• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unimaginable Horror In Tehran Today (Baharestan Square Massacre)

Redress said:
They need to get this Michael Jackson **** off the TV and report on this. Is there any firm evidence this actually happened? I am just appalled to think it might(probably) be true, and more appalled that Jackson is seen as a bigger story.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Micheal Jackson having the discourtesy of dying while a major international crisis is coming to a head should be covered like this:

"Parents of little boys all around the world can be relieved that Michael Jackson died of a heart attack in Los Angeles today. Tune to some other station for further details, this station is moving to cover reports of the Iranian government cracking down violently on protesters."
 
WillRockwell said:
This is not an opportunity for the US to stick its beak into Iran, no matter how many demonstrators are beaten in the streets. Although it is in the interest of some to bait the US into declaring war on fundamentalist Islam, there is nothing to be gained from it and very much to lose. Cowboy diplomacy is over.
Click to expand...

You still never really answered the question you were asked. Based on this statement I quoted, if you don't clarify your position with the given scenario, I will have to assume you would rather do nothing substantial if in fact these people have been hacked with axes. Cowboy diplomacy migth be over, but it appears bull**** diplomacy is on the rise.
 
Be careful what you wish for. An Iranian revolution may be worse for US interests rather than better.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That was Khadaffy Duck and Libya.

Reagan, however, had nothing to do with the bogus Iranian "guns for hostages" scandal the leftwing media made so much to-do about, the reference you quoted from whomever was still wrong.
Click to expand...

Iran-Contra involved countless administration officials, military personnel, and large amounts of munitions including missiles. How can you suggest Reagan had nothing to do with it? Are you conceding that Reagan was so detached from reality that this size operation could go on without him knowing about it?

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind"
--Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...
 
WI Crippler said:
You still never really answered the question you were asked. Based on this statement I quoted, if you don't clarify your position with the given scenario, I will have to assume you would rather do nothing substantial if in fact these people have been hacked with axes. Cowboy diplomacy migth be over, but it appears bull**** diplomacy is on the rise.
Click to expand...

I don't have a short list of responses the way you seem to. I have no intention of formulating a response to a hypothetical situation.
 
DeeJayH said:
forgive my ignorance but is it not against the koran for a muslim to kill another muslim?
Click to expand...

Yes it is but if this massacre is confirmed, we can put that rule aside for a moment and burn these ****ing clerics alive.

I volunteer to do the shooting or burning.
 
Ikari said:
They need to turn these protests violent. The non-violence on the part of the People isn't working and their government has firmly set themselves against the rights and liberties of their people. The government will use violence against them, they need to respond in kind. They need a full out revolution.
Click to expand...

Hmm, puts illegalization of weapons in a whole new arena now.

Guns are illegal in Iran i believe, so citizens are at the mercy of the army or in this case, thugs
 
WillRockwell said:
I don't have a short list of responses the way you seem to. I have no intention of formulating a response to a hypothetical situation.
Click to expand...

My "short list of responses" are whats known in most circles as critical thinking. Apparently you have no intention of engaging in that kind of behavior.
 
Crippler, let me introduce you to a friend of mine who is handy in these situations.

:2brickwal
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Well, let's get for real here.

When you say "the West", you're not really thinking France, Germany, Italy, or England is going to get involved, right? What you mean is "the United States".

That's fine. The main unspoken reason the Bush Boy invaded Iraq was to place thousands of US troops on the Iranian western border. So, thanks to Bush, if we need to move into Iran, we can do it.
Click to expand...

No .. We did not invade Iraq for that.
Quit trying to give Bush undeserved praise.

And thanks to the Iraq war, UK will most definetly NOT be taking part in any bombing campaign. Our military has been stretched too far already in Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous other peacekeeping countries.
 
Laila said:
No .. We did not invade Iraq for that.
Quit trying to give Bush undeserved praise.

And thanks to the Iraq war, UK will most definetly NOT be taking part in any bombing campaign. Our military has been stretched too far already in Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous other peacekeeping countries.
Click to expand...

I dunno...I've always assumed occupation of Iraq was a staging ground for dealing with Iran when the time came.
 
WI Crippler said:
My "short list of responses" are whats known in most circles as critical thinking. Apparently you have no intention of engaging in that kind of behavior.
Click to expand...

formulating a response to an unfounded rumor is not critical thinking, it's kneejerk reaction. I just checked CNN again, there's
nothing about axe attacks. And yet you have a response ready from your magic bag of rightwing solutions.
 
jallman said:
I dunno...I've always assumed occupation of Iraq was a staging ground for dealing with Iran when the time came.
Click to expand...

If US or UK were clever which we weren't, we would have bribed Saddam to be on side. Iran/Iraq were enemies and Saddam despised anything Iranian. Why did we not use Saddam as a buffer? Or use his country as a base for our soldiers? Give Saddam weapons to keep Iran in check?

No one bring up human damages and how dreadful it was for Iraqi's under Saddam because Darfur is much worse yet we are not invading to liberate them

But yeah, Iraq has sufficently dented and damaged our military.
We all know Brown doesn't give a **** about our soldiers but some of us would prefer they have correct equipment to be sent to war with. But MP's would rather spend such money on extra houses
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
I dunno...I've always assumed occupation of Iraq was a staging ground for dealing with Iran when the time came.
Click to expand...

I always assumed it was because Cheney said to do it.


Joking, just joking. Mostly anyway.
 
Laila said:
No one bring up human damages and how dreadful it was for Iraqi's under Saddam because Darfur is much worse yet we are not invading to liberate them
Click to expand...

I am not concerned with Darfur. They have no oil.
 
