 |
| |
|
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
The thing that gets me is that Iran is supporting aggresive-suicide for the sake of chauvanism. Aggressive-suicide is bad enough (creepy & wrong) and where one can see how Kamekaze troops and pilots giving their life to destroy enemy soldiers in war, or even how Palestinian (teens who know no better, and are easily manipulated by older folk) might convince themselves that blowing themselves up as well as a bunch of total strangers of various ages and persuasions is somehow good, and approved of by this 'Allah' god of theirs,
what's Irans excuse?
It's not occupied by Isreal or any foreign occupyer, and the US sponsored tyranny of the Shah is long gone. Maybe it's Iranian ideology that 'Allah' wants muslims to kill themselves and non-believers in gerenral. Perhaps Iran belives that this is the central message of Islam.
Last edited by problem_child on 03-12-2004 at 22:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
The US will never attack Iran for the simple reason it can't. Iran has apparently bought plenty of Russian Sunburn anti-ship cruise missiles.
When a couple of chinese destroyers equipped with these sailed into the pacific all the US aircraft carriers sailed into the Indian ocean.
It took ten long years for the American airforce to degrade the Iraqi air defences sufficently to bomb with impunity.
The Iranian defense is tight, very large, technologically advanced and has a high morale.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
It is true that the US had air superiority, but that is not semantically the same as beeing able to bomb with impunity. I believe I said 'impunity'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
 |
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Andora is a country. You point? Iran is very large. And it will invariably be a difference.
|
How do you mean? Will it effect the quality of our Pilot's Ability to fight? I don't think it would, our Heavy bombers fly from several thousands of miles away, and in a war with Iran most of our lighter stuff would come from Carriers in the Gulf.
They might be able to hide more stuff, true, but if we see it we can hit it, and if we can hit it we can kill it.
quote:
We hit Kosovo for 70 days- and did not do too much damage to their forces there at all- we were far more succesful hitting their cities (and foreign embassies). If anything, Kosovo is a good example of the limitations of even modern bombing in hills and mountains. |
We didn't go in there with the goal of destroying the Serbian army, we went in there to try to compel Serbia to withdraw from Kosovo.
Second, the Clinton administration set up very strict ROE, such as American warplanes were not permitted to fly below x-amount of ft, because Clinton didn't want any casulties. The result? Less effective, and more than once we blew up refugee columns the pilots thought were targets of oppurtunity. (but couldn't tell becuase they were a million ft up)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lonestar
OH NO NOT SUNBURNS! And they bought plenty of Silkworms(seersuckers), not Sunburns. They don't have many Sunburns.
|
You don't need many. Argentine only had five exocet missiles yet managed to sink two British naval ships. Reprtedly Iran has plenty of exocet missiles too.
The point is that presumaby some of the US planes carrying (various non-distinct acrynoms) bombs will be carrier based.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
An overthrow of the Iranian regime will never happen. It is one of the most democratic regimes in the Middle East. In many ways it is comparable to the US. Except ethnic minorities are better represented, and the parlamentarians represent more varied economic segments of the population. |
Human Rights Watch:
"Iran: Web Writers Purge Underway
Arrests Designed to Silence NGO Activists
(New York, November 9, 2004) – The Iranian government is moving to silence Internet and Web-log communications, the last remaining outlet for freedom of expression in the country, Human Rights Watch said today.
The internet has been a gateway for outreach and information sharing with the Iranian public. With so many NGO activists arrested or under surveillance, the remaining members of civil society fear for their safety.
Many of Iran’s most high-profile civil society activists rely on the internet to get their message out. Human Rights Watch said that the Iranian authorities are arresting these activists and bloggers in order to cripple the country’s growing network of independent nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
“The internet has been a gateway for outreach and information sharing with the Iranian public,” said Joe Stork, Washington director of Human Right Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “With so many NGO activists arrested or under surveillance, the remaining members of civil society fear for their safety.”
Human Rights Watch said that the arrests, which began on September 7, point to a disturbing development in which the government is attacking mid-level activists in the NGO community for the first time. In case of the Internet-related arrests, the authorities are detaining contributing journalists and technicians rather than higher-profile political leaders under whose names these web sites operate.
“We’re talking about rank and file activists working on social and cultural issues,” said Stork. “Their basic freedoms are being sacrificed as conservative leaders try to purge critics from society.”
Human Rights Watch said that to date none of the detainees have been charged with any crime. Judicial authorities have given differing reasons for these arrests. On October 12, 2004, Jamal Karimi Rad, the judiciary’s spokesman, said that the detainees were accused of “propaganda against the regime, endangering national security, inciting public unrest, and insulting sacred belief.” The head of the judiciary, Ayatollah Shahrudi, in an interview with state-run television on October 27, 2004 stated that “these people will be tried in connection with moral crimes.”
Nemat Ahmadi, defense counsel for some of the detainees, has been repeatedly barred from meeting his clients and has stated that they are being kept in solitary confinement.
