And, there's no way we would have just left months ago.....it's probobly the only way we could look worse in this issue. It was utter nonsense to begin with.

Stern, I'm having trouble with your statement that more people hate us because of the war on terror...it's not that I disagree with your statement, but more that I disagree with what it represents. I don't believe that people with this kind of hatred and anger can be reasoned with...diplomatic routes run their course before they even begin. Yes, war is terrible and many innocent people lose their lives.....and people will no doubt hate us and others for that, but do you allow the behavior of terrorists to persist.

I like the bee analogy ..it's like walking into a field of beehives, picking one at random and smashing it with a baseball bat ...sooner or later they're all going to come after you

I'm really torn on this issue.....but let's look at Lebanon....very consistant with what we're talking about. What's happening to the country of Lebanon is terrible, but Israel has taken it up the rear-end for roughly 6 years now.....after resolutions were signed, agreements made, hands shaken, Hezbollah continued to shower northern Israel with random rocket attacks....so you scratch your head and ask what to do?? My feeling has become that you con't worry about people in the future hating you when everyone in the present already does. In the case of Israel, they've taken an us or them approach....and I can agree...if someone has a knife pointed at me and wants to fight...we're going to fight because I'm not interested in getting stabbed in the back or dying. In the case of the US, it's different because those that hate us are separated from us by oceans, but that's not always a deterent.

still I dont see why the lebanese civilians should pay the price ..again it's like the UK bombing dublin to get at the IRA

So, I guess my question is, do you want a world devoid of violence? I don't think that's going to happen....someone will always hate someone else for some reason. I've come to accept a natural level of chaos from 6-7 billion people occupying one planet. But, I wouldn't feel right allowing others to attempt to kill me or my family for no better reason than fear of more people hating me in the future.

there's a difference between not wanting violence and not wanting governments to orchestrate violence as a pretext to fullfilling whatever selfish goals they may have

 

[Lt. Drebin]

Whatever was done in the past to lead up to this point has been done. Cannot be undone. I agree, the level of corruption that governments have displayed is equally disgusting. We are where we are and must now deal with this reality.

Stern, I certainly see your point, and I'm genuinly torn on this issue, but I simply don't have anything else to add to this. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[clarky003]

The only way in the short term to subvert the motives of the bush administration is to not co-operate, the only reason other developing countries like the UK do join is because the interests that drive the status quo of both economies are essentially the same.

The very core of all this is to do with energy because it is the base requirement for modern society to keep its economic momentum. The only possible way to stop the need to do what they are doing is for the energy economy to change, the problem is entrenched interests in the fossil fuels industry.

When you boil it down to a T it's the small elite groups of people that influence these actions, government decisions follow the state of the economy, these cartels are forcing the decisions.. so through economic reasons they can goto war to quite simply maintain and expand their influence and power. It's just a vicious circle and the only way to stop it is to subvert and replace the dependance on fossil fuels.

 

[CptStern]

Whatever was done in the past to lead up to this point has been done. Cannot be undone. I agree, the level of corruption that governments have displayed is equally disgusting. We are where we are and must now deal with this reality.

yes however should we ignore the past we're doomed to repeat it

Stern, I certainly see your point, and I'm genuinly torn on this issue, but I simply don't have anything else to add to this. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I dont even know what we're disagreeing on

 

[Ome_Vince]

Comparing Iraq with Iran isnt really fair, even though i agree with what you're saying.
Iraq was not shouting to anihilate certain countries, in a sense Iran is a threat, especially if they do obtain Nuclear Weapons.

 

[CptStern]

10 years away at best (more fear mongering), dwarfed by the 200-400 that israel has not too mention that the US effectively surrounds iran and could at any time incinerate the entire country if it so wished

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

hold on a sec, you'd be hard pressed in proving that the money encouraged suicide bombing ..after all the money was doled out after they commited the terrorist act ...oh and btw did you miss this part or is the fact that they're US allies make it ok?

The suicide bombing funds are only one of many things.

http://husseinandterror.com/

 

[clarky003]

Comparing Iraq with Iran isnt really fair, even though i agree with what you're saying.
Iraq was not shouting to anihilate certain countries, in a sense Iran is a threat, especially if they do obtain Nuclear Weapons.

