Iranian Missle launch-what does it mean?

[Fragony]

Yes, except the Iranian government is not terroristic.

You got to be kidding me.

[Incongruous]

You got to be kidding me.

Define terrorist, because it does not just mean "opponent of U.S foreign policy".

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, except the Iranian government is not terroristic. On the same note you could see every government that has gone to war is terrorist.

People that critisize Iran always forget the fact that under President Khatami the Iranians assisted the Americans with information concerning the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran isn't that anti-western as people think.

I've long been a proponent of dialogue with Iran and recognition of its place as the regional power (especially since the positive collaboration against the Taliban) but the above statement is disingenuous. Even if one could actually define the Iranian "government" from the many interest groups that wield power, it is very clear that Iranian policy uses terrorist groups to fight its proxy wars.

In addition, one needs to differentiate between the Iranian people (on the whole, quite pro-Western - at least, when we are not threatening to annihilate them) and the assorted nutjobs that make up their governing cliques. Khatami was one thing, Ahmedinejad quite another - and the clerical elite, yet another.

Define terrorist, because it does not just mean "opponent of U.S foreign policy".

Try Hizbollah, Hamas, the Iraqi Sadrists etc for exceptional definitions of terrorism by anyone's standards. All are Iranian proxies. You might support their goals, but it is difficult to argue that they do not use terrorism towards those ends.

[Incongruous]

Try Hizbollah, Hamas, the Iraqi Sadrists etc for exceptional definitions of terrorism by anyone's standards. All are Iranian proxies. You might support their goals, but it is difficult to argue that they do not use terrorism towards those ends.

Standards...
Interesting, when did the West ever really conform to its supposed set of standards, more specifically the U.S?

The supporting of what many call mass murder/genocide, illegal and agressive warfare, the killing of untold numbers of civilians during said illegal wars, the use of the mass media to nullify the horror of what is being done.

By these standards, no one is actually a terrorist...

[rory_20_uk]

Israel is so fixated with their own value as humans above all others that the best world would be everyone else living beneath Israel's guns to ensure there are no threats.

The other darlings of the nuclear club.

Israel has nukes. It also has attacked other countries without provocation bar them building something that israel doesn't like.

Pakistan has nukes. It is currently fighting a battle with Islamic insurgents and has a security force that back islamic insurgents

North Korea has nukes. They've just threatened war with anyone who touches their ships. They frequently ignore treaties they've signed including the armistace with South Korea.

Russia has nukes. It's hobbies involve proxy wars and invasions and the odd political assassination. Its military is underpaid and they've got thousands of them lying around.

Iran has a country that has a track record of attacking neighbours without warning if they develop anything that they don't like. This country also views international law as a guideline to be crossed whenever they feel like it. They currently occupy the land of other countries to ensure their own safety... which includes embargoes that include concrete and access by land, sea or air. Iran also has a Superpower invading a next door neighbour (who in turn was supported when fighting Iran), invaded a country to its North and has effectively given the Kurds independence although there are Kurds in Iran, causing problems.

And apparently Iran should be happy to let these other two countries surround it and not think at all of any weaponry to prevent it being attacked.

[Incongruous]

Israel is so fixated with their own value as humans above all others that the best world would be everyone else living beneath Israel's guns to ensure there are no threats.

The other darlings of the nuclear club.

Israel has nukes. It also has attacked other countries without provocation bar them building something that israel doesn't like.

Pakistan has nukes. It is currently fighting a battle with Islamic insurgents and has a security force that back islamic insurgents

North Korea has nukes. They've just threatened war with anyone who touches their ships. They frequently ignore treaties they've signed including the armistace with South Korea.

Russia has nukes. It's hobbies involve proxy wars and invasions and the odd political assassination. Its military is underpaid and they've got thousands of them lying around.

Iran has a country that has a track record of attacking neighbours without warning if they develop anything that they don't like. This country also views international law as a guideline to be crossed whenever they feel like it. They currently occupy the land of other countries to ensure their own safety... which includes embargoes that include concrete and access by land, sea or air. Iran also has a Superpower invading a next door neighbour (who in turn was supported when fighting Iran), invaded a country to its North and has effectively given the Kurds independence although there are Kurds in Iran, causing problems.

And apparently Iran should be happy to let these other two countries surround it and not think at all of any weaponry to prevent it being attacked.

Ahhh, the sweet smell of perspective.

[Andres]

You forget that far far away country on the other side of the ocean that has been almost constantly involved in numerous bloody conflicts all over the world for decades now. They have nukes too. A very long time ago, they even used them on civilians in another far away country.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Russia has nukes. It's hobbies involve proxy wars and invasions

Ahhh, so when Russia finally, for the first time in more than 20 years, but briefly lays waste to 15% of a nation (Abhazia and South Ossetia are not part of Georgia by their own reckoning) it is now its hobby to invade other countries but when US has an intervention every other year it is "spreading democracy" and "liberating countries from repressive regimes". I see.