“The only criminal behavior here appears to be that of Iran’s judiciary officials,” Stork said. “They seem to be ready to defy the country’s own laws as well as its international human rights obligations in solidifying their hold on power.”
Human Rights Watch called on the Iranian authorities to end their harassment and intimidation of peaceful critics, and free the arrested activists immediately and unconditionally.
Background:
Internet writers and civil society activists who have been arrested over the past two months include:
• Mahbubeh Abasgholizadeh, the editor of Farzaneh, women’s rights and NGO activist, arrested at her home on November 2,
• Fereshteh Ghazi of the daily Etemad and on-line journalist, arrested in her office on October 28,
• Reza Mir Ebrahimi, former editor of foreign affairs of daily Etemad, arrested on October 27,
• Javad Gholam Tamayomi of the daily Mardomsalari, arrested on October 18,
• Omid Memarian, NGO activist and on-line journalist, arrested in his office on October 10,
• Hanif Mazroi, former journalist, arrested on September 8,
• Amir Mojiri, on-line journalist, arrested on September 8, and
• Shahram Rafihzadeh, cultural editor of daily Etemad, arrested on September 7, 2004.
In addition, a number of prominent civil society activists, including Azam Taleghani, Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, Imad-din Baghi, and Mohammad Maleki have been banned from leaving the country. "
Last edited by lord of the mark on 04-12-2004 at 02:00
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
|
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
You don't need many. Argentine only had five exocet missiles yet managed to sink two British naval ships. Reprtedly Iran has plenty of exocet missiles too.
|
You mean the British ships that didn't have any countermeasures or Close In Weapons Systems? huh! Imagine that!
Also those missiles were fired Argentinian Super Etendars. The reason why the Argentinians were able to pull it off was because air control was disputed. (The RN didn't, and still doesn't, have real aircraft carriers. Harrier Jets are not airsuperiority fighters.)
quote:
The point is that presumaby some of the US planes carrying (various non-distinct acrynoms) bombs will be carrier based. |
Which just supports my arugument. Cruisemissiles can hit any shore based anti-ship missile sites easy, and the Carrier CAP would shoot down anything that came within range.
quote:
So then our loses in Iran might be higher than they ever were in Iraq cause our aircrews will have to fly low many times and face AA fire.
|
Almost certainly, if we want to hit our targets accurately with a minimal of civilian deaths.
BUT it's SOP to use cruisemissiles and F-16's in "Wild Weasel" roles to suppress air defenses prior to the start of the main air campaign.
quote:
On the size issue, our planes have to fly over enemy territory farther- more time for the enemy to get an idea of the target and attempt a shoot down.
|
Mmm...Maybe. Planes are a lot harder to see and shoot down then you'd think. After the first night of bombing in Serbia, the Serbs had to eyeball every thing visiually because America Stealth craft had destroyed air-search radars the ngiht before. Then, whenever the Serbs would use their SAM's fire-control radar's in a search role, we would just call either a wild-weasel, a Prowler, or a TLAM strike on the SAM site.
Which isn't to say the Iranians would be inflicting more shoot-downs on us, just not as many as I think you think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Irans Political System. Excerpt from "A Few Thoughts Before We 'Liberate' Iran"
by Steven LaTulippe.
...
Ms. Wright paints a much different picture than the one currently being spoon-fed to the American public. The Islamic Republic was officially born, she notes, in 1979 after a national referendum accepted the constitution and created the numerous institutions which now make up the Iranian government. That referendum, like all subsequent Iranian elections, was reasonably free and was carried out with a universal franchise (which included women).
The governing system was conceived by the Ayatollah Khomeini who, despite being a religious extremist, sought to create a unique political arrangement in Iran. Basically, he wanted to fashion a society which blended democratic institutions with oversight by Islamic scholars. The system includes a parliament and a president who are elected by universal suffrage. Several seats in the parliament are reserved for religious minorities, including the Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian communities. The governing process is monitored by a supreme cleric (the Faqih) and a body of clerics called the Council of Guardians.
The basic criticisms of the Iranian government revolve around the powers of these religious offices. Specifically, the Council of Guardians retains the power to disqualify candidates and parties for membership in the parliament. In addition, this Council may nullify laws passed by the parliament if they are deemed to be in conflict with Islamic Law (though it should be added that these Islamic offices were included in the constitution which was adopted by the original referendum back in the 1970s).
But several points should be considered regarding these criticisms. First, the Council of Guardians is often limited in its disqualifications by practical political considerations. Mohammed Khatami, the current president, is a reformer who is in constant conflict with the conservative clerics and who has defeated the clerical candidate for that office several times. The Council has never dared to declare him unfit for office, fearing the political repercussions of such a decision. In addition, the parliament has often been controlled by reformist forces who oppose the strident Islamism of the mullahs.
While this system is obviously not a prototype of Jeffersonian republicanism, it is nevertheless incorrect to call it a dictatorship. In fact, the Iranian government is probably the most representative and democratic government in the Muslim Middle East.
In addition, Western attacks on this system because of its nullification of candidates and its proscription of political parties expose us to charges of hypocrisy. After all, even after the vetting process, the current Iranian parliament contains members from approximately 10 different political parties.
It is thus only fair to analyze our own system by this same standard. For instance, how many parties are currently represented in our Congress? By my count, all but 2 of the 535 members of our House and Senate belong to either of the two dominant parties (along with one Socialist and one Independent). Our system unabashedly discriminates against third parties by a variety of backdoor mechanisms that are only slightly more democratic than the Iranian Council of Guardians. Ballot access laws and campaign finance laws are rigged to prevent the fair participation of third parties in our elections. Participation in presidential debates is largely restricted to the two major parties by the shadowy maneuverings of the Commission on Presidential Debates. In this past election, the Democratic Party also engaged in a range of legal shenanigans to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in numerous states, in flagrant disregard for the democratic rights of his supporters.
Other western nations also fall far short of the stringent standard by which Iran is being judged. Just a few weeks ago, a court in Belgium completely outlawed the Vlaams Blok, a right-wing anti-immigration party, because it was "espousing discriminatory ideologies". The Blok had garnered the largest vote total of any party in the last parliamentary elections there.
Is this behavior any more "democratic" than the Council of Guardians? And do these facts disqualify America and Belgium from membership in the democratic family of nations? Do they make us fair game for "regime change"?
The second point of criticism, the nullification of parliamentary laws by the Council of Guardians, also makes for an interesting comparison. Basically, Western critics charge that it is unacceptably dictatorial for a government to allow its laws to be voided by a committee of unelected scholars.
Unfortunately, our federal government has been degenerating into a system of judicial fiat for years. Our federal court system, which is comprised of unelected judges, is rife with judicial activism in which popular laws passed by elected representatives are thrown out…often by the most tenuous of constitutional rationales. Major aspects of our culture have been altered in an undemocratic fashion by this judiciary. Polls show that nearly 80% of the American voters, for instance, support prayer in public schools. Without Roe vs. Wade, probably 20 or 30 states would ban abortion. And it is hard to imagine that any elected body in America would ban Santa Claus decorations or displays of the Ten Commandments from public forums. Even more blatantly undemocratic, the federal judiciary has been nullifying a plethora of victorious popular referendums on topics such as recognizing English as the official language and withholding welfare from illegal aliens.
I should add here than I am not taking a side on any of these issues (nor am I singing the praises of untrammeled majoritarianism), but am merely demonstrating that the decisions of the judiciary in these instances are flagrantly against the will of the majority. Furthermore, these decisions have been enacted by bodies which are only marginally more "democratic" than the Iranian Council of Guardians.
The salient point here is that these criticisms of the Iranian system are not correct in labeling it as a hopeless dictatorship. It is a unique blend of democratic institutions monitored and fine-tuned by several bodies of religious scholars. This system was enacted in a free vote by the clear majority of the Iranian electorate. It is far from ideal, but our own system is also far from ideal.
Furthermore, administration attacks on Iran suffer from one additional dose of hypocrisy. The very same US government which is horrified by the Islamic Republic is simultaneously supporting a variety of nations in the Middle East which are far less democratic than Iran. Hosni Mubarak, who rules Egypt like an ancient pharaoh, is financed by billions of dollars of American foreign aid. American allies like the King of Morocco and the Emir of Kuwait are nearly absolute monarchs. The Bush administration even supports horrific despots like Islam Karimov, the potentate of Uzbekistan (whose secret police is as brutal as any in the world…including those of Saddam Hussein). How can we attack a semi-democracy like Iran while supporting violent and oppressive puppet-regimes across the breadth of the Middle East? This sort of double standard is well-known and much-discussed across the region, and it undermines the credibility of our foreign policy.
My goal is not to sugar-coat the Islamic Republic. There are numerous aspects of their governance, especially the judiciary and the police, which are undeniably authoritarian. But how many Americans are aware that women may vote and hold political office in Iran? How many Americans are aware that the president of Iran is a reformer who is intensely disliked by the conservative Islamist establishment? How many Americans are aware that religious minorities have guaranteed representation in the Iranian parliament, and that Judaism is far more tolerated there than in almost all of the Muslim nations which are currently subsidized as our "allies"? How many Americans are aware that there are Christian members of the Iranian parliament, while there are no Muslim members of the American Congress?
...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe35.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Human Rights Watch:
|
Well if the nation is in danger you have to limit freedom of expression. I am sure that Indymedia is aware of that. Irans human rights record is no worse than that if the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lonestar
Sure, Iran is a democracy, in Theory.
The USSR was a Hell of a lot more "Democratic" than everyone else. In theory. |
Kind of hard to develop a democracy when you are constantly being threatened with invasion.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-12-2004 22:01
) revolt to overthrow the regime. The main difference between Iran and Iraq is that Iran is not as closed a society as Iraq was, and theres more possibility of a real internal regime change there. But its also pretty nationalist, and a US attack pretty much ends any chance of such overthrow in our time. What we want is not an attack, but further movement toward the diplomatic and economic isolation of Iran.
Are you referring to mine or TMM's?
|