what is iran thinking???

Colorado Ryder said:

Thank you. I guess it was to much trouble for Bro Deal to actually post a link to support his post.

First off, someone who wants to argue about a subject should be reasonably informed about it. Second there is always this link if you need to find something out: http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com That used to work but I cannot verify it still works because the work "[censored]" in the domain name sets off the web filter at the client I am working at.

Third, I am not referring to any one incident, but a whole range of them that have occurred over the course of the last few years. From the voluminous reports from Iraqis about shooting incidents to several court cases it is clear that the U.S. has been operating free fire zones in Iraq. While useful in a real war with armies fighting other armies, free fire zones are immoral in urban combat amongst civilians. They are also extremely counter-productive when you are trying to win the hearts and minds of the occupied people.

Bro Deal said:

Oh, really? Even Bush admits to more than 30K Iraqi deaths. Deaths reported in the media are over 60K. The Iraqis recently placed the totals at 155K. A huge percentage were killed by coalition troops. The brits have been mad as hell from the beginning because the Americans are trigger happy and hteir lack of control has made the environment more dangerous for the brits.

The Lancet/John Hopkins survey states that 655,000 Iraqi's have died as a result of the invasion between March 2003 and September 2006.
No approximation of the number of Iraqi's injured has been estimated since the invasion/occupation

The UN has reported that approximately 1.5 million Iraqi's have been forcibly displaced since the invasion in March 2003.

Bro Deal said:

The Americans have killed vast numbers of innocent people. Standard operating procedure seems to be to gun down anyone near an IED when it goes off. U.S. military procedure for securing houses has been to kill all males of military age. When the U.S. destroyed Fallujah, they first kicked out the journalists and secured the hospitals so no news would leak out about the number of people killed like it did when they first attacked the city.

It has been reported that the US used chemical weapons when it's forces attacked Fallujah in 2004.

Bro Deal said:

Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Nothing. Repeat after me: Nothing. Even you imperious leader Bush admits that. The Al Queda allegations were outright lies told by the Bush administration to justify the war.

Agreed.

Al Qaeda opposes secularist/Ba'athist movement throughout the entire Middle East.
Given that Saddam was a Ba'athist adherent - it is a lie to suggest that he and Al Qaeda would be aligned in any way.

Bro Deal said:

When are you going to end the terrorism of Bush and Blair? They have killed more innocent people than Bin Laden could dream of.

Agreed.

Bro Deal said:

First off, someone who wants to argue about a subject should be reasonably informed about it. Second there is always this link if you need to find something out: justfuckinggoogleit.comjustfuckinggoogleit.comOpen ↗ That used to work but I cannot verify it still works because the work "[censored]" in the domain name sets off the web filter at the client I am working at.

Third, I am not referring to any one incident, but a whole range of them that have occurred over the course of the last few years. From the voluminous reports from Iraqis about shooting incidents to several court cases it is clear that the U.S. has been operating free fire zones in Iraq. While useful in a real war with armies fighting other armies, free fire zones are immoral in urban combat amongst civilians. They are also extremely counter-productive when you are trying to win the hearts and minds of the occupied people.

I didn't say I wanted to argue the subject. Virenque wanted to argue. I just wanted a link so that I could read what you were posting about. Providing a source would allow me to discern if the information is just your opinion or not.

Colorado Ryder said:

I didn't say I wanted to argue the subject. Virenque wanted to argue. I just wanted a link so that I could read what you were posting about. Providing a source would allow me to discern if the information is just your opinion or not.

Plenty of coverage, from reputable sources, reporting USA forces atrocities in Iraq.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1020/p03s03-usmi.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0808/p01s03-usmi.html

http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=328015

http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley10262004.html

limerickman said:

The Lancet/John Hopkins survey states that 655,000 Iraqi's have died as a result of the invasion between March 2003 and September 2006.
No approximation of the number of Iraqi's injured has been estimated since the invasion/occupation

The UN has reported that approximately 1.5 million Iraqi's have been forcibly displaced since the invasion in March 2003.

