hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050625/wl_mideast_afp/iranvoteusreax_050625134616


Iran is 'out of step' with region: US State Department

Sat Jun 25, 9:46 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) -
Iran is "out of step" with a trend toward freedom and liberty in its region, the US State Department said, after hardliner Mahmood Ahmadinejad won a presidential election condemned by Washington as "flawed".

"With the conclusion of the election in Iran, we have seen nothing that dissuades us from our view that Iran is out of step with the rest of the region and the currents of freedom and liberty that have been so apparent in
Iraq,
Afghanistan and
Lebanon," State Department spokeswoman Joanne Moore said late Friday.

"These elections were flawed from their inception by the decision of an unelected few to deny the applications of over a thousand candidates, including all 93 women," she said.

"We will judge the regime by its actions. In light of the way these elections were conducted, however, we remain skeptical that the Iranian regime is interested in addressing either the legitimate desires of its own people, or the concerns of the broader international community," Moore said.

"The United States believes in the right of the Iranian people to make their own decisions and determine their own future, and as the Iranian people stand for their own liberty, we stand with them."

Hardline Tehran mayor Ahmadinejad swept to a shock victory in Friday's second round vote in Iran, a win set to spell an end to years of difficult reform and place the Islamic republic on a collision course with the West.

The interior ministry said Ahmadinejad, a self-proclaimed fundamentalist seeking a return to the moral "purity" of the early years of the Islamic revolution, thrashed his more pragmatist rival Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Ahmadinejad's victory leaves anti-Western ultra-conservatives in complete control over every elected and unelected institution in Iran, and Rafsanjani's humiliating defeat will remove what has been a moderating influence within the 26-year-old theocracy.

In Los Angeles, exiled Iranian opposition leaders hailed Ahmadinejad's victory, saying it would bring Tehran's Islamic regime a step closer to collapse.

While the election of the conservative Islamist might bring tough times for Iranians in the short term, they said, it will ultimately fuel internal opposition, put external pressure on the government and expose cracks within the regime.

Some 400,000 to 600,000 Iranians live in the United States, most of them in California.

Earlier Friday, before the result, a senior State Department official speaking on condition of anonymity said Washington would watch carefully the policies crafted and actions taken by the new Iranian president.

"It goes back to policies and actions as opposed to personalities," he said, not expressing any preference for Rafsanjani or Ahmadinejad.

Asked whether the United States would be "engaging" with the new Iranian president, the US official said: "The issue of who wins is not going to determine whether we engage or not.

"The issue of engagement will be a factor (based on) policy decisions the Iranian government makes and specific actions that it takes," he said. "That will be the criteria by which we decide what we do."

US officials including
President George W. Bush and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice repeatedly heaped scorn on Iran's presidential poll in recent days.

"Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy," Bush said in a statement last week.

How hilarious are some of the lines? My favorite is this one: "These elections were flawed from their inception by the decision of an unelected few to deny the applications of over a thousand candidates, including all 93 women," she said.

Maybe we can take some "freedom and liberty" to Iran the way we took it to Iraq.

"America - **** yeah! Comin' again, to save the mother****in' day yeah!"

How hilarious are some of the lines? My favorite is this one: "These elections were flawed from their inception by the decision of an unelected few to deny the applications of over a thousand candidates, including all 93 women," she said.

Maybe we can take some "freedom and liberty" to Iran the way we took it to Iraq.

"America - **** yeah! Comin' again, to save the mother****in' day yeah!"
Nice to see that you don't have the guts to stick with your original statement. :rolleyes:

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050625/wl_mideast_afp/iranvoteusreax_050625134616



How hilarious are some of the lines? My favorite is this one: "These elections were flawed from their inception by the decision of an unelected few to deny the applications of over a thousand candidates, including all 93 women," she said.

Maybe we can take some "freedom and liberty" to Iran the way we took it to Iraq.

"America - **** yeah! Comin' again, to save the mother****in' day yeah!"

I don't get what your getting it outside of you not liking the war in Iraq.

Nice to see that you don't have the guts to stick with your original statement. :rolleyes:

Huh?

I don't get what your getting it outside of you not liking the war in Iraq.

I think it's funny how our guv'ment heads slam the democracy in other systems. As if ours truly gives the same chance to everyone...or that every country should follow the same exact standards as ours.

Nice to see that you don't have the guts to stick with your original statement. :rolleyes:

nice to see democracy only matters if it doesnt put islamists/communists/enemy du jour in power (see Algeria, Chile, Vietnam, Korea, etc etc).

I'm always amused at this stuff (and this goes well beyond Duckman) - the people here who actually believe this is about democracy or what not. My god, at least be man enough like Jon to admit the realpolitik nature of these policies.

It's called politics. What's the confusion here?

Huh?
Don't play stupid. I saw what you wrote earlier before you deleted it.

Do you think a theocracy is better than our system of government? It may not be perfect, but it has been pretty successful compared to others. I'm a Christian and I sure wouldn't want a group of Christian priests overriding any law that didn't fit their ideology.

If you truly believe that, I'm sure some of us will get together and donate a plane ticket so you can enjoy their fine governmental system.

nice to see democracy only matters if it doesnt put islamists/communists/enemy du jour in power (see Algeria, Chile, Vietnam, Korea, etc etc).

I'm always amused at this stuff (and this goes well beyond Duckman) - the people here who actually believe this is about democracy or what not. My god, at least be man enough like Jon to admit the realpolitik nature of these policies.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but Iran is not a democracy. It's a theocracy. If you can't see this then there is no pont in continuing on the discussion.

And don't you tell me what I believe in, you psuedo-intellectual elitist. I have been on the both sides of the aisle in regards to certain issues. I have been more honest to myself than you have ("I'm not a racist").

Good lord. So they beat us in the '98 World Cup and knocked us out of contention. There will be other days.

Don't play stupid. I saw what you wrote earlier before you deleted it.

Do you think a theocracy is better than our system of government? It may not be perfect, but it has been pretty successful compared to others. I'm a Christian and I sure wouldn't want a group of Christian priests overriding any law that didn't fit their ideology.

If you truly believe that, I'm sure some of us will get together and donate a plane ticket so you can enjoy their fine governmental system.

Uh...the reason I edited was to fix a tag and add a quote to make my POV better understood. Sorry if you don't like that.

As far as theocracy - didn't they just hold democratic elections? You can have a democratic theocracy, no?

Don't play stupid. I saw what you wrote earlier before you deleted it.

Do you think a theocracy is better than our system of government? It may not be perfect, but it has been pretty successful compared to others. I'm a Christian and I sure wouldn't want a group of Christian priests overriding any law that didn't fit their ideology.

If you truly believe that, I'm sure some of us will get together and donate a plane ticket so you can enjoy their fine governmental system.