Well, save for the Kurds, every Iraqi I, my father, and his boss (my father is a lawyer at an immigration firm) have talked to said that their lives have been close to peaches-n'-cream during Saddam's regime. National Geographic reports the same. It was the best times Iraq has had. Everything was cheap, plentiful, and booming. Now? I doubt I need to comment. So that was OK, but when Russia decided to be the bad boy, and knock out a few teeth out of Georgia and withdraw that was bad?

Sure, Russia was being a(n) when it trounced Georgia, but as we see now, no WMDs have been found yet. But it is too late. The country is as stable as Uranium, or worse, elemental Fluorine, and in shambles as a bonus.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, save for the Kurds, every Iraqi I, my father, and his boss (my father is a lawyer at an immigration firm) have talked to said that their lives have been close to peaches-n'-cream during Saddam's regime.

That's like saying Nazi Germany was OK for most people except, you know, minorities.

[Aemilius Paulus]

That's like saying Nazi Germany was OK for most people except, you know, minorities.

I know it may seem difficult to say with a straight face, but save for the war, Germany was marvellous for most people. The only trouble is, Hitler targeted loads of people, whereas Saddam focused his efforts on one particular group, that was not that undeserving either. Ever heard of PKK and other Kurdish Resistance Movements? Those blokes want autonomy or independence, but such requests are never reasonable.

In any case, no nation is perfect. Every nation has its own persecuted peoples, and quite a bit still actively kill the minorities. Especially when the minorities are as militant and separatist as Kurds. Yet none of those countries are invaded. Do not believe myths told about the Kurd's peacefulness either. When every other reason is gone, it is but fitting to hold on to the last justification for the invasion of Iraq. Sure, not all are militant, but a great portion are.

Honestly, Saddam's treatment of Kurds is not a justification for invading Iraq. Nor was it ever a reason, just as drilling oil was not. The reason was the need for a pro-American government in such a strategically and economically valuable region. US never simply "took" the oil. It still buys it for the same market prices. The reason was that Saddam was put by the Yanks in the first place to keep Iran in check. Now that Saddam went rogue... well, you get it.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, save for the Kurds, every Iraqi I, my father, and his boss (my father is a lawyer at an immigration firm) have talked to said that their lives have been close to peaches-n'-cream during Saddam's regime. National Geographic reports the same. It was the best times Iraq has had. Everything was cheap, plentiful, and booming.

Do you know if you were mostly talking with Ba'athists and Sunnis? Because I doubt that being a Shia was peaches and cream even if it was better than the invasion and occupation. And let's not count Kurds or political dissidents, eh?

I know it may seem difficult to say with a straight face, but save for the war, Germany was marvellous for most people. The only trouble is, Hitler targeted loads of people, whereas Saddam focused his efforts on one particular group, that was not that undeserving either. Ever heard of PKK and other Kurdish Resistance Movements? Those blokes want autonomy or independence, but such requests are never reasonable.

Saddam targeted more than just the Kurds (although you seem to be the type who thinks political dissidents "deserve" what they get in brutal autocracies). Furthermore, saying Germany was "marvelous" for six years (for those that didn't incur the wrath of the state) isn't really saying much.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Do you know if you were mostly talking with Ba'athists and Sunnis? Because I doubt that being a Shia was peaches and cream even if it was better than the invasion and occupation. And let's not count Kurds or political dissidents, eh?

It was both. The Shi'a clients said it was quite difficult and sometimes impossible to get to high positions, but otherwise, life was generally good. Anything is better than the invasion according to those people. Invasion is what they were fleeing. Iraq was stable before the invasion. Now it is not. Now people die there. At any moment, one can lose their loved ones. No one appreciates that. Dn all Americans who foolishly believe the invasion is currently beneficial for Iraq. It may prove to be for the best later on, but for now, Iraq is hell.

Hate to generalise, but you Americans are not fully cognisant of the desire for stability other nationals have. You scoff at us Russians for not supporting "democracy" and instead backing Putin and his quasi-authoritarian government. For preferring stability over freedom. But you have not lived our life. You know not what instability and uncertainty is. When Soviet Union collapsed, among other things, people lost all their savings due to changes in currency.

My grandfather was a big wheel in USSR. Yet he was a model of honesty and hardwork. He saved substantial amounts of money for my parents, enough for them to buy a splendid mansion and a Volga, about the best and most luxurious car widely available to people in USSR. Yet he lost all during the transition. Millions had the same happen. In USSR your money was automatically transferred to your bank account once you were paid. The vast majority of people kept everything there. All lost.

Other countries are similar, where instability is even more egregious. Their instability breeds wars. For other countries, stability is freedom. Democracy is not for everyone. Only the most advanced countries can support it, or incredibly lucky ones. nations such as India and South Africa came under positive influence of the British Empire, apparently. It enabled them to set up free governments. But the government in SA was apartheid for depressingly long period of time. Indian democracy was supported by the wise and strong Nehru-Gandhi family, which defined Indian politics.

Now with Putin, there is a hope for an honest, corruption-free leadership for Russia. Putin uses unconventional methods and he suppresses dissent, yet life in Russia is constantly improving and there is a hope of continuity as Putin appoints his successor. much better than that drunken, corrupt and idiotic Yeltsin. Russia is not advanced enough to sustain any type of democracy beyond crony democracy. Corruption is too firmly entrenched. Once Putin hopefully curbs it, then, and only then, can true democracy take root in the Russian Federation.

Saddam targeted more than just the Kurds (although you seem to be the type who thinks political dissidents "deserve" what they get in brutal autocracies).

Of course he did. There is always political dissidents in every regime. In the less kind ones, the dissidents are highly persecuted. But he targeted them not because they simply existed, such as ethnicity, but because of their own actions. They were responsible for their own fate.

Now, let us not make weakly-based assumptions here, as I do not believe they exactly deserve what they get. However, they have chosen their fate. When they go against the government, such a repressive one too, they know what they will get. It is their choice.

I salute them for actually doing something to change their country, but I do to expect them to live long. A dictatorial regime like Saddam's can only maintain its power and stability when all dissent is crushed. Nations such as Iraq have very little constancy. Very little peace. If Saddam was to be toppled, the country would go back into a maelstrom of coups and civil wars. With preponderance of executions following each coup. Simply look at Syria before Baath Party took over. A coup every year.

Countries like Iraq necessitate dictators such as Saddam. I may not be notably progressive here, but more of a realist. Individuals supporting democracy from my experience esteem the quality of the life of a citizen as the most crucial consideration in the adjudication of a political system. You want a revolution or a plenary reform, and it will be bloody. You want the optimal quality of life, then get a dictatorship.

[Kralizec]

Well, save for the Kurds, every Iraqi I, my father, and his boss (my father is a lawyer at an immigration firm) have talked to said that their lives have been close to peaches-n'-cream during Saddam's regime. National Geographic reports the same. It was the best times Iraq has had. Everything was cheap, plentiful, and booming. Now? I doubt I need to comment. So that was OK, but when Russia decided to be the bad boy, and knock out a few teeth out of Georgia and withdraw that was bad?

Before the war with Iran it was the most modern country in the Arab world, even if the regime has rather heavy handed. After that war and the first gulf war afterwards, it was just a hole.

You didn't mention it, but it's safe to assume the people you talked to fled after Saddam was toppled. A year ago I met an Iraqi immigrant who fled 15 years ago and it wasn't because he didn't like peaches.

The way things are looking now, I believe future people will look back to current Iraq as a violent but relatively short interim period between a brutal dictatorship and a stable, more benign one.

[Hooahguy]

"best times iraq had"? tell that to the kurds. tell that the the families of the 400,000 people found in mass graves. tell that to the families of the 290,000 Iraqis that have "disappeared" under Saddam...

[Kralizec]

I do not think that the Iranian government would proactively attack Israel with nuclear weapons. I don't think that there's a particulary great risk of terrorists getting their hands on fissionable material as long as Iran stays stable, nor do I think the Iranians would supply them voluntarily- it would be easily traced back to them and would have almost the same backlash as trying to nuke Tel Aviv.

The chief reason why Iran would want nukes is as an insurance against any other middle eastern adventures by the USA and Britain. I don't like the Iranian regime or the idea of them having nuclear weapons, but a preemtive strike isn't worth it IMO- unlike North Korea, wich ideally I'd like to see getting stomped.

Iran's rethoric about the US being the great satan or wanting to destroy Israel does not originate from a whim of the Ayatollahs deciding that they wanted to piss of the world for no good reason. Acknowledging them won't turn them into a bastion of liberty and tolerance but will accomplish a lot more than delivering suggestive and ultimately empty threats. If I'm not mistaken, Iran will have another presidential election this year, wich should be interesting.

[Incongruous]

Iran's rethoric about the US being the great satan or wanting to destroy Israel does not originate from a whim of the Ayatollahs deciding that they wanted to piss of the world for no good reason. Acknowledging them won't turn them into a bastion of liberty and tolerance but will accomplish a lot more than delivering suggestive and ultimately empty threats. If I'm not mistaken, Iran will have another presidential election this year, wich should be interesting.

I agree ith the point about a detterent against anymore attempts by the crazy co. to establish PEACE AND LIBERTY in a country where they helped to destroy it, common sense no?

Your point about the rhetoric also allows us to put things into perspective, the perspective of ones nation being demonised as evil by the most powerful and miliraily active nation on the planet, if I was an Iranian I would be bloody frightened as hell about the U.S & Co. invading with Captain Crazy in charge.

Counter-Rhetoric is natural. As are attepmts to prove one's ability to defend against military power, thus the issue of Iran getting involved in Iraq. Prior warning and all...

[Fragony]

I do not think that the Iranian government would proactively attack Israel with nuclear weapons. I don't think that there's a particulary great risk of terrorists getting their hands on fissionable material as long as Iran stays stable, nor do I think the Iranians would supply them voluntarily-

I am not so sure, if you keep talking about whiping Israel from the map you have to please an audience. (and yes Hax I know there is no such thing such as 'whiping of the map' in Persian)