Gulf states are terrified by the prospect of a nuclear IranOriginally Posted by Bezy41
because they are suni's and hate shia's nearly as much as Jews...
Gulf states are terrified by the prospect of a nuclear IranOriginally Posted by Bezy41
because they are suni's and hate shia's nearly as much as Jews...
haha i knew i would get bombarded...
you're right a small country 1500miles has nothing to do with Iran nuclear program.....but it has everything to do with equality.
and to respond to iranians sending waves kids in the iran-iraq war.....this is not right..but an desperate act. Human sacrifices are rampant in persian history...(Spartans defending while thousands of persians pretty much sacrificed themselves idiotically) So from one point of view this can be seen and inhumane and barbaric but from the other side it is seen as national pride and sacrificing to defend your country. I dont want to get into a discussion about the iran-iraq war..where the US funded saddam with weapons and yet the much weaker iranina military composed of iranians willing to die to protect what is theirs...drove the iraqis out.
India, pakistan and the other gulf countries may be fearful of a nuclear iran, but it is seldom displayed in media. I havnt' read one article proclaiming of this. However i have read numerous articles that portray pakistani and other arab citizens united with iran in standing against the west.
I personally believe that IRan's nuclear ambitions are energy based in the short term and weapon based in the long run. Rightly so, if you take in the fact that they are pretty much surrounded by US forces (Iraq and Afghanistan) Iran believes it needs to protect itself from certain attacks by the west.
I would like to know the following, how is it justified that Israel, US, and other western countries can have nukes....and they are not afraid to use them against what they believe is imment danger.....and yet Iran cant even have a nuclear program? this is ridicilous and biased and is the root cause to western hate by the arab world.
As for the Palestine-Israel conflict....before the conflict with hezbollah i was 100 percent neutral on the case. Because i didn't look deeper than what was portrayed to me by the western media. However after the conflict i began to look deeper than what was being portrayed to me. Israel's aggression towards lebanon was unjust and their illegal occupation of palestine does nothing for peace.
I mean i want to knwo if im the only one who thinks this way,.....im not a muslim, and i dont have middle eastern values...im just an educated human being who looks at the facts present and than makes up his own mind.
why would you even say that? if thats not a sign of hatred then i dunno want to know what you consider hatredOriginally Posted by Mediocrates
As for the article, i read it...purely scientific experiment and it may help
why be so judgemental?
Originally Posted by Bezy41
Not my words, the words of their official spokesman. If they don't think it's bad, then I'm all for it. Hell in years gone 'doctors' told people to ingest mercury, opium, curare and all sorts of things.
You did include Pakistan in the list, or was it one of the .... ?Originally Posted by Bezy41
United States supplid iraq with the worst kind of weapon....chemical and bilogical that saddam used against iranian cilivians in the villages and his own peopelOriginally Posted by Illuminatus
The United States had been wary of the Tehran regime since the Iranian Revolution, not least because of the detention of its Tehran embassy staff in the 1979â€“81 Iran hostage crisis. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons . President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran." President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982.
Starting in 1981, both Iran and Iraq attacked oil tankers and merchant ships, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to deprive the opponent of trade. After repeated Iraqi attacks on Iran's main exporting facility on Khark Island, Iran attacked a Kuwaiti tanker near Bahrain on May 13, 1984, and a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters on May 16. Attacks on ships of noncombatant nations in the Persian Gulf sharply increased thereafter, and this phase of the war was dubbed the "Tanker War."
Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430 civilian mariners. The largest of attacks were directed by Iran against Kuwaiti vessels, and on November 1, 1986, Kuwait formally petitioned foreign powers to protect its shipping. The Soviet Union agreed to charter tankers starting in 1987, and the United States offered to provide protection for tankers flying the U.S. flag on March 7, 1987 (Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance). Under international law, an attack on such ships would be treated as an attack on the U.S., allowing the U.S. to retaliate militarily. This support would protect ships headed to Iraqi ports, effectively guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war.
An Iraqi plane accidentally attacked the USS Stark (FFG 31), a Perry class frigate on May 17, killing 37 and injuring 21. But U.S. attention was focused on isolating Iran; it criticized Iran's mining of international waters, and sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 598, which passed unanimously on July 20, under which it skirmished with Iranian forces. In October 1987, the U.S. attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for an Iranian attack on the U.S.-flagged tanker Sea Isle City.
On April 14, 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter crashed with no apparent combat damage, killing the two pilots.
In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack. The Iranians, however, maintain that the Vincennes was in fact in Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranian passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe also admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. . The U.S. eventually paid compensation for the incident but never apologised.
According to the investigation done by Ted Koppel, during the war, U.S. navy used to set decoys inside the Persian Gulf to lure out the Iranian gunboats and destroy them, and at the time USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian airline, it was performing such an operation. 
