What is the worst act of the Iranian government towards another nation?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So what, in your opinion, as a liberated Aussie enjoying many freedoms and supporting peacekeeping military interventions by Australia in unoccupied Iraq and Afghanistan presumably extending those freedoms you enjoy to the Iraqis and Afghans, is the worst act of the Iranian government towards another nation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've described the Argentinian bombing already. There's the funding of Hezbollah also, of course.

 

I think your statement is sufficient. In your opinion the worst act of the Iranian government towards another nation was the Iran-Iraq war following the chemical attack on Iraqis and Iranians by Iraq. In this war Iran was on the offensive for the last 6 years of the 8 years of war during which the Iranians violently resisted the Iraqi invasion of Iran, resulting in the death of half a million people.

I agree with you. What should Iran have done different on that occasion?

Where do Australians get the weapons they use in Iraq and Afghanistan? When they peacefully kill the unoccupied insurgents in their own country, including random children who act as human shields for these terrorists, where do their weapons supplies come from? Do Australians supply any of these peacekeeping weapons to their unoccupied supporters in these liberated states?

 

I won't hold my breath on any such statement.

Let the people decide! So long as they decide on more religion as their salve. Why, it'll keep their societies from dying, don't you know.

 

How did it hype them up?

How much of Iraqi territory did Iran occupy? Was it more or less than the US currently occupies? Are there Iranian military bases in Iraq for example, like the 50 or so installed by the Americans?

Is it right for the US to supply weapons to Australians in Iraq? Or in Afghanistan? I recall that Australia was a British colony, did they also fight the Irish insurgents and the Arab insurgents for the British?

Are the insurgents using their children as human shields? What do you think of the Australian peace keeping missions in Iraq [in the Gulf War, in Operation Iraqi Freedom] and in Afghanistan? Do you consider it justified? Do you support such missions? Do you think such interventions should be taken up by other countries like Iran?

Is this something that you would like to see Iran emulate? After all, they enjoy a long history and a border with Afghanistan. What is your opinion of Iranians supplying weapons and training to Afghans who want to defend their country?

 

Is that really true? Do you have a source to this?

So basically, the reason so many people died is due to military weakness. Would you suggest that Iran upgrade its weapons systems so as to decrease the number of deaths in future interventions?

But there were no al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq before the US invasion, so who did the Australians intend to fight when they got there?

I looked it up, apparently Australia was where Irish insurgents were transported by the British. So clearly the Irish insurgents who fought the British were penalised by being sent to Australia. Interesting. Perhaps expatriation is a better response to insurgency than killing.

So were the children shot by the Australians used as body shields? If yes, what is your opinion of soldiers shooting at human shields who happen to be children. If not, what is your opinion of Australians shooting children in a country which they are not occupying but haven't been invited to?

So the US invasion of Iraq in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was justified, but Iranians supplying weapons to Iraqis under US unoccupation is not justified. What is the difference between the two?

And yet Australia itself occupies Aboriginal lands and does not intend to offer a referendum to Aboriginals who would like to separate. Isn't that hypocritical of them?

Is it acceptable if they support the side which is in opposition to western hegemony in their lands? I mean is an Afghan an "insurgent" if he opposes western hegemony but a "patriot" if he supports it? How would you decide which Afghan should be allowed to defend his country from foreign invasion?

 

No I don't know the individual aboriginals who want to separate, however, I am aware of the failure of separatist movements in Australia.

Perhaps they needed Indonesia to come and lend a hand? Or is it "one nation" for Australians but liberation for East Timor?

 

Well considering that Australians have never recognised the Aboriginals as a nation and have only recently started recognising them as people, its an obvious conclusion that they have never considered giving them their own country - after all, as you pointed out, they barely constitute 2% of the population and are largely irrelevant as contributors to mainstream Australian society. I find it amazing that Australians will travel halfway across the world to liberate Iraqis and Afghans and valiantly aid East Timor in being separated from Indonesia when the conditions of their own aboriginals be it healh, socioeconomic status or quality of life shows how much they are in need of liberation.

 

Its not what I would call a definitive source.

So Irans mistake was in prolonging the war after Saddam Hussein had surrendered or withdrawn.

What do you think of the American role in this war? Was their role a stabilising influence in the war?

Yes its difficult to remember that when its westerners defending themselves, they are not insurgents. I believe the Irish insurgents were called convicts by the British.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798

Relevance to the thread? The importance of nomenclature in foreign policy decisions.

What I found out is that its within the "rules of engagement" for NATO troops to open fire in the homes of Iraqis and Afghans whom they are not occupying. However, should the Iraqis and Afghans attack the bases of said NATO troops, it is terrorism.

I'd seriously reconsider my career options. If I had to shoot the child to defend myself, I'd definitely opt for a change in career, considering that not occupying people in their countries would require me to repeat the process of shooting them en famille in their homes.