Aha yes, the ever popular "love it or leave it" line - still without an ounce of understanding of the irony of the arguement.

btw Duckman- quick history lesson; Why is Iran a theocracy today ? Who was the previous government ? Was it a democracy, or was it a dictatorship held up by (amongst others) the CIA ?

The Iranian system is awful, but the presidential elections allowed some of the reformist candidates to run - hell, the current president is a reformist. If you argue that the president holds very limited power, I would agree completelty. However, In this election, if you had done the research, you'd find that Moin ran as the reformist candidate - but didnt make it out of the first ballot. Rafsanjani was the popular Western choice, but got thrashed in the run-off - this may have been ballot fraud, but his biggest supporters appeared to be outside Iran, and it could well have been a case of highlighting the popular Western candidate, as opposed to the popular Iranian one.Amusingly enough, much like the election here, polling badly underestimated the conservatives.

Uh...the reason I edited was to fix a tag and add a quote to make my POV better understood. Sorry if you don't like that.

As far as theocracy - didn't they just hold democratic elections?
It's not a democracy if a body of priest, who were not elected, can override any law that doesn't fit with their ideology. It's really no different than the Soviet elections which had only one candidate on the ballot. It's not really a choice.

It's not a democracy if a body of priest, who were not elected, can override any law that doesn't fit with their ideology. It's really no different than the Soviet elections which had only one candidate on the ballot. It's not really a choice.

Can you not have a democratic theocracy?

BTW, they had more than one candidate on the ballot ;)

Um, I hate to break it to you, but Iran is not a democracy. It's a theocracy. If you can't see this then there is no pont in continuing on the discussion.

And don't you tell me what I believe in, you psuedo-intellectual elitist. I have been on the both sides of the aisle in regards to certain issues. I have been more honest to myself than you have ("I'm not a racist").

Roffle- if you bother to read, you'd recognize that I don't see Iran as a democracy in the American sense- but America isn't a democracy in the Swiss sense. In fact, I made the point that the president in Iran is a semi-token position, with Khomeni holding the real power. That being said, this was, to the best of our current knowledge, a democratic election, which is why the statement regarding the outcome of the elections is horseshit. There are plently of flaws with the Iranian system, and Iran is not a conventional democracy. The American system, with its disproportionate power to small towns and rural America isn't a pure democracy either - though we both agree its closer to that "ideal" than Iran is. On the other hand, if you'd done your research, you'd know the information regarding Algeria - the classic 90's example.

Now, regarding your little jab - I'm a psuedo-intellectual elitist ? Actually, you're more of an anti-intellectual - anything involving thinking appears to cross thresholds you don't wish to cross. The fact that I know more about a subject than you do makes me psuedo-intellectual ? I think you knowing less makes you an ill-informed idiot, but again, there I go - being an "psuedo-intellectual." "I'm not a racist" - is this the "redneck" bit again ? if you'd done the research there (beyond your sociology teacher - if I recall correctly), I refuted you, and others pointed out that its a term regarding attitude, provincial in nature- but once again, that's "intellectualism", a point you don't wish to cross.

btw Duckman- quick history lesson; Why is Iran a theocracy today ? Who was the previous government ? Was it a democracy, or was it a dictatorship held up by (amongst others) the CIA ?
So that makes it okay then? Give me a break. :rolleyes:

I don't agree with the way their past government system was held together by the CIA. That's why we are in this mess with Iran in the first place. However, it shouldn't persuage me from believing that their government is worthless and is not a true democracy.

[QUOTE=Crapshoot]The Iranian system is awful, but the presidential elections allowed some of the reformist candidates to run - hell, the current president is a reformist.
They "allowed" them because they (the priests) knew any law that underminds their control on the Iranian people can be simply extinguished.

If you argue that the president holds very limited power, I would agree completelty.
They don't have any power. The priest holds "all the cards" and will do anything in their power to keep their boots on the neck of the populace.

However, In this election, if you had done the research, you'd find that Moin ran as the reformist candidate - but didnt make it out of the first ballot. Rafsanjani was the popular Western choice, but got thrashed in the run-off - this may have been ballot fraud, but his biggest supporters appeared to be outside Iran, and it could well have been a case of highlighting the popular Western candidate, as opposed to the popular Iranian one.Amusingly enough, much like the election here, polling badly underestimated the conservatives.
On the run-off, there is no evidence to suggest ballot fraud at this time and will likely not be found since the Iranian government will allow any kind of auditing. Could it be possible? Sure, but we will never see the evidence to prove otherwise.

I believe that the conservative promised further loosening of certain customs, but I will have to go back and make sure. There is a large number of younger Iranians who are pro-democracy, but have been effectively silenced by the priests. People have been thrown some "crumbs" hoping to keep the pro-democracy movement under wraps.

I believe that the conservative promised further loosening of certain customs, but I will have to go back and make sure. There is a large number of younger Iranians who are pro-democracy, but have been effectively silenced by the priests. People have been thrown some "crumbs" hoping to keep the pro-democracy movement under wraps.

Yes he did, with regards to internet access and what not. He also promised to give the poor a larger say (a classic politicians' statement) and do better in making sure the social institutions work.

Roffle- if you bother to read, you'd recognize that I don't see Iran as a democracy in the American sense- but America isn't a democracy in the Swiss sense.
Actually, the US isn't a democracy. It's a republic. Now, some will give it the term "representative democracy", but it's a rehash of an older government system. Most, if not all, states practice some direct democracy through state questions and such, and some towns practice direct democracy, but those are few and far between.

There are plently of flaws with the Iranian system, and Iran is not a conventional democracy.
It's not conventional because it's not a democracy.

Now, regarding your little jab - I'm a psuedo-intellectual elitist ? Actually, you're more of an anti-intellectual - anything involving thinking appears to cross thresholds you don't wish to cross. The fact that I know more about a subject than you do makes me psuedo-intellectual ? I think you knowing less makes you an ill-informed idiot, but again, there I go - being an "psuedo-intellectual." "I'm not a racist" - is this the "redneck" bit again ? if you'd done the research there (beyond your sociology teacher - if I recall correctly), I refuted you, and others pointed out that its a term regarding attitude, provincial in nature- but once again, that's "intellectualism", a point you don't wish to cross.
I'm an anti-intellectual? That's funny coming from someone who doesn't even know what the US government system really is.

On the subject of "redneck", I believe that several people backed my definition. You gave some pull-out-your-ass explanation while I used not only my professor, but the wikipedia. Face it, you're a bigot, Mr. Intellect. If someone doesn't share your little obscure view of the world, they are "rednecks". That makes you a idiotic, psuedo-intelligent bigot. Maybe I'll start calling people I don't agree with "towelheads" since it's all about the attitude, right? :rolleyes:

Actually, the US isn't a democracy. It's a republic. Now, some will give it the term "representative democracy", but it's a rehash of an older government system. Most, if not all, states practice some direct democracy through state questions and such, and some towns practice direct democracy, but those are few and far between.


No shit - yet in convential sense, when the State Department is referring to a Democracy, it is referring to a sytem akin to that of the US. You're attempting to play games with semantics, and poorly so.


It's not conventional because it's not a democracy.


I'm an anti-intellectual? That's funny coming from someone who doesn't even know what the US government system really is.

Funny - see above.


On the subject of "redneck", I believe that several people backed my definition. You gave some pull-out-your-ass explanation while I used not only my professor, but the wikipedia. Face it, you're a bigot, Mr. Intellect. If someone doesn't share your little obscure view of the world, they are "rednecks". That makes you a idiotic, psuedo-intelligent bigot. Maybe I'll start calling people I don't agree with "towelheads" since it's all about the attitude, right? :rolleyes:

While your proficiency at using the rolleyes smiley is not in question, the rest of your arguement is. As I fucking explained ad nauseum to you, a redneck describes a socially conservative, provinicial minded, simplistic, nationalistic
hick who isn't the brightest bulb. A redneck is an anti-intellectual - a cross-race disease (Chris Rock actually hits upon this fairly well in "Bigger And Blacker") . Thomas Sowell, amongst others, addresses the ideas of "black rednecks" - discussing the cultural attributes that make one a Redneck, and he addresses the impact of that attitude on Black America. Its a class of people, mr "I looked at wikipedia" - at least learn the difference between surface knowledge and investigating the issue. I will concede that there is some debate as some sociologists (though not Sowell) have attempted to portray the phrase "redneck" as a race based statement - that is hardly a definitive conclusion. "Towelhead", on the other hand, describes nothing about attitude, but refers specifically to Muslims or Sikhs as a group, without any cultural ramifictions. Your hostility towards me because I call your proverbial spade a spade is hilarious - as is your attempt to claim expertise on a subject you know very little about. I'm no sociologist, but then again - neither are you. As for my obscure view of the world- read the Pew surveys on world opinion (The Economist has a nice writeup this week, if you're interested- but again, that's psuedo intellectualism) , given that you're dumb enough to be arguing purely on a "majority basis."

Here's another article from the AFP parading around on Yahoo! News headlines like actual news and not hard-liberal activism. People do read this and assume because it's on the news, that it's fact.

Witnesses at anti-war tribunal slam US actions in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050625/wl_mideast_afp/iraqturkeytribunal

ISTANBUL (AFP) - The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), an anti-war grouping of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), intellectuals and writers, heard witnesses condemn the United States for rights abuses and the worsening plight of Iraqi women.

A former US Air Force pilot called on US troops in Iraq to "resist" the orders of their superior officers in an "illegal war".

"Today Iraq has been turned into a vast prison," lawyer Amal Sawadi told the hearing.

"They come to people's houses in the middle of the night, when everyone is asleep, blow in the door. They point their weapons in people's faces ... they search women in front of their families, they smash everything in the house."

She said lawyers had problems getting news of their imprisoned clients and spoke of rapes and humiliations which amounted to the "systematic practice of torture."

The only journalist present in the city of Fallujah when it was attacked in April and November 2004 said the assault on it amounted to "genocide".

Fadhil Al Bedrani, of the Al-Jazeera network, told how a 70-year-old man died for lack of medical supplies and of the stench of rotting bodies "abandoned in the streets and eaten by animals."

The plight of Iraqi women has worsened badly since the occupation, Hana Ibrahim, an Iraqi feminist said.

"From the day the occupation started there have been systematic violations of women's rights. They have been kidnapped, raped and even taken to other countries by criminal networks," she said.

She said 90 percent of women were out of work, women were now "almost non-existent in social life" while "prostitution was developing" and more and more women were reduced to begging.

Former pilot Tim Goodrich said US troops should realize they were taking part in an illegal war and resist.

"There are some people that have, there are pieces of resistance that people don't know about... some soldiers who refuse to go on a mission," he said.

"The military is part of the problem, not of the solution."

"Some people accuse us of being against the troops or antipatriotic but we are the troops. How can I be antipatriotic by asking our soldiers to come back home alive?"

About 200 non-governmental organziations -- including the environmentalist group Greenpeace, the anti-globalisation ATTAC and Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- as well as a number of prominent intellectuals such as US linguist Noam Chomsky and Egyptian sociologist Samir Amin are involved in the WTI.

Here's another article from the AFP parading around on Yahoo! News headlines like actual news and not hard-liberal activism. People do read this and assume because it's on the news, that it's fact.

Firstly, why did you post that in this thread as opposed to the other one ?

Secondly, The article starts by describing the group who's organizing it, and then goes on to describe what they were talking about. All the "juicy" parts are in quotes, making it clear its the views of the speakers Where is the bias there ? Should they be condemning the group in the news article ?

Fyi, you ought to read what Karl Rove said about the media- they weren't anti-conservative, but rather, anti-power. I'll try and find the link, but I recall thinking that he captured it fairly well.

Crapshoot, why the fuck am I resorting to childish name calling when it doesn't do any good? Probably the obvious "I can't articulate my point of view without resorting to name calling".

Life is too short to be getting into these stupid squabbles, so I'm going to be the "bigger man" and stop this nonsense. I apologize for my comments, and I will lay off with the "bigot" comments because in all honesty I don't know you. You are obviously an intelligent person who does a much better job of explaining your point of view than can I. Who knows? Maybe I need to bury my nose into a book a little more often, so I can have a better understanding of myself and my philosophy.

Anyways, I'm bowing out of this lively discussion that I've been the cause of. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

Diet Mountain Dew is horrible.

Diet Mountain Dew is horrible.
Those are fighting words!!!!

Crapshoot, why the fuck am I resorting to childish name calling when it doesn't do any good? Probably the obvious "I can't articulate my point of view without resorting to name calling".

Life is too short to be getting into these stupid squabbles, so I'm going to be the "bigger man" and stop this nonsense. I apologize for my comments, and I will lay off with the "bigot" comments because in all honesty I don't know you. You are obviously an intelligent person who does a much better job of explaining your point of view than can I. Who knows? Maybe I need to bury my nose into a book a little more often, so I can have a better understanding of myself and my philosophy.

Anyways, I'm bowing out of this lively discussion that I've been the cause of. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

No need- its a forum, and you are as entitled to your views as a I am to mine.
I am particularly aghast at the Iranian election, especially because the current President was a step in the right direction. however, I'm convinced the more the State Department squawks, the more it helps the hardliners - who can then go to Khomeni and cite the "increased American threat" to further their oppression- much like its generally understood that another attack here or increased hostility to the US convinces more people here to lean to the right.

Firstly, why did you post that in this thread as opposed to the other one ?

Secondly, The article starts by describing the group who's organizing it, and then goes on to describe what they were talking about. All the "juicy" parts are in quotes, making it clear its the views of the speakers Where is the bias there ? Should they be condemning the group in the news article ?

Fyi, you ought to read what Karl Rove said about the media- they weren't anti-conservative, but rather, anti-power. I'll try and find the link, but I recall thinking that he captured it fairly well.

The other one is about respected AP writers gone wrong. This is about goofy AFP stories that Yahoo! News loves to put on their web-site. It just fits better here. :)

Wait... Iran is 'out of step' with the region? What, have Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait turned into direct democracy while I took a nap this afternoon?

Oh, and as bad as the Iranian government is, it is far better than the previous one. Theocracy, yes, but there is a lot of democratic institutions, which would not be there in autocratic states (no dictator wants to legitimize dissent to their rule). Definetly not as bad as a dictatorship.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but Iran is not a democracy. It's a theocracy. If you can't see this then there is no pont in continuing on the discussion.

And don't you tell me what I believe in, you psuedo-intellectual elitist. I have been on the both sides of the aisle in regards to certain issues. I have been more honest to myself than you have ("I'm not a racist").

But the US is also not a democracy. It's a federal republic, right?

Dutch approved, centrist AFP article:
ISTANBUL (AFP) - The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), an anti-war grouping of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), intellectuals and people who hate freedom, heard witnesses condemn the United States for some tiny infractions that were nothing worse than fraternity pranks.

A supposed former US Air Force pilot, who may very well be an Al Queda double agent, called on US troops in Iraq to "resist" the orders of their superior officers in an "illegal war".

"Today Iraq has been turned into a vast prison," lawyer and known sodomizer Amal Sawadi told the hearing.

"They come to people's houses in the middle of the night, when everyone is asleep, blow in the door. They point their weapons in people's faces ... they search women in front of their families, they smash everything in the house."

Amal did not produce anything written directly by George W. Bush [pause for genuflect] that says that the United States does anything like that, so, obviously, the accusation is made up.

Wait... Iran is 'out of step' with the region? What, have Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait turned into direct democracy while I took a nap this afternoon?
That's exactly why nobody in the middle east takes our rhetoric seriously. People in Saudi Arabia and Jordan wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they had the freedome to have even a semi-sham of an election like Iran just had. It makes you think that the American people are the REAL audience for this stuff, drumming up support for another intervention.

But the US is also not a democracy. It's a federal republic, right?
Correct. Some people call it a "representative democracy", but that's just another name for a republic.

Wait... Iran is 'out of step' with the region? What, have Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait turned into direct democracy while I took a nap this afternoon?

Oh, and as bad as the Iranian government is, it is far better than the previous one. Theocracy, yes, but there is a lot of democratic institutions, which would not be there in autocratic states (no dictator wants to legitimize dissent to their rule). Definetly not as bad as a dictatorship.
The US has their sights on Iran because of their potential of making a nuclear weapon which could destabilize the region even further than it is now.

I have to disagree with you about it not being as bad as a dictatorship. It more resembles to me communist Russia and China where a small group of people make the final decision. Basically, the Iranian clerics can abolish any law that will undermind their powers. Because of that, the people are not as free as they are led to believe.

It makes you think that the American people are the REAL audience for this stuff, drumming up support for another intervention.

Please let me be the first to say "Well, duh."

nice to see democracy only matters if it doesnt put islamists/communists/enemy du jour in power (see Algeria, Chile, Vietnam, Korea, etc etc).

I'm always amused at this stuff (and this goes well beyond Duckman) - the people here who actually believe this is about democracy or what not. My god, at least be man enough like Jon to admit the realpolitik nature of these policies.

And




Please let me be the first to say "Well, duh."

See Jon, this is one thing I like about you, facist that you are... :D

See Jon, this is one thing I like about you, facist that you are... :D

Being honest makes it a lot easier to keep your story straight ;)

Wait... Iran is 'out of step' with the region? What, have Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait turned into direct democracy while I took a nap this afternoon?

Quite.

Arguably Iran's elections are more free than Saudi Arabia's and Egypt's. Maybe we should invade them?

I'm always amused at this stuff (and this goes well beyond Duckman) - the people here who actually believe this is about democracy or what not. My god, at least be man enough like Jon to admit the realpolitik nature of these policies.

Of course, it's realpolitick badly misapplied. Bismarck would have a fit if he saw what the U.S. was doing in the middle east (and not just because he was German).

The US has their sights on Iran because of their potential of making a nuclear weapon which could destabilize the region even further than it is now.

I have to disagree with you about it not being as bad as a dictatorship. It more resembles to me communist Russia and China where a small group of people make the final decision. Basically, the Iranian clerics can abolish any law that will undermind their powers. Because of that, the people are not as free as they are led to believe.
Actually I think a nuke would stablize the region further. As we have seen countries with nukes are unwilling to fight against each other (and we know Isreal has them), because of the obvious consequences. Iranian clerics may speak in terms of revolution, but they realize what reality is.

As for the Iranian government. Yes, the clerics can override any law (veto it, if you want), but there are a lot of laws passed by Parliament that the clerics wouldn't even realize (like social programs to help the poor and thus forth). One problem with a dictatorship is that the head of the country doesn't really have a clue what the ordinary people are asking for. The Parliament gives them a voice, at least, even if the clerics are ultimate authority.

Nukes in Iran would make the region safer? I'm not so sure. The guy in charge may have been an active terrorists in the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1980.

The only way we resolved that crisis was giving Iran $8 Billion in frozen assets (circa 1980 mind you) and immunity to lawsuits from the hostages.

These people were way out there to begin.

These people were way out there to begin.

I don't think they're more way out there than the rulers of Pakistan.

I love it how anyone that opposes the U.S. in a violent manner is automatically a terrorist.

I love it how anyone that opposes the U.S. in a violent manner is automatically a terrorist.

Why do you hate our freedum?

I love it how anyone that opposes the U.S. in a violent manner is automatically a terrorist.

Sorry, I thought you were up to speed. The President-elect is being accused by ex-hostages from 1980 as being one of the terrorists who held them captive.

Sorry, I thought you were up to speed. The President-elect is being accused by ex-hostages from 1980 as being one of the terrorists who held them captive.

Sounds like he makes things happen!

Sorry, I thought you were up to speed. The President-elect is being accused by ex-hostages from 1980 as being one of the terrorists who held them captive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38957000/jpg/_38957921_030314saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

Firstly Dutch- your average American (and tell if I'm wrong on this) couldn't tell 10 Arabs apart. Secondly - I'd like to see some evidence, not random allegations out of nowhere. Thirdly, I believe flere's picture is the definition of p\/\nage - or does the hypocrisy only apply from one side ?

Sorry, I thought you were up to speed. The President-elect is being accused by ex-hostages from 1980 as being one of the terrorists who held them captive.
They are terrorists now? What did they bomb?

Firstly Dutch- your average American (and tell if I'm wrong on this) couldn't tell 10 Arabs apart. Secondly - I'd like to see some evidence, not random allegations out of nowhere. Thirdly, I believe flere's picture is the definition of p\/\nage - or does the hypocrisy only apply from one side ?

First - I could not tell anybody from anybody else, unless I spent time with them for a long time. I suspect I'll be able to recognize a good deal of my friends I met in Turkey, California, Louisiana and Japan 25 years from now. Will you?

Second - I do agree with proof or evidence. Sorry if "accused" wasn't good enough for ya.

Third - Times change. We were in fact Neutral with that man at that time vs with the Iranians. It's common practice for foreign dignataries to shake hands and smile to one another in public, even when they are Neutral towards one another. Sometimes even when they are enemies.

Stick with me, and I'll keep you boys learned.

They are terrorists now? What did they bomb?

I'm guessing the hostages felt pretty terrorized.

I'm guessing the hostages felt pretty terrorized.
Really? That is the standard for a terrorist? So...does that mean that you think that our soldiers are terrorists for doing what they do at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, etc, which is worse than anything the Iranians did to the hostages?

How were you treated?

Well, the treatment of me in the foreign ministry was better than the treatment of those held in the foreign embassy across the other side of town.

I was held in a room with two of my colleagues, restricted to that space.

I was never physically abused, just denied the fundamental right of freedom.

Eventually I was taken to a prison and spent the last three weeks in solitary confinement, so I got to know what my colleagues had suffered virtually all of the time.

Many of them were held in solitary confinement for long periods of time.

Why don't you support the troops, Dutch? Why do you think they are terrorists?

http://www.thewgalchannel.com/news/4675373/detail.html?rss=lan&psp=nationalnews

And do you seriously not see a difference between people captured on the battlefield and people captured in an Embassy?

Good Lord, man.

Mr. Bigglesworth,

I have stated on a few different occassions that I was appalled by what those soldiers did in Abu Graib. So I think those soldiers were acting no better than terrorists. Try to keep up.

And do you seriously not see a difference between people captured on the battlefield and people captured in an Embassy?

Good Lord, man.
Unfortunately, everyone that is following the news knows that the people in our custody include not only those picked up on the battlefield, but also innocents taken off the streets of cities, taken away from their homes in the middle of the night, etc. Let's revisit the story of Dilawar:

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

Good Lord.

Mr. Bigglesworth,

I have stated on a few different occassions that I was appalled by what those soldiers did in Abu Graib. So I think those soldiers were acting no better than terrorists. Try to keep up.
You have on many occasions noted your approval of tactics used by the Iranians when they are used by American soldiers (held captive without trial, solitary confinement, etc). It's just plain partisan intellectual dishonesty.

I'm guessing the hostages felt pretty terrorized.
So now taking hostages is a terrorist act? Damn, we got a lot more terrorists in the US than I thought there were!

I love these partisan debates because I enjoy watching both sides look like fools. Lately it has been more Democrats than Republicans. Why does every thing have to be taken to the extreme to prove a point? Of course the Iranians who took the hostages were terrorists, they were taking people prisoner to push a political agenda on the Western countries. And some ultra-left posters are going to try to seriously post that a crack addict who holds a gun to his ex-girlfriends head during a bender has same agenda? Dream on. If you give them time the Republican posters will make a similar error but until then this thread is now balanced in favor of the red posters.

Of course the Iranians who took the hostages were terrorists, they were taking people prisoner to push a political agenda on the Western countries.
If you change the definition of 'terrorist', then I guess you can make it fit anything. Needless to say, nobody here in the US were scared ('filled with terror', if you will) of being kidnapped by the Iranians. They also weren't killing civilians indiscriminately. Calling them terrorists, besides being incorrect, is too dismissive of the people and the situation. I'm not going to defend their actions, the Iranians were obviously wrong to hold those people captive, but we too often see things from only our side. Sometimes, when faced with a big threat, countries do crazy things (see: Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Gitmo) that look f'ed up to outside observers and many inside observers.

Of course the Iranians who took the hostages were terrorists, they were taking people prisoner to push a political agenda on the Western countries.
That's ridiculous. Apparently 'terrorist' can now mean anything you want it to mean, even when it doesn't involve filling a society with terror.

If you change the definition of 'terrorist', then I guess you can make it fit anything. Needless to say, nobody here in the US were scared ('filled with terror', if you will) of being kidnapped by the Iranians. They also weren't killing civilians indiscriminately. Calling them terrorists, besides being incorrect, is too dismissive of the people and the situation. I'm not going to defend their actions, the Iranians were obviously wrong to hold those people captive, but we too often see things from only our side. Sometimes, when faced with a big threat, countries do crazy things (see: Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Gitmo) that look f'ed up to outside observers and many inside observers.

They weren't terrorozing American's and their families? Like I stated earlier I have no policital agenda. I can't stand Bush, but almost care as less for the current Democratic leaders. But to compare this to Gitmo is for lack of a better word, fucking stupid.

That's ridiculous. Apparently 'terrorist' can now mean anything you want it to mean, even when it doesn't involve filling a society with terror.
To assert that those that overran the U.S. embassy and held 60(?) Americans hostage for a year and change strictly for political purposes weren't terrorists, is among the most absurd thing I've seen here on this board.




MrGigglesworth[/b]]...Calling them terrorists, besides being incorrect, is too dismissive of the people and the situation...
This is the same ultra PC garbage that the BBC spewed when they declared that they wouldn't be calling terrorists terrorists anymore. Give me a break.

To assert that those that overran the U.S. embassy and held 60(?) Americans hostage for a year and change strictly for political purposes weren't terrorists, is among the most absurd thing I've seen here on this board.
Aside from the fact that it's true?

Of course the "Bay of Pigs" wasn't a terrorist act, but a hostage situation due to the US harboring an Iranian criminal was... hmmmm.

They weren't terrorozing American's and their families? Like I stated earlier I have no policital agenda. I can't stand Bush, but almost care as less for the current Democratic leaders. But to compare this to Gitmo is for lack of a better word, fucking stupid.
All I am saying is that if that is the definition you are going to use for terrorists, then tell me why the American soldiers aren't terrorists for terrorizing the Iraqi/Afghani/etc people that we are terrorizing. And you are correct, it's stupid to compare what we are doing to what the Iranians did, in many cases what we do is far worse.

To assert that those that overran the U.S. embassy and held 60(?) Americans hostage for a year and change strictly for political purposes weren't terrorists, is among the most absurd thing I've seen here on this board.

This is the same ultra PC garbage that the BBC spewed when they declared that they wouldn't be calling terrorists terrorists anymore. Give me a break.

We invaded Iraq for political purposes. Does that make us terrorists? If you dilute the phrase to mean "any enemy of the United States" then it is practically worthless as a designation. Terrorists are bad, everyone agrees on that. But there is an effort on the right to call everyone who dares oppose the interest of the United States 'terrorists', and everyone who disagrees with that is a 'traitor'.

We invaded Iraq for political purposes. Does that make us terrorists? If you dilute the phrase to mean "any enemy of the United States" then it is practically worthless as a designation. Terrorists are bad, everyone agrees on that. But there is an effort on the right to call everyone who dares oppose the interest of the United States 'terrorists', and everyone who disagrees with that is a 'traitor'.

Nobody is buying your BS, go burn a flag or something. FWIW, lots of people, groups, organizations, countries oppose our interests and we don't call them all terrorists. Try to be more realistic. Refine your debating skill. They are kind of weak.

The Embassy hostage takers were terrorists. Just about everyone on both sides of the political spectrum considered them as such at the time. I'm quite surprised to see anyone argue otherwise.

We invaded Iraq for political purposes. Does that make us terrorists? If you dilute the phrase to mean "any enemy of the United States" then it is practically worthless as a designation. Terrorists are bad, everyone agrees on that. But there is an effort on the right to call everyone who dares oppose the interest of the United States 'terrorists', and everyone who disagrees with that is a 'traitor'.
Our Uniformed armed forces invaded Iraq, under orders from the President and Congress of the United States. Those that took the Embassy in Tehran were opportunistic thugs with automatic weapons and grenades. They weren't under the control of any Nation's armed forces or Government. They took innocents captive at gun-point, and held them by force of arms.

Based on your and Isdiqui's assertion, were those that captured the athletes in Munich, just misunderstood as well?

Third - Times change. We were in fact Neutral with that man at that time vs with the Iranians. It's common practice for foreign dignataries to shake hands and smile to one another in public, even when they are Neutral towards one another. Sometimes even when they are enemies.

There's plenty of evidence to indicate that the Reagan Administration gave military aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

Stick with me, and I'll keep you boys learned.

Learn yourself: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

It's incredible what has turned into a terrorist act. The taking of hostages in Iran was in retaliation for us not releasing the Shah, an Iranian criminal, back to Iran. You didn't see specific demands and the unrealization of any demands leading to escalation (killing as hostage). In the end, the Iranian hostage crisis was settled by the US unfreezing the money it froze after the hostage crisis and a claims tribunal. Not exactly any political realization of extremist views which it seems people think the Iranians demanded.

And anyway, this seems to be a good, comprehensive list of commonly known as terrorist acts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

The Iran hostage crisis is no where to be seen.

And do you seriously not see a difference between people captured on the battlefield and people captured in an Embassy?


Right, those taxi drivers and farmers, captured on the battlefield.

Of course, given that all of Iraq is a battlefield, I suppose you're right.

It's incredible what has turned into a terrorist act. The taking of hostages in Iran was in retaliation for us not releasing the Shah, an Iranian criminal, back to Iran. You didn't see specific demands and the unrealization of any demands leading to escalation (killing as hostage). In the end, the Iranian hostage crisis was settled by the US unfreezing the money it froze after the hostage crisis and a claims tribunal. Not exactly any political realization of extremist views which it seems people think the Iranians demanded.

And anyway, this seems to be a good, comprehensive list of commonly known as terrorist acts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

The Iran hostage crisis is no where to be seen.

It was a terrorist act. Who cares if whether it made Wikipedia's list? Kidnapping and hostage-holding to gain political leverage are violent acts that fit well within the definition of terrorism. What the Iranian students did was no different than what Hezbollah did in the 1980s when they were in the hostage-taking business in Lebanon. The fact that they were demanding the return of the Shah for trial does not in any way justify their actions. Oh, and I was around when all that was happening, and it is simply not true that the possibility of harm coming to the hostages was not a consideration and fear.

I am really scared for this country. Some of you Bush haters have such tunnel vision that you are talking complete nonsense. I hope that you guys weren't old enough during the Iran hostage crisis and all of your disinformation comes from Dr. Liberal professor in your modern history class. But if you were around at the time, then you have really lost all ability to think rationally. The United States are terrorists and the Iranian hostage takers were not? WTF?

As I have stated before I do not lean right at all, but fucking bullshit like this makes me scared of what the alternative on the left has to offer. Please tell me this is a select few left-wingers who were trying to make a point, went too far, and are just too stubborn to admit it and this is not how some people truly feel.

I am really scared for this country. Some of you Bush haters have such tunnel vision that you are talking complete nonsense.

I'm scared BECAUSE of Bush and his cronies, and I'm far from a bleeding heart.

Bush has set this country back a long way in the worlds eyes with his reckless decisions and "bring 'em on!" attitude.

Let's not even mention the crippling debt and increasing illegal immigration problems.

I am really scared for this country. Some of you Bush haters have such tunnel vision that you are talking complete nonsense. I hope that you guys weren't old enough during the Iran hostage crisis and all of your disinformation comes from Dr. Liberal professor in your modern history class. But if you were around at the time, then you have really lost all ability to think rationally. The United States are terrorists and the Iranian hostage takers were not? WTF?

As I have stated before I do not lean right at all, but fucking bullshit like this makes me scared of what the alternative on the left has to offer. Please tell me this is a select few left-wingers who were trying to make a point, went too far, and are just too stubborn to admit it and this is not how some people truly feel.
This whole mini rant here, while filled with opinion and not making a single factual point, is based on the quote that I have bolded. However, that quote is completely wrong and is merely a strawman. Nobody here that I know of has said that the United States soldiers are terrorists AND the Iranian hostage takers were not. So it kind of makes the rest of your post look asinine.

So, while I appreciate you lending your opinion, please base it off of some type of factual argument and do not limit it to 'so and so are teh suck!' Please also try and have the facts be correct. If you disagree with me, fair enough, but do not distort my argument into something that I did say.

I'm scared BECAUSE of Bush and his cronies, and I'm far from a bleeding heart.

Bush has set this country back a long way in the worlds eyes with his reckless decisions and "bring 'em on!" attitude.

Let's not even mention the crippling debt and increasing illegal immigration problems.

Hey, I am not in disagreement with you there. I don't like the man and fear that he has really set us back with the rest of the world. But as much as I don't like him his actions are far from the Iran hostage situation. And the standard in this country seems to be you have to disagree with everything the other side stands for and make awful generalizations. (The right does this all the time with gay marriage, so I am just not upset with the liberals) But the direction some posters have headed in this thread have put their credibility at about 0.

Like I stated before I hope they are young and were not around (or too young to remember) the Iran hostage crisis. Because the shit that is getting posted is far from the way me or anybody I know remembers 1980.

This whole mini rant here, while filled with opinion and not making a single factual point, is based on the quote that I have bolded. However, that quote is completely wrong and is merely a strawman. Nobody here that I know of has said that the United States soldiers are terrorists AND the Iranian hostage takers were not. So it kind of makes the rest of your post look asinine.

So, while I appreciate you lending your opinion, please base it off of some type of factual argument and do not limit it to 'so and so are teh suck!' Please also try and have the facts be correct. If you disagree with me, fair enough, but do not distort my argument into something that I did say.

fine take out the bolded part and answer the other 90% of the post.

fine take out the bolded part and answer the other 90% of the post.
Like I mentioned before, there are no facts in the other 90%, and the other 90% seems to be based on the bolded part. Therefore, the 90% is invalidated and everything in the post has been answered already.

Is it your view though that we can hold and torture innocent people, while the Iranians can not? Do you have a reason for that other than nationalism?

Panerd,

Thank You for coming here and showing that not everyone on the left has lost their senses. I think a lot of folks hate Bush so much that it clouds their judgement even moreso than some Republicans feelings about Clinton did for them.

As for Giggles, There are plenty of assertions, in this thread and out, that roughly equate the United States or its soldiers to Terrorists, or their acts to terrorist acts. So don't try and hide behind specific quotes.

As for your question. No it is not acceptable for the United States to hold and torture Innocent people. I expect those involved directly in those events to be punished to the full extent of the law. If that isn't being done, then I want the people not holding them accountable to answer for their actions. The soldiers involved in Abu Gharaib(sp?) and incidents like those quoted above aren't acting on the behalf of this country. Their actions are contrary to their orders. This government doesn't stand behind them or their actions.

There's plenty of evidence to indicate that the Reagan Administration gave military aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

Rarely are you anywhere near this correct.http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


but I do believe that the Governments "official" position was one of Neutrality.

Panerd,

Thank You for coming here and showing that not everyone on the left has lost their senses. I think a lot of folks hate Bush so much that it clouds their judgement even moreso than some Republicans feelings about Clinton did for them.
I think you only hear what you want to hear, because Panerd has expressed many times that he thinks that he is a centrist. You don't have to be on the left to hate Bush.

As for Giggles, There are plenty of assertions, in this thread and out, that roughly equate the United States or its soldiers to Terrorists, or their acts to terrorist acts. So don't try and hide behind specific quotes.
Blen, you are missing the main point. I nor anyone else has called the American soldiers terrorists. What I did do is point out that if you are going to dilute the definition of 'terrorist' as much as Dutch and others here have, then you have to call the Americans terrorists, which is absurd. So it points out the absurdity of calling the Iranians terrorists because they 'terrorized those American families'.

As I have stated before I do not lean right at all, but fucking bullshit like this makes me scared of what the alternative on the left has to offer. Please tell me this is a select few left-wingers who were trying to make a point, went too far, and are just too stubborn to admit it and this is not how some people truly feel.

Sadly panerd, this is what passes for "reason" with a lot of these people, and a great example of why I don't bother to disguise my contempt for them.

I am really scared for this country. Some of you Bush haters have such tunnel vision that you are talking complete nonsense. I hope that you guys weren't old enough during the Iran hostage crisis and all of your disinformation comes from Dr. Liberal professor in your modern history class. But if you were around at the time, then you have really lost all ability to think rationally. The United States are terrorists and the Iranian hostage takers were not? WTF?

As I have stated before I do not lean right at all, but fucking bullshit like this makes me scared of what the alternative on the left has to offer. Please tell me this is a select few left-wingers who were trying to make a point, went too far, and are just too stubborn to admit it and this is not how some people truly feel.
I'm a Republican (of the G.H.W. Bush / Bob Dole kind), but thanks for playing. Beyond what Mr. Bigglesworth said, what political objective were a bunch of rioters going for there back in 1979? I didn't realize they were organized either. Furthermore, I don't remember hearing that they threatened the hostages lives if they didn't get what they wanted. From everything I've heard and read, the hostages were treated fairly well.

When the US accidentally hit the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia and the protests went around the US embassy, if the Chinese demostrators ended up breaking through and taking the embassy hostage, would that be a 'terrorist' activity?

What I did do is point out that if you are going to dilute the definition of 'terrorist' as much as Dutch and others here have, then you have to call the Americans terrorists, which is absurd.

http://www.mrdowling.com/608hostages.jpg
Image of Iranian terrorists victims. Were the terrorists convicted? No. In America, if you are convicted of a crime, you cannot be President. So if you were to hold hostages, you're done.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/168372/13_23_hostage_iran.jpg
Terrorist

http://www.foxnews.com/images/168372/4_22_062905_iran_leaders_450.jpg
Accused President-Elect an ex-terrorist?

It may not be him, and I hope it's not, I truly do. But don't confuse our wish to investigate this with knowing the facts. The purpose of investigating is to determine the facts. If we should request that Guantamo Bay be investigated...again, surely we should follow this lead, just to be sure.

Also, this just in...

Iranian President-Elect May Be '89 Killer
Saturday, July 02, 2005
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161419,00.html

VIENNA, Austria — An exiled Iranian dissident on Saturday said Iran's newly elected president — already accused of taking American diplomats hostage 36 years ago — played a key role in the 1989 execution-style slayings of a Kurdish opposition leader and two associates in Vienna.

However, a top adviser to outgoing reformist President Mohammad Khatami (search), denied that President-elect Mohmoud Ahmadinejad (search) was involved in the Vienna killings. He also said the new president was not involved in the hostage-taking.

"I'm opposed to Ahmadinejad's policies and thinking, but he was not involved in the hostage drama nor in the assassination of an Iranian opposition Kurdish leader in Vienna," said Saeed Hajjarian (search), the Khatami adviser, who was reached Saturday in Tehran.

Austria's daily Der Standard, meanwhile, quoted a prominent Austrian politician as saying authorities have "very convincing" evidence linking Ahmadinejad to the attacks in Vienna in which the Kurds were killed.

The reports follow recent accusations from some of the 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days in Iran beginning in 1979 that the hard-line Ahmadinejad was among the hostage-takers.

When the US accidentally hit the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia and the protests went around the US embassy, if the Chinese demostrators ended up breaking through and taking the embassy hostage, would that be a 'terrorist' activity?

Hypothetically, would the terrorists be unsantioned by the Chinese government and be threatening death to any hostages and have demands that had to be met in order to save the lives of the hostages?