What does that mean? Turkmenistan is close to Iran - should they get the Bomb too?Originally Posted by Bezy41
Well at least we agree that it's their normal ethos which is fine, really. I don't care either way. But maybe not the rational measured acts of someone you want to trust with limitless power either.and to respond to iranians sending waves kids in the iran-iraq war.....this is not right..but an desperate act. Human sacrifices are rampant in persian history...(Spartans defending while thousands of persians pretty much sacrificed themselves idiotically) So from one point of view this can be seen and inhumane and barbaric but from the other side it is seen as national pride and sacrificing to defend your country.
Actually most of Iraq's military was French and Russian. That's simply fact.I dont want to get into a discussion about the iran-iraq war..where the US funded saddam with weapons and yet the much weaker iranina military composed of iranians willing to die to protect what is theirs...drove the iraqis out.
So which is it? They're worried or they're not worried?India, pakistan and the other gulf countries may be fearful of a nuclear iran, but it is seldom displayed in media.
Non sequitor.I havnt' read one article proclaiming of this. However i have read numerous articles that portray pakistani and other arab citizens united with iran in standing against the west.
You just finished saying all their NEIGHBORS don't have a problem with it. And in either case their NEIGHBORS are China, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc.I personally believe that IRan's nuclear ambitions are energy based in the short term and weapon based in the long run. Rightly so, if you take in the fact that they are pretty much surrounded by US forces (Iraq and Afghanistan) Iran believes it needs to protect itself from certain attacks by the west.
That's pretty much conjecture considering all of these countries have had nuclear weapons while being engaged in a war yet didn't use them. So how do you make that claim?I would like to know the following, how is it justified that Israel, US, and other western countries can have nukes....and they are not afraid to use them against what they believe is imment danger
Pakistan is muslim I believe - not Arab though. So what you're saying is that THE key reason the Arabs all hate us is because (you believe) the US is stopping a NON arab nation from attaining nuclear arms? Interesting......and yet Iran cant even have a nuclear program? this is ridicilous and biased and is the root cause to western hate by the arab world.
Well I assumed from the beginning you object to the existence of Israel. That's axiomatic.As for the Palestine-Israel conflict....before the conflict with hezbollah i was 100 percent neutral on the case. Because i didn't look deeper than what was portrayed to me by the western media. However after the conflict i began to look deeper than what was being portrayed to me. Israel's aggression towards lebanon was unjust and their illegal occupation of palestine does nothing for peace.
Sure lots of people do, what a silly question.I mean i want to knwo if im the only one who thinks this way,.....im not a muslim, and i dont have middle eastern values...im just an educated human being who looks at the facts present and than makes up his own mind.
Last edited by Mediocrates; 08-31-2006 at 01:13 PM.
wikipedia does reference [ supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations (and) and also supplying weapons ]Originally Posted by Bezy41
Much of it bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait but.....
Nowhere does your reference say a word about:You do have proof don't you?Originally Posted by Bezy41
Originally Posted by Bezy41
Why don't people take up the their beefs for the Israelites owning Israel with God? He put them there. He promised them the land.
Oh wow, look, oh my gosh,,, look,, God fulfills his promises. Imagine that. Who'd of thunk it?
Last edited by Mediocrates; 08-31-2006 at 03:58 PM.
Of course, he has no proof. It's Liberal brainwashing by Michael Moore, Noahm Chomskey or whoever is the loser of the day that these people are listening to. Prison Planet is most likely his choice of gathering inside information.Originally Posted by Illuminatus
As The Command Post indicates, the US supplied Saddam with 1% of his weaponry, but at no time did the US supply Saddam with chemical or biological weapons. A few US corporations sold dual-purpose chemicals to Iraq. Chemicals that can be used for industrial purposes as well as chemical weapons. The Iraqi military used those chemicals to arm missiles that they used in the Iran-Iraq war and against Kurds. But the simple truth is that the Iraqis built their own chemical warheads without any form of US assistance.
Another error in Bezy41's opinion is that it is quite clear that the Iraqi military never deployed biological weapons on the battlefield. The Chomskey crowd loves to throw "bio-weapons were sold by the US to Iraq, too!!!" all the time. The Iraqis were too wrried about containment, and with bio-weapons, there is none of that. The fact is they never used biological weapons because of the harm it would do to their own infantry. They used a mix of ricin and a few other chemical compounds, as a cocktail in a simulated battle and found that the spread of the biological agents was impossible to contain and they scrapped the idea of using them.
But Iranians aren't Arabs, are they?Originally Posted by Bezy41
We also provided Iran with arms. The Iran-Contras...ever heard of it?Originally Posted by Bezy41
The US provided 1% of Saddam's arsenal. The Soviet Union provided 57%. When people whine about this, they should look at the Russians. The Iraqi military was using T-72 tanks etc. provided by the Russians. You people really should do some research before spouting off nonsense.
Look for the list of suppliers to Saddam's arsenal.