Thats a surprise to me. So much so that I've started a new thread on it.

I guess I am trying to reconcile a civil rights movement where peacekeeping requires troops to burst into other peoples homes and shoot them.

Ah. I see. So the US invasion was a stabilising influence on Iraq. Thats a fresh outlook at any rate.

Well the non-occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the NATO "peacekeeping" force. But since its all for their own good, once they accept that it requires them to maintain foreign military bases for their own "protection", I suppose its all fine. Everyone needs a foreign military base in their country to remind them of their independence.

Except for insurgents and terrorists of course. Because its not illegal for an Australian soldier to break down the door of an Afghan "insurgent" and shoot him, is it?

I don't think having your own country should be considered a handout. There is something incredibly patronising about an immigrant community offering the natives their own way of life as charity. The situation is not different for indigenous tribes in India so I recognise the limitations of these approaches. I just thought it amusing that westernised Australians who have taken over indigenous society in Australia are travelling outside to liberate the masses. Its especially interesting when we talk about how Iranians treat their own people. Australians have a much poorer record than Iranians who historically have always supported refugees and immigrants from all other societies. I find the whole western attitude towards Asians and ME to be extremely holier than thou considering their continuous legacy of war and violence worldwide.

But back on topic

Irans worst acts as a nation towards other nations.

1. Their offensive in the last six years of the eight year Iran-Iraq war

2. ?

 

Sorry for commenting out of turn but: unlikely at best.

Which Sam effortlessly translates to the definition of suppressing insurgency by a gang of religious retards.

Hunker down behind her shield, of course.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And ultimately, that's what this is all about, in a way.

What is it, specifically, that you desire as the replacement of the nation-state in Afghanistan? The Taliban, a radical Islamic clique of right-wing reactionaries? Well, that certainly sounds like a boon. I'm certain I'd want my fate decided by the likes of Pat Robertson, but with RPGs and the predilection to use them to further his ideology. You've mentioned "liberation" as a contrast element here - so you feel that the replacement of the Afghan government (ill-performing as it is) by the Taliban would be an improvement? On what grounds could this possibly be so?

So why did you cite it?

:shrug:

Well, you do seem to be pressing the 'peaceful option' here.

Well, they are in no uniform, hide among the civilian population in part at least to produce civilian casualties in the event of prosecution, and target the civilian population very deliberately. Their body count of innocent Afganis is limited only by their ability to cause destruction, which is presumably not so great owing to their numbers and resources.

(This latter point can sometimes be confusing: on some days, it is painstakingly and authoritatively explained that these extremists can only be a tiny proportion of the population, and on others that they comprise a popular nationalist uprising representing the prolitariat. It's often difficult to reconcile these two perspectives, so don't feel upset if they don't always jive to you, either, Sam.)

En famille as in being held up for incoming fire? Quelle famille! But I think you realize one of those objectives of terrorism as explained above. In fairness, I might well choose a different career also. Then again, the question is more is this a job worth doing? The answer would seem to be yes.

Or drive car bombs into lines of people voting, or beheading teachers and "collaborators" working for the betterment of the Afghan people.

My herring for yours, madam.

Er, it would have been, had certain parties of your philosophy decided otherwise. Two to tango, you know. Or actually only one in this case.

It's at least as legal as an insurgent breaking down the door of an Afghan teacher and shoot her for daring to have women students. And quite a bit more morally guided, don't you think? That's at least two levels to the better.

Except in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Morocco and several other nations bound by some common legal thread. If only we knew what it was!

Of course!

Well.

Except for people not remarkably like themselves, or worse, gay. See, your example is kind of apples and oranges when you stop to think how Iran has treated their own people who differ from the 'perfect' ethnoreligious or gender definition. Sort of a trite point you're trying to make here, not so?

Let me know if you need me to explain these concepts in further detail.

 

Perhaps I desire to see less of the "replacement state" by all those westerners carrying the white mans burden. Consider Iran, circa 1905 or even Afghanistan a mere 50-60 years ago

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

before the cold war of the resplendently free societies of the extra secular world of freedom loving peacekeeping troops.

Perhaps I prefer that instead of using people as pawns in their "Great Games" and offering handouts of democracy to those backward tribes they are saddled with when they don't occupy them, they stop to consider the possibility of offering the freedom of choice, not by having armed strangers burst into their homes with machine guns to direct their choices but by allowing them to find their own way, even if it takes them some time. As someone from a society slowly recovering from such a burden of charitable independence, let me tell you, self determination cannot be handed out.

Its the choice I would like to see for Iran, as also for the rest of the ME and most definitely for those indigenous Australians whose stable sustainable society of more than 40,000 years was stripped from them leaving them with the option to "integrate" or disappear.