|
Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran Plot To Assassinate Saudi Ambassador Foiled By DOJ Sting (10/13/2011 12:58:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
You're welcome - there is better out there but its what turned up when I searched. Why though is a former prime-minister of Iraq not be a credible source? Thats why I posted it up.
Given that he is a u.s. puppet it would seem that he might be agenda driven.
By "US puppet" I assume you mean he is on the side you appear to dislike. Yes he was appointed the interim prime-minister by the US but he opposed Saddam when he became more of an absolute dictator in the 1970s, had a leading role in the opposition to Saddam for several decades, and was/is a respected sunni moderate. Why must he be a puppet?
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
I don't wish to get into a lengthy debate over US foreign policy as its been done a huge amount on CM recently but the point of the article is that Iran is likely behind those attacks. The evidence isn't always easy to come by but there are very compelling pointers suggesting Iran.
My point is and was that the u.s. does the same shit all over the world and then cops a sanctimonious attitude when they find someone else doing the same shit.
I understand your view. I don't fully agree but don't have a desire to discuss it as it has been done to death on CM already, and you'll understand a long debate is time consuming.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
I think the comparison between a nation being directly involved in insurgency and an ship escorting vessels over neutral territory that were bringing materials to England during WWII is stretching it a bit. No offense but I think its easier when discussing differing viewpoints to give one's own opinion rather than asking a certain sort of rhetorical question.
Germany and england were at war and the u.s. was a neutral. The reuben james was a warship of the u.s. engaged in military action against germany at a time when the u.s. was claiming neutrality and was not at war with germany. The only difference I see here is that iran has not claimed any neutral status that I know of.
If I remember correctly the u.s. gave sinificant help to iraq in her war against iran while not declaring war on iran. It looks like an equaivalent situation.
I agree that it is important for each to state their position in a discussion but it is sometimes difficult to discern anothers position without probative questions.
No offense was taken I believe that adults can disagree without being disagreeable...unfortunately, from time to time we all encounter those with less than adult manners on this board .
I understand that but as I said, it is stretching it a bit to compare the two scenarios. The real difference is that Iran directly drove (funded and facilitated) a significant element of the terror in Iraq whilst the US displayed some preferential bias toward the UK. Yes it was against their professed neutrality but it's hardly a terrible thing to do considering Germany at the time was aggressor against numerous nations.
You seem to be denying Iran has any involvement and/or that they are but it is justified after the US did the same to them a while back. Indeed the US did aid Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war but that is hardly the same as the insurgent systematic terror which targets the civilian populace rather than the military by a factor of 60:1 as the Lancet pointed out recently.
There is a "US baad - almost everyone else good" stance that I dislike. Its a stance that is pretty much the norm where I'm from but it doesn't convince when one really looks at all the evil in the world which gets virtually no coverage. The US aren't saints at all but there is worse out there as would be more apparent if the left, which has co-opted the human rights movements, quit their old capitalist beef against the US.
|
|
|
|