I did not reference the Hopkins study because I have doubts about its validity. The numbers seem way too high of a percentage of the total population. It's hard to say, though. Clearly sources like iraqbodycount are way too low since they only add deaths that are reported in the media; with the islamic custom of immediate burial and the poor media coverage, there has to be a majority of deaths that do not get reported. I tend to think the Iraqi figure of 155K is the most accurate I have seen.

Bringing up the displacements is a good point. That has been an utter disaster, and it is a good indication of how bad the situation really is. People are not going to flee unless they have a damned good reason to do so.

limerickman said:

Plenty of coverage, from reputable sources, reporting USA forces atrocities in Iraq.

csmonitor.comp03s03 usmi.htmlOpen ↗

csmonitor.comp01s03 usmi.htmlOpen ↗

themercury.co.zaindex.phpOpen ↗

counterpunch.orgcloughley10262004.htmlOpen ↗

Isn't it amazing that everyone but the original poster can provide links?

Colorado Ryder said:

Isn't it amazing that everyone but the original poster can provide links?

What is amazing is that you are incapable of using an interface as simple as google's.

Colorado Ryder said:

Isn't it amazing that everyone but the original poster can provide links?

Bro Deals opinion, in this instance, is supported by the links.

Bro Deal said:

What is amazing is that you are incapable of using an interface as simple as google's.

Just as you are incapable of copying and pasting a link. Guess that makes us both lazy.

Colorado Ryder said:

Isn't it amazing that everyone but the original poster can provide links?

Have some more.
http://www.cyclingforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8033&stc=1
links.jpg

limerickman said:

Bro Deals opinion, in this instance, is supported by the links.

Didn't argue that is wasn't. Just wanted a simple link that he apparently wouldn't provide.

Colorado Ryder said:

Didn't argue that is wasn't. Just wanted a simple link that he apparently wouldn't provide.

I didn't suggest that you did argue that.

Why couldn't you "google" or "yahoo" the subject matter yourself?

Bro Deal said:

The only reason Al-Qaeda is attacking the West is that they determined that in order to get the West to stop propping up arab dictators they had to make the West pay a price for it. If the West stops meddling in muslim affairs, then no more Al-Qaeda problems.

If they would fight just against coallition forces it would be quite normal. Every sovereign country has its army which defend its people. In Iraq, nobody except its new army is doing that. You have former Saddam`s army, Sadr`s Mahdi army, Al Qaeda and plenty of other small terrorist/extremist groups. Nobody seems to be protecting Iraqis (I mean ALL Iraqis at once) and it`s far away from fighting just against coallition forces - they are killing their own people and that`s what you don`t want to comment. It`s not just West who is paying the price, Iraqis are paying a lot more and coallition try to protect them.

Eldron has the solution!

America should kill most of the Iraqis then herd the rest of them into reserves and allow them to sell cheap cigarettes and gamble. The United States of Iraq (USI). The new flag can feature oil barrels insstead of stars.

It's a proven formula for country dominance!!!

Seriously though everybody here is right - the GI's are killing civilians, civilians are killing civilians, terrorists are killing GI's, the armed are killing the unarmed, looting is rife, gang lords are rife etc etc.

The Iraqis were knackered before the americans invaded and they're knackered now. More or less knackered is a "chicken or egg" debate.

Bro Deal said:

Oh, really? Even Bush admits to more than 30K Iraqi deaths. Deaths reported in the media are over 60K. The Iraqis recently placed the totals at 155K.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2044345,00.html
A monstrous war crime | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited
It now becomes apparent that Blair knew that the figure of 655 000 deaths in Iraq was accurate and that the methodology was sound.
If Blair knew...Bush knew.
A plague on both their houses.