I for one think thats rubbish to a certain extent. Even if Iran did decide to use their nuclear program to build nuclear weapons launching one at a western country would be pretty much useless. The level of defensive tech that the star wars program has developed can effectively take one out well before it reaches its target. Most effectively the directed emp weapon that could just simply short circuit any nuke and render it dud.

There is reason to believe the whole wmd terror threat from launches abroad is grossly over exagerated, maybe worry if it was 20 or 30 years ago but today its far more likely to be scare mongering propaganda, the only real concern is smuggling one into a country 'under the radar', but even that is immensely difficult especially considering the current state of threat awareness.

 

[Cole]

why arent you there? it's your country's interests you're defending right? Your government LIED their way into iraq ...you created this madness

Why arn't I there? I am young. However when I can I will go. We did use Weapons of Mass Destruction to get into Iraq. However we were not the only country to believe they had WMD's. In the end, we are freeing the people and that is why we should have originally gone in. I did not create this madness, no my government did. That is not me. However I am willing to stand up for my country.

not at the expense of the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents ..more have died during the sanctions/war then in over 25 years of saddam's rule

Why not? If someone puts a gun to your head would you do as he says? If you don't yeah you may be considered stupid. But if you do give into him. If you do as he says. If you give him all your money. Well you didn't deserve anything he took anyway if your that easy to give it away.

If you let anyone take away your freedom, then who is stopping someone from taking them all away? What is stopping a bunch of militants to simply sorround Canada's capital and turn it into a dictator government and now everyone has to work the fields and all those that the government dislikes gets shot. It is the people that are willing to stand up and fight and loose there life.

Now you may be wondering, "Well your government records phone calls on people suspected to be terrorists". Well you are completely right, we should stand up to that.

I cant stress this enough: caused by the US invasion/occupation/sanctions/desert storm

Or because Terrorists are kidnapping people and blowing shit up? Iraq will get better in time, just wait and see.

what good is freedom if you cant excercise it? what good is freedom if you rely on food rations? what good is freedom if you have no medical supplies, if your drinking water is unsafe, if you no electricity, if walking the streets means taking the risk that you will be kidnapped and ransomed or worse

Because it means that someone wont come over by you and wip you for saying how crummy it all is. It means that you will be able to get up and go vote and know that it means something. It is something to stand up for. Yeah Iraq is bad right now, but just wait.

And that last part about being taken ransomed, if you are willing to give up freedom for that. Then maybe you shouldn't have it?

no, they are dying because the US ILLEGALLY invaded iraq. They fabricated evidence, they willfully put the lives of tens of thousands on the balance just so they could further their goals ..not the goals of the iraq people ..Iraq will continue to be a humaitarian problem in my grandchildren's lifetime, mark my words

No I will not mark your words because they are wrong. Iraq will do good, it will start constructing its own forcing to tackle terrorism. I mean look at the Korean War. You would be like "WTF are we doing in South Korea fighting communism. So many people are going to die.". Well now take a look at South Korea. It has done extremely well. No doubt Stern you would have went against the Korean War.

I shot off a wart on my foot the other day. I reckon it was good to get rid of it, but now I have a massive bleeding hole in my leg.

Well asking the Wart to get off your foot wont do much either now will it? At least shooting it off it will recover, heal, and eventually be fine.

 

[CptStern]

Why arn't I there? I am young. However when I can I will go. We did use Weapons of Mass Destruction to get into Iraq. However we were not the only country to believe they had WMD's.

the information came from the US ..and you did know that he didnt have WMD ..there's tons of direct evidence that they knew ..because they manipulated evidence to support invasion:

minutes from a meeting 8 months before invasion between bush and blair leaked to the media in 2004:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

In the end, we are freeing the people and that is why we should have originally gone in.

the US didnt seem to care when he was committing his worst atrocities, including the use of WMD in the war against iran ..supplied by the US I might add ..along with commuications support, satalite intelligence, troop movement and even shooting down a passanger plane killing all aboard "mistaken" for a military aircraft

I did not create this madness, no my government did. That is not me. However I am willing to stand up for my country.

yes when I said "you" I was referring to the US

Why not? If someone puts a gun to your head would you do as he says? If you don't yeah you may be considered stupid. But if you do give into him. If you do as he says. If you give him all your money. Well you didn't deserve anything he took anyway if your that easy to give it away.

there was no gun to the US' head:

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks [9/11], Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan....

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.