WillRockwell said:
formulating a response to an unfounded rumor is not critical thinking, it's kneejerk reaction. I just checked CNN again, there's
nothing about axe attacks. And yet you have a response ready from your magic bag of rightwing solutions.
Click to expand...

And the leftwing magic solution bag seems to be empty of contingency strategies. :shrug:
 
jallman said:
I am not concerned with Darfur. They have no oil.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The one thing i hate is when people try and twist Iraq as some form of humitarian act.
**** off, if we cared for human life, why are we not stopping massacres, genocides in the world. Our Soldiers are good enough to be killed for when it comes to economic interests but not to improve the lives of others. Why does the West throw away so much food and consume so much when there are parts of the world who are dying for food?
Why are drug companies allowed to charge such ridiculous prices making it impossible for treatment to be affordable?

The West is no more moral than any other country when it comes to war. We just lie more and fool ourselves into thinking we have a moral high ground.
UK says it does not torture, sure. But it sure as hell loves passing people onto Arab countries who do torture. Who does the blame lie with? With UK ofc.

Just ... don't get me started on Iraq
 
Laila said:
No .. We did not invade Iraq for that.
Click to expand...

Actually, we did.

Look at a map someday.

Learn some rudiments of military strategy while you're about it.

Laila said:
And thanks to the Iraq war, UK will most definetly NOT be taking part in any bombing campaign. Our military has been stretched too far already in Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous other peacekeeping countries.
Click to expand...

And why is England in countries that have been keeping the peace?
 
Laila said:
Exactly.

The one thing i hate is when people try and twist Iraq as some form of humitarian act.
**** off, if we cared for human life, why are we not stopping massacres, genocides in the world. Our Soldiers are good enough to be killed for when it comes to economic interests but not to improve the lives of others. Why does the West throw away so much food and consume so much when there are parts of the world who are dying for food?
Why are drug companies allowed to charge such ridiculous prices making it impossible for treatment to be affordable?

The West is no more moral than any other country when it comes to war. We just lie more and fool ourselves into thinking we have a moral high ground.
UK says it does not torture, sure. But it sure as hell loves passing people onto Arab countries who do torture. Who does the blame lie with? With UK ofc.

Just ... don't get me started on Iraq
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, though, Iraq was a worthy cause. It's not Saddam didn't repeatedly posture himself as having WMD's and threatened to destabilize the entire region.

He may not have actually had them, but he postured as if he did. And he did have a record of using WMD's in the forms of gases on the Kurds in an effort to exterminate them.

The oil is just an added kickback that sweetened the deal enough to go through with it. I'm glad we did.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And why is England in countries that have been keeping the peace?
Click to expand...

We still have a commonwealth, our soldiers are spread out and expanded beyond its limit

Why not?
I'd rather Soldiers be used to ensure peace not kill others and invade and bomb a country ... for oil
 
jallman said:
I dunno...I've always assumed occupation of Iraq was a staging ground for dealing with Iran when the time came.
Click to expand...

Could you imagine the uproar that would have happened if anyone had pointed that out at the time?

Not that going into Iraq was a sane idea, but moving troops to the Iranian border at least made sense where nothing else said did.

Naturally, the Democrats in Congress voted to invade Iraq. If someone had presented a sensible idea they probably would have voted against it.
 
Laila said:
We still have a commonwealth, our soldiers are spread out and expanded beyond its limit

Why not?
I'd rather Soldiers be used to ensure peace not kill others and invade and bomb a country ... for oil
Click to expand...

Never mind, really, the pun wasn't worth responding to. Honest.

Nobody is going into Darfur because they're black.

Oh.

I said it.

Oops.

They'll be a-knocking on my door now...

Actually, no one gives a crap about Darfur because Somalia isn't the heart of the middle east, the problems are different and intractible, the population is too primitive, and the US remembers Somalia and Clinton without any fondness.

It's in the US's interest to manhandle countries that are exporting terrorism that bothers our citizens, Darfur is just a stationary ulcer, contained but untreatable. So Bush decided to deal with the cancerous nations first.
 
jallman said:
In all seriousness, though, Iraq was a worthy cause. It's not Saddam didn't repeatedly posture himself as having WMD's and threatened to destabilize the entire region.

He may not have actually had them, but he postured as if he did. And he did have a record of using WMD's in the forms of gases on the Kurds in an effort to exterminate them.

The oil is just an added kickback that sweetened the deal enough to go through with it. I'm glad we did.
Click to expand...

Iraq was a utter disgrace.
And by our actions we did not destabilize the ME? Hell, we can pat ourselves in the back on raising a generation of potential terrorists. Great going.
We completley decimated whatever moral ground the West had.
We were no better than other countries we preach all the time on human rights and democracy.
Democracy didn't exactly save the thousands which died in Iraq as a result of our unjustified attack on another country.
Nor has the resulting abuses of human rights, torture etc.
And no amount of oil was worth the soldiers that was killed and hurt by the war. Nor will it be any comfort to the family of those killed

Bringing up Kurds mean little to me.
Thousands are be dead in Darfur. I recall when i was studying History, after the Holocaust the world in unity said 'Never again'. Clearly we did not learn our lesson if we stand back and allow such human casulties to occur with barely a passing glance.

It is utterly disgraceful for UK and US to actually act like it was something special or be happy about
It is nothing for our country to be proud, nor our Politicans nor the Army.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
If US or UK were clever which we weren't, we would have bribed Saddam to be on side. Iran/Iraq were enemies and Saddam despised anything Iranian. Why did we not use Saddam as a buffer? Or use his country as a base for our soldiers? Give Saddam weapons to keep Iran in check?
Click to expand...

Hello?

Never heard of Kuwait?

The Gulf War?

Hmmm?

We used Iraq quite successfully to keep looney Iran in check for almost a decade, then the policy stopped working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom