US 'shelves Europe missile plan'

**~~Kermanshahi~~** · 17 Oct 09,, 12:21

Originally Posted by Grees

You got it all wrong, Kermanshahi, as long as anybody fights for US interests (regardless their tactics) they are freedom-fighters, otherwise they are terrorists...

And if anyone dare to oppose their opinion is against world peace and/or is just, lets say, “not so bright” to see how much US government worries about all of us – poor, poor souls we are.

But let me tell something.

IF Iranian people chose to live the way they do – it's their choice! IF they wanted to change their government, they would do it. But they do not. Why? Because either the majority probably support it, don't care or is pushed by external threats into support of it.

Americans are so blinded by the holy halo they imagining around themselves, that they don't see, that through their threats of war and sanctions, not only against Iran but any country not dancind to US' tune, they are pushing Iran (and others) even further the way of development of nuclear technology and weapons just to feel safe and to insure their sovereignty!

Probably it's to late and the chance to stop Iran from developing those weapons through peaceful meanings is not possible any more, but whom do we have to blame for that?

This is not just limited to Americans. For all countries in the world the "terrorist" = an armed group where with they don't agree with their policies.

**~~Kermanshahi~~** · 17 Oct 09,, 12:30

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Iran made the decision to acquire nukes and they're the ones responsible for its consequences. No one else. Can you seriously tell me that Iranian security increased with nukes? Instead, they've became the legitimate targets of at least 3 declared nuclear weapons state and one undeclared nuclear weapons state.

Every one points to Israel as the excuse for Iran to acquire nukes. However, before Iran went hell bent for a warhead, Tehran was never a nuclear target. Now, she is.

Americans started the crisis with Iran when they decided to topple the Mossadeq government in 1953 and therefore destroy the first and only democracy that has ever existed in Iran. In '53 the most populair Iranian government in centuries was replaced by possibly the most unpopulair ever. America's support for the Shah's regime made them very unpopulair in Iran and every Iranian has heared the stories of America trying to organise another military coup in 1979 to counter the revolution.
Furthermore 1,000,000 Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq War, most of which killed by chemical weapons supplied to them by US-allies, and in Iran no-one really blames Germany or Egypt or countries like that for it, everyone sees America as the guilty one. Also the fact that WMDs were used on Iran, on it's military and on it's cities made Iran see how vunerable they were without it. That's made the regime resume a nuclear program which was started by the Shah, with American help.

Also the nuclear program and infact the whole anti-American policy of Iran is a tactic by the regime that is being used to keep the peoples minds of their very unpopulair internal politics. The political censorship, the fact that the elections in Iran are all frauds and the religious laws being enforced on a country with mostly secular people is all very unpopulair. In response the regime does a populair foreign policy and tries to, with that, keep the people's minds off the internal problems and the fact that they are a dictatorship more ruthless than the previous one.

**pChan** · 17 Oct 09,, 12:57

Originally Posted by Grees

1.You mentioned Lebanon and how it is “better off” now not interfering in world affairs any more...
2.Who decides, who deserves more influence in the world? Is it the guy with bigger guns? And if that so, don't blame Iran for wanting to acquire those more “weighty arguments” just that others pay more attention to its opinion.

I mentioned libya. I don't see libya getting "rolled over" or "being dominated".

So you support Iran's meddling w.r.t hezbollah? So its perfectly okay with you that a bunch of mullahs can demand more influence by actively supporting terrorist entities? What do those mullahs want - free-trade? I would vote vested interests. You cloak your support for this illegal regime behind words like "pay more attention to its opinion" .... spare us the moral high-ground. Dreadwrought was right all along I guess.

**Parihaka** · 17 Oct 09,, 13:08

Originally Posted by Kermanshahi

This is not just limited to Americans. For all countries in the world the "terrorist" = an armed group where with they don't agree with their policies.

Well no. Australia has an armed group called the Australian Defence Force. I disagree with damn near everything those buggers do yet I don't view their army as terrorists for the simple reason that they don't go round deliberately blowing up men women and children with bombs.

**Grees** · 17 Oct 09,, 15:27

Originally Posted by pChan

I mentioned libya. I don't see libya getting "rolled over" or "being dominated".

So you support Iran's meddling w.r.t hezbollah? So its perfectly okay with you that a bunch of mullahs can demand more influence by actively supporting terrorist entities? What do those mullahs want - free-trade? I would vote vested interests. You cloak your support for this illegal regime behind words like "pay more attention to its opinion"

First: “Rolled over “ I meant in this context like “practically dead” or “non existent” i.e. they gave up.

Second: I never said I support terrorists or their tactics – but I at least try to understand why do they have virtually no other choice. And I try to find the causes why do they fight so bitter, so desperate, without regards to losses. Could it be they are just evil and we (Europeans or Americans) are just so good but not understood by those others? Look deeper! Beyond the propaganda of either “coloring”!
And when you think about all this and still disagree – so much freedom do we have to at least discuss and disagree on something.

Originally Posted by pChan

.... spare us the moral high-ground. Dreadwrought was right all along I guess.

...whatever

**pChan** · 17 Oct 09,, 17:22

Originally Posted by Grees

disagree – so much freedom do we have to at least discuss and disagree on something.

Only thing that I agree with your post.

**Officer of Engineers** · 17 Oct 09,, 18:12

Originally Posted by Kermanshahi

Americans started the crisis with Iran when they decided to topple the Mossadeq government in 1953 and therefore destroy the first and only democracy that has ever existed in Iran. In '53 the most populair Iranian government in centuries was replaced by possibly the most unpopulair ever. America's support for the Shah's regime made them very unpopulair in Iran and every Iranian has heared the stories of America trying to organise another military coup in 1979 to counter the revolution.
Furthermore 1,000,000 Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq War, most of which killed by chemical weapons supplied to them by US-allies, and in Iran no-one really blames Germany or Egypt or countries like that for it, everyone sees America as the guilty one. Also the fact that WMDs were used on Iran, on it's military and on it's cities made Iran see how vunerable they were without it. That's made the regime resume a nuclear program which was started by the Shah, with American help.

I hope you are describing the current national mood rather than expressing your own beliefs. The blame-America-for-everything-instead-owing-up-to-your-own-responsibilities is getting extremely tiresome.

Originally Posted by Kermanshahi

Also the nuclear program and infact the whole anti-American policy of Iran is a tactic by the regime that is being used to keep the peoples minds of their very unpopulair internal politics. The political censorship, the fact that the elections in Iran are all frauds and the religious laws being enforced on a country with mostly secular people is all very unpopulair. In response the regime does a populair foreign policy and tries to, with that, keep the people's minds off the internal problems and the fact that they are a dictatorship more ruthless than the previous one.

So, which is it? The Iranian leadership breaking their own laws (including the NPT) to please the people or to suppress the people?

**pChan** · 17 Oct 09,, 19:16

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The blame-America-for-everything-instead-owing-up-to-your-own-responsibilities is getting extremely tiresome.

Amen to that Sir. I see whats wrong with these posts now.

**~~diplomaticview~~** · 17 Oct 09,, 21:00

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Since when has relationships between nations been about democracy and justice?

Democracy & justice did not vanish and it still applicable but these terms does not acceptable for some countries so called ' War Lords '.

**Parihaka** · 17 Oct 09,, 22:34

Originally Posted by diplomaticview

Democracy & justice did not vanish and it still applicable but these terms does not acceptable for some countries so called ' War Lords '.

Really? Like Russia in Chechnya and Georgia? That sort of democracy and justice?

**Bigfella** · 18 Oct 09,, 00:20

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Well no. Australia has an armed group called the Australian Defence Force. I disagree with damn near everything those buggers do yet I don't view their army as terrorists for the simple reason that they don't go round deliberately blowing up men women and children with bombs.

Got your number buddy. Just you wait.

YouTube - Australia - Invade New Zealand Tv Ad

**Parihaka** · 18 Oct 09,, 01:31

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Got your number buddy. Just you wait.

YouTube - Australia - Invade New Zealand Tv Ad

You want our sheep? Come and get em.....

**~~Kermanshahi~~** · 18 Oct 09,, 12:44

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Well no. Australia has an armed group called the Australian Defence Force. I disagree with damn near everything those buggers do yet I don't view their army as terrorists for the simple reason that they don't go round deliberately blowing up men women and children with bombs.

Well it's official army. A country's official armed force can't be a terrorist organisation, or atleast that's what the whole world thought until America cam with their their ridiculous IRGC terrorist classification. But for the rest country's governments usually declare any militant group that fights them as terrorist organisation, regardless of whether they target civilians or not.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I hope you are describing the current national mood rather than expressing your own beliefs. The blame-America-for-everything-instead-owing-up-to-your-own-responsibilities is getting extremely tiresome.

Well American fering with Iran has done a lot of harm to the country and p*ssed the people off a lot.

So, which is it? The Iranian leadership breaking their own laws (including the NPT) to please the people or to suppress the people?

The Iranian regime doesn't need nukes to opress the people, they need nukes to be able to confront America without the possibility of being nuked themselfes and that is a populair policy.

Many Iranians want the country to become powerfull again and they see nukes as one of the ways to really be a world power again. You see Agha Mohamad Qajar was the last strong king Iran had, after that there were only weak rules which ruined the country and let it fall far behind, most of them being puppets of the British, Russians or later Americans and not serving the country's interests. Exceptions being Reza Shah (the Shahss father) who was toppled by a Russian/British invasion and Mohamad Mossadeq who was removed by a CIA coup. Mullahs are the first regime which are seriously bringing Iran back.

**Officer of Engineers** · 18 Oct 09,, 14:07

Originally Posted by Kermanshahi

Well American fering with Iran has done a lot of harm to the country and p*ssed the people off a lot.

That's over 5 decades ago. Get over it.

Originally Posted by Kermanshahi

The Iranian regime doesn't need nukes to opress the people, they need nukes to be able to confront America without the possibility of being nuked themselfes and that is a populair policy.

Google Nuclear Warfare 101, 102, 103

**Ironduke** · 18 Oct 09,, 18:28

Well American fering with Iran has done a lot of harm to the country and p*ssed the people off a lot.

I can understand why people may have nursed a grudge against America as late as 1979 for what happened in 1953 and Mossadeq. Nowadays every time this is brought up, it seems like Iran is just dwelling on the past. People I've met who dwell on the past tend to be failures in life. In a way, the same can hold true for nations as well. It seems like there's a strong correlation between dwelling on the past, blaming everybody else for one's problems, and failed states and general backwardness.

Look at Pakistan, or stop by any Pakistani forum. What are they doing? Dwelling on the past with an obsessive, single-minded, one-track mind. If they wished, they could have strong cooperation and trade links with India that would help make both more prosperous, but would be better on the whole for Pakistan. There's a market of 1.4 billion people for Pakistani agriculture and industry. What does this obsession about the past do for them? Nothing. What advantage do they accrue? None. The Arabs do the same thing. Blame Western imperialism, American conspiracy theories, the Crusaders, adopt an antagonistic mindset and blame everybody else except themselves for their lot. How well did dwelling on the past turn out for the former Yugoslavia?

On the other hand, nations that have looked toward the future have done spectacularly well. West Germany, Japan, South Korea, and now countries like China or even the UAE. Imagine if the South Koreans sat around after WWII and said "look, we're a nation of peasant rice farmers because of Japan, and this is the reason why we can't succeed!" They'd still be a nation of peasant rice farmers today. They didn't obsess about the past, they looked forward. The US and Japan didn't let WWII define their future relations. We moved on.

So what are you going to do? Let some singular event in history hang like an albatross around your neck, or a cross on your back? There are alot worse things that have happened between nations and peoples that they were able to set aside and move forward.

Many Iranians want the country to become powerfull again and they see nukes as one of the ways to really be a world power again. You see Agha Mohamad Qajar was the last strong king Iran had, after that there were only weak rules which ruined the country and let it fall far behind, most of them being puppets of the British, Russians or later Americans and not serving the country's interests. Exceptions being Reza Shah (the Shahss father) who was toppled by a Russian/British invasion and Mohamad Mossadeq who was removed by a CIA coup. Mullahs are the first regime which are seriously bringing Iran back.

Actually, despite the Shah's ruthless repression, he did well for Iran economically. Even today the Iranian economy is lesser than it was under the Shah. It was the most prosperous time in Iranian history.