Of course, the tricky part with Iran is that the government did sanction it (and received an $8 BILLION dollar check from the US for the hostages release--but Iran is and has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1980, so I digress.)

...but I do believe that the Governments "official" position was one of Neutrality.

Given the context, I'd say the official position was merely a legal technicality. Bottom line: we gave military aid to Saddam Hussein and helped him (indirectly) develop his weapons program. You & Dutch can hide behind the legal technicality of stated neutrality all you want, but in real terms you're using a double standard here (and that's assuming the president-elect was a hostage-taker, which hasn't quite been proven yet).

If one man can go from a key backroom ally to the greatest possible enemy in 20 years, can not another man go from a stated enemy to a potential neutral project in the same length of time?

Given the context, I'd say the official position was merely a legal technicality. Bottom line: we gave military aid to Saddam Hussein and helped him (indirectly) develop his weapons program. You & Dutch can hide behind the legal technicality of stated neutrality all you want, but in real terms you're using a double standard here (and that's assuming the president-elect was a hostage-taker, which hasn't quite been proven yet).

If one man can go from a key backroom ally to the greatest possible enemy in 20 years, can not another man go from a stated enemy to a potential neutral project in the same length of time?

You make it sound like absolutely nothing of note happened with regard to Saddam Hussein from 1980 to 2005. :)

But to answer your question, thanks to US pressure from the Bush Admin, I'm guessing Qadaffi has made some progress. At least more than we were typically used to.

This Iranian guy? Well, his nation still supports terrorists, so I doubt he's a reformed terrorist. You never know, but actions speak louder than words. If he bans support to Hizbollah and any other Shia terror-groups and allows the UN to inspect and help dismantle Iran's nuclear ambitions, then sure, I'll say he's a changed man.

You make it sound like absolutely nothing of note happened with regard to Saddam Hussein from 1980 to 2005. :)

We supported him at a time when he was developing and testing dangerous weapons, and in general being very beastly to his populace. How's that different from the 1990s?

But to answer your question, thanks to US pressure from the Bush Admin, I'm guessing Qadaffi has made some progress. At least more than we were typically used to.

Qadaffi started changing his tone in the late 1990s because a) his dream of Arabic nationalism wasn't coming to pass and b) his oil wealth was dissapating. When he made his announcement (2003, I believe), that he'd let U.N. inspectors in to dismantle his WMD programs, it came to pass that he'd be working through back channels since the late 1990s with British officials, a process that started with both countries trying to sort out the Lockerbie mess.

This Iranian guy? Well, his nation still supports terrorists, so I doubt he's a reformed terrorist. You never know, but actions speak louder than words. If he bans support to Hizbollah and any other Shia terror-groups and allows the UN to inspect and help dismantle Iran's nuclear ambitions, then sure, I'll say he's a changed man.

Saddam Hussein was the same dangerous madman in 1983 as he was in 2003. You're employing a double standard, which is my point.

Saddam Hussein was the same dangerous madman in 1983 as he was in 2003. You're employing a double standard, which is my point.

So what are you suggesting should have happened with regard to Saddam Hussein?

So what are you suggesting should have happened with regard to Saddam Hussein?

Nice try, Dutch, but that wasn't the point.

To quote myself:


If one man can go from a key backroom ally to the greatest possible enemy in 20 years, can not another man go from a stated enemy to a potential neutral project in the same length of time?

A yes or no answer will do.

It's a legitimate question that you haven't answered. Are you saying that the US should have had the goal of regime change in Iraq in 1983?

And I did answer your question - Qadaffi has become somewhat nuetral. This Iranian guy is getting into office whether or which--it's really up to him to answer your demand for a "yes or no". I suggested he could show his support for the international community by abandoning Iran's support for terrorist activities such as Hezbollah, assisting the UN in dismantling it's nuclear ambitions, and other actions such as these.

What would you think would prove or hint that he's trying to get Iran to rejoin the international community? What steps would you consider positive?

It's a legitimate question that you haven't answered. Are you saying that the US should have had the goal of regime change in Iraq in 1983?

That's rich. Tell you what, how about you answer my question, which was the first question asked in this current charade, and then we can get to your question, OK?

My question again, for reference:


If one man can go from a key backroom ally to the greatest possible enemy in 20 years, can not another man go from a stated enemy to a potential neutral project in the same length of time?

And I did answer your question - Qadaffi has become somewhat nuetral.

That's your way of answering "yes" to a yes or no question?

This Iranian guy is getting into office whether or which--it's really up to him to answer your demand for a "yes or no".

No it isn't. It's up to you to answer the above question. Let me rephrase it for you: can or can not someone change in the space of 20 years?

You seem to indicate that Hussein did, and you seem to indicate that Qadaffi did. Yet you're not willing to extend the same grace to Ahmadinejad.

I suggested he could show his support for the international community by abandoning Iran's support for terrorist activities such as Hezbollah, assisting the UN in dismantling it's nuclear ambitions, and other actions such as these.

Until such a time as he does these things, though, he's a terrorist, right? Even though 25 years have passed? Even though it's not been proven he was a hostage taker?

What would you think would prove or hint that he's trying to get Iran to rejoin the international community? What steps would you consider positive?

Jesus, he's not even taken office yet. Can we wait and see, you know, just a little bit? Or must it always be a rush to judgment for you?

and received an $8 BILLION dollar check from the US for the hostages release
:rolleyes:

The $8 Billion was Iranian assets in the US that had been frozen after the hostage crisis began. So, obviously, that money was going to be unfrozen after release.

But to answer your question, thanks to US pressure from the Bush Admin, I'm guessing Qadaffi has made some progress. At least more than we were typically used to.


That's not how it went down at all. The Libyans couldn't give a crap about us--much like the Iranians, their economy is linked closely with Europe. The unilateral sanctions (and military actions) imposed by the US in the 1980s did nothing to hurt the Libyans, since their trade with Western Europe (who elected not to impose sanctions) was as healthy as ever. The Libyans f-ed up royally by involving themselves with Lockerbie: the Libyans were hurt by the multilateral sanctions imposed by the UN post-Lockerbie.

By the late 90s, Qaddafi (and his ego) realized that he could be a player in African politics/diplomacy and that his economy would continue to slide if ties to Europe weren't restored soon, any ties to terrorism would be counter-productive in either case. Hence, Libya's cooperation on Lockerbie and the re-embrace with Western Europe.

What would you think would prove or hint that he's trying to get Iran to rejoin the international community? What steps would you consider positive?

Iran is already part of the international community. Iran has decent relations with pretty much everyone except the US, Israel, and Saddam era Iraq. Trade with Western Europe is pretty strong, and the Europeans are pouring a lot of money into the country much like they are doing in Cuba.