"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

If you let anyone take away your freedom, then who is stopping someone from taking them all away? What is stopping a bunch of militants to simply sorround Canada's capital and turn it into a dictator government and now everyone has to work the fields and all those that the government dislikes gets shot. It is the people that are willing to stand up and fight and loose there life.

saddam was no threat to the US, see above quote

Now you may be wondering, "Well your government records phone calls on people suspected to be terrorists". Well you are completely right, we should stand up to that.

they've done far worse, see above quote

Or because Terrorists are kidnapping people and blowing shit up? Iraq will get better in time, just wait and see.

thousands of iraqis have been killed by coalition bombing ..at least 7000 in the initial invasion alone ..and since they lied their way into iraq they are reponsible for every death in iraq whether directly or indirectly


Because it means that someone wont come over by you and wip you for saying how crummy it all is. It means that you will be able to get up and go vote and know that it means something. It is something to stand up for. Yeah Iraq is bad right now, but just wait.

And that last part about being taken ransomed, if you are willing to give up freedom for that. Then maybe you shouldn't have it?

No I will not mark your words because they are wrong. Iraq will do good, it will start constructing its own forcing to tackle terrorism. I mean look at the Korean War. You would be like "WTF are we doing in South Korea fighting communism. So many people are going to die.". Well now take a look at South Korea. It has done extremely well. No doubt Stern you would have went against the Korean War.

iraq has become progressively worse since the occupation began, you're in it for the long hall

 

[Ome_Vince]

10 years away at best (more fear mongering), dwarfed by the 200-400 that israel has not too mention that the US effectively surrounds iran and could at any time incinerate the entire country if it so wished

True, though the US and Israel are not the ones wishing and publically vowing to anihilate a country.
That Israel cannot afford Iran to obtain even 1 nuke i can understand completely. With such words coming from the Iranian leaders both religious and government, its like Hitler vowing to punish/get rid of the Jews.
With only 6 million people on a puny piece of land, could you take the risk? (as 1 is more than enough..)

 

[Forceflow]

'Started' ?
Wait, did it ever stop ?

 

[15357]

The lack of public services in Iraq is contributing heavily to this 'Civil War'.

 

[CptStern]

True, though the US and Israel are not the ones wishing and publically vowing to anihilate a country.
That Israel cannot afford Iran to obtain even 1 nuke i can understand completely. With such words coming from the Iranian leaders both religious and government, its like Hitler vowing to punish/get rid of the Jews.
With only 6 million people on a puny piece of land, could you take the risk? (as 1 is more than enough..)

sounds like more fear mongering to me ..iran has had WMD since the 80's, they've signed non-proliferation treaties (ironically Israel has not, in fact they wont even acknowledge they have nukes ..even though everyone knows), and has no history of pre-emptive strikes ...israel on the other hand ......

 

[Ome_Vince]

sounds like more fear mongering to me ..iran has had WMD since the 80's, they've signed non-proliferation treaties (ironically Israel has not, in fact they wont even acknowledge they have nukes ..even though everyone knows), and has no history of pre-emptive strikes ...israel on the other hand ......

What your saying would actually make sense if Israel ever threatened or vowed to whipe a certain religion/nation off the face of the earth.

Fact remains, both have never used it, though 1 (Iran) vows to anihilate the other, and its former president calls for a nuclear strike..
I dont think we can simply Ignore Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's own words, threats and promises (even against fellow muslims who acknowledge Israel).

Also, especially since the former president says this:

former president Hashemi Rafsanjani five years ago called for a Muslim state to annihilate Israel with a nuclear strike

All that along with the country digging into Nuclear technology is more than simple "fear mongering"..

 

[CptStern]

What your saying would actually make sense if Israel ever threatened or vowed to whipe a certain religion/nation off the face of the earth.

so words are now justification for sanctions/invasion/nuclear war?

Fact remains, both have never used it, though 1 (Iran) vows to anihilate the other, and its former president calls for a nuclear strike..

with what? they dont have nukes, never have ...israel has well over 200

I dont think we can simply Ignore Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's own words, threats and promises (even against fellow muslims who acknowledge Israel).

Also, especially since the former president says this:

with what? no muslim state has nukes

All that along with the country digging into Nuclear technology is more than simple "fear mongering"..

fear mongering


absolute fear mongering

 

[VictimOfScience]

The people involved in the civil war in Iraq don't have nukes. <--see how that's On-Topic guys? :cheese:

with what? no muslim state has nukes

Erm, Pakistan does.

 

[CptStern]

The people involved in the civil war in Iraq don't have nukes. <--see how that's On-Topic guys? :cheese:


Erm, Pakistan does.

pakistan is a long time US ally and has recently opened relations with israel ..they're the least likely candiadate ..besides their beef is with india not the west

 

[VictimOfScience]

pakistan is a long time US ally and has recently opened relations with israel ..they're the least likely candiadate ..besides their beef is with india not the west

Yes, but they're still a Muslim state with nukes...from a questionable program too. Plus they've not exactly been the greatest help in this so-called War on Terror. Their security forces are part of the problem from what I gather....

 

[CptStern]

yes but bush has long maintained strong ties with pakistan especially since the war on terror ..and pakistan is a islamic republic meaning their constitution conforms to islamic law rather than using islamic law as it's model (as is the case in saudi arabia for example)

 

[Ome_Vince]

so words are now justification for sanctions/invasion/nuclear war?

Sannctions, not invasion/nuclear war. They justify sanctions. If only we did the same vs Mr Adolf back in the day, might have prevented that nasty war.
Would you like to wait until the sheep drowns in the well before doing anything about it.

with what? they dont have nukes, never have ...israel has well over 200

Not yet, which is the whole point. Israel has but doesnt threaten to anihilate people. And this threat has now come from 2 presidents in a row.

with what? no muslim state has nukes

You never heard of Pakistan?

 

[CptStern]

Sannctions, not invasion/nuclear war. They justify sanctions. If only we did the same vs Mr Adolf back in the day, might have prevented that nasty war.
Would you like to wait until the sheep drowns in the well before doing anything about it.

there's been unilateral sanctions against Iran since 1979 ..so what more should be done? and on what basis? should rhetoric be grounds for invasion/sanctions? on what grounds? they're just words ...oh and that whole "get them before it's too late" justification has been used before ..and we all know how accurate that was:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

Not yet, which is the whole point. Israel has but doesnt threaten to anihilate people. And this threat has now come from 2 presidents in a row.

not true, Rafsanjani wasnt president when he made those statements. Nukes are at least 10 years away ..Israel has a 40 year head start

You never heard of Pakistan?

islamic republic, ally of the US and has good relations with israel ..not a threat

 

[Ome_Vince]

there's been unilateral sanctions against Iran since 1979 ..so what more should be done? and on what basis? should rhetoric be grounds for invasion/sanctions? on what grounds? they're just words ...oh and that whole "get them before it's too late" justification has been used before ..and we all know how accurate that was:

So because the States used it to justify their illegal invasion of Iraq we now cant use that logic against the public rally calls of anihilation and many threats (including usage of Nuclear Weapons), along with the development of Nuclear Technology.

We should now all be blind against the signs, threats and intimidations.
So lets sit back, wait and see what happens. Unfortunatly, "i told you so" wont work when an entire civilisation perishes.
Who's talking about invasion btw, but sanctions are at order, which Iran responds by threatening the US with "Harm and pain",and also threatens to attack Israel if the US "does anything evil"

So, US "does something evil" and Iran then feels the need to attack Israel. What a logic there.

not true, Rafsanjani wasnt president when he made those statements. Nukes are at least 10 years away ..Israel has a 40 year head start

O, i'm sorry, he said it a few years after losing office to our current "friend". Does that make his comments less brutal? Considering he was the president only a few years earlier.
Thats like Bill Clinton saying Iraq should be whiped out by Nukes.

Head start or not, if Iran throws 1 nuke on Israel, its enough, Israeli response then is impossible.
Israel needs to lob alot of nukes to get Iran off the map.

Imo Iran is not stupid, it wont launch a nuke, but it could for instance "accidentally" lose one to Hezbollah or Hamas.

islamic republic, ally of the US and has good relations with israel ..not a threat

I never said it was, just pointing out there are Islamic nations who have nukes, which you said there werent.
You made the initial comment to counter Rafsanjani's words that Israel should be nuked.

I'm sorry Stern, i understand your point, i wouldnt support a pre-emptive strike against Iran just as i didnt against Iraq, but i fully understand why the US, Israel + UN doesnt trust that radical fascist nation with nukes, and is a little nervous about it.