Suppliers in Billions (1985 $US) % of total
Soviet Union 19.2 61
France 5.5 18
People's Republic of China 1.7 5
Brazil 1.1 4
Egypt 1.1 4
Other countries 2.9 6
Total 31.5 100.0
Originally Posted by MGB8
All we are saying.....is give peace a chance.
It comes up often AnotherAlly, especially from those who were so disapointed that their beloved Saddam Hussein now sits in prison and is charged with genocide in a court of law. Saddamites love to claim that America armed Iraq, especially in the '80s.
The main problem of course is taking the time and looking at the facts.
It is best to look at what Iraq had at the time of its invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the accusations pertain to what Iraq was supplied with in the decade or so preceding this invasion. Thus we need to account for whatever Iraq lost during the conflict to insure that there aren't any omissions (thus nixing possible accusations that America destroyed whatever it gave Iraq during the war to hide the evidence).
The main sources for the below is a definitive and exhaustive research paper called the Desert Shield Fact Book (Frank Chadwick, Loren Wiseman et al, GDW 1991) and the Gulf War Fact Book (Frank Chadwick, Matt Caffrey et al, GDW 1991).
Equipment is listed by category, along with the nation of origin. For those scoring at home, items of AMERICAN origin will be highlighted thusly, and of European (FRANCE) likewise. As of 90/91, Iraq had the following:
Except for loyal Saddamites, you can clearly see that the vast majority of Iraq's weapons came from the Soviet Union and other Communist nations.
MiG-29s - 70 (Soviet)
Mig-25s - 18 (Soviet)
MiG-23s - 20 (Soviet)
MiG-21s - 105 (Soviet)
F-7s - 20 (Red China)
MiG-17s - 30 (Soviet)
Su-25s - 20 (Soviet)
Su-20s - 30 (Soviet)
Su-7s - 50 (Soviet)
F-6s - 20 (Red China)
Su-24s - 10 (Soviet)
Mirage F1s - 100 (FRANCE)
MiG-23/27s - 70 (Soviet)
Il-20s - 10 (Soviet)
Tu-22s - 7 (Soviet)
Tu-16s -12 (Soviet)
T-54/55 - 1400 (Soviet)
Type 59 - 500 (Red China)
Type 69 - 1000 (Red China)
T-62 - 1600 (Soviet)
T-72 - 1000 (Soviet)
IFVs, armored recon vehicles, and APCs - 9000 total, aprox (biggest component BTR - 60s); no precise breakdown but consist of:
Panhard M-3 (FRANCE)
Type 63 (China)
Interesting to note, at the time Iraq had 13 modern ships on order from ITALY
G-5 155mm (South Africa)
GHN-45 155mm (AUSTRIA)
Astros-II SS-30 MRL (Brazil)
Astros-II SS-40 MRL (Brazil)
M56 105mm (BRITAIN)
D-74 122mm (Soviet)
D-30 122mm (Soviet)
2S1 122mm (Soviet)
2S3 152mm (Soviet)
M1937 152mm (Soviet)
M1938 122mm (Soviet)
M1939 37mm (Soviet)
M1943 152mm (Soviet)
M-1975 122mm MRL (Soviet)
BM-21 122mm MRL (Soviet)
BM-13 132mm MRL (Soviet)
S-23 180mm (Soviet)
ZSU-23-4 23mm (Soviet)
ZU-23 23mm (Soviet)
"Majnoon" 155mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA)
"Al Fao" 210mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA)
82 mm Mortar (Soviet)
SA-2 SAM (Soviet)
SA-3 SAM (Soviet)
SA-6 SAM (Soviet)
SA-7 SAM (Soviet)
SA-13 SAM (Soviet)
98 percent AK-47 (Soviet)
100 percent hand grenades (Soviet)
100 percent RPG-7 (Soviet)
Behind them, however, it's largely European countries that armed Iraq.
The U.S. provided Iraq with some spare parts for systems Iraq acquired elsewhere, relatively trivial support compared with even what France provided (much less the Soviets). Even on the level of parts and logistical support, America's contribution was small compared with that supplied by those nations.
Therefore, it is deceptive to the point of dishonesty for anyone - especially anyone from EUtopia - to say America armed Iraq.
Another thing to note is that three nations show up most frequently on the list - France, Russia (in the form of the Soviet Union), and China.
It probably isn't simply a coincidence that France, Russia, and China worked hardest over the years down to the present to obstruct action against Saddam and pushed most strongly for the removal of sanctions, etc.
But it is more important to note that Bezy41's thinking represents the vast majority the Islamic Ummah - All the problems that afflict the vast majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims with its 3rd world poverty, decay and 300 year old historic decline is that it is not self-inflicted - it's always some one else's fault.
i am new to this forum....i was born and raised in canada; however my parents are iranian.
Why did your parents leave Iran which is the magnificent ideal muslim shia society on earth???
[QUOTE=golani]my parents moved from england...both born in liverpool. My dad doesnt believe in god and my mom is a sufi....and i believe in science so i am 100 percent neutral on the religous issueOriginally Posted by Bezy41
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)