It may seem totally irrational to us that the Iraqis are killing one another but this has an explanation.
When the U.S. deposed Saddam, Bush's policy called for the initial exclusion of the Sunnis while the Kurds and Shia were given priority. Think about it logically. The only way Bush could justify his invasion was by claiming he had the Iraqis on his side (i.e. they would welcome U.S. troops with champaigne and flowers).
True with respect to the Kurds and Shia but wholly untrue so far as the Bathists and Sunnis are concerned. Initially, Sunnis were told their role in any new Government would be a minor one.
So, why are Iraqis killing one another? Basically because the Sunnis view the Kurds and Shia as siding with the U.S. - taking advantage of the invasion in order to displace and get one over on fellow Iraqis (the Sunnis).
Therefore, Sunnis began to attack Shia and call on the Shia not to take part in the U.S. structured, puppet Government. Somehow along the line violence escalated and old tribal differences began to intensify.
This is what happens when politicians develop a God-complex and interefere in the evolution and development of a less socially advanced country (such as Iraq). That's why I compared it to slavery of the negro race a few centuries ago. What you see on the T.V. is daily scenes of perplexed Iraqis mourning their dead and carrying coffins through the streets. None of this happened under Saddam. As Hans Blix stated, at least under Saddam Iraqis had security, their jobs and safe streets to walk in.
So far, not a single politician has provided one shred of evidence Iraq posed a genuine threat to the U.S. or Europe. There were no WMD or missiles that could hit London. I wonder if the day will come when future generations look back on this episode as a war crime.

Virenque said:

If they would fight just against coallition forces it would be quite normal. Every sovereign country has its army which defend its people. In Iraq, nobody except its new army is doing that. You have former Saddam`s army, Sadr`s Mahdi army, Al Qaeda and plenty of other small terrorist/extremist groups. Nobody seems to be protecting Iraqis (I mean ALL Iraqis at once) and it`s far away from fighting just against coallition forces - they are killing their own people and that`s what you don`t want to comment. It`s not just West who is paying the price, Iraqis are paying a lot more and coallition try to protect them.

Virenque said:

Nobody seems to be protecting Iraqis (I mean ALL Iraqis at once) and it`s far away from fighting just against coallition forces - they are killing their own people and that`s what you don`t want to comment. It`s not just West who is paying the price, Iraqis are paying a lot more and coallition try to protect them.

What's your point? The nature of guerrilla warfare is that lots of innocent people get killed. Anyone seen colloborating with the enemy is a target. Anyone who is moderate is a target of hardliners. Hardliners are the target of moderates. Guerrilla warfare can only succeed when it can show the people that the existing power structure is incapable of protecting them, so rebel groups have a vested interest in creating mayhem. This is true without the religious component that exists in Iraq. With the religious component, the situation is even nastier.

The current situation was predictable. Countries in the Middle East warned the Bush administration about the possible consequences. The neoconazis deliberately tossed a match into a gasoline soaked building and are now trying to blame the fire on the building.

Bro Deal said:

Fighting against occupation is not only perfectly legal, it is honorable.

Your problem is that you call guerilla warfare perfectly legal and honorable. My point is that people with such behaviour (terrorists` behaviour, not yours..ok maybe a little😄) can`t be tolerated and please, don`t tell me now that USA acts the same...

...Meanwhile, back in Iran - I don't have any reason to believe the Iranian Government. I also don't have any reason to believe the British Goverment. How can any of us categorically state that the British military personnel were outside Iranian territorial waters, or that they were inside? Why should any of us feel that it is reasonable to assume one way or the other?

Hi,

First, I would like to add to this argument two suggestions(both of these suggestions are easier to hear than to obey):

1) Get a life.
2) Get a reality check.

What is really going on in Iran is that the youth (the vast majority of Iranians) don't want to fight anybody, even more so than the flower children didn't want to become American draftees.

Their only real threats are nukes (which they might not have yet) and little naval vessels and such which are based on the technologies the Iranians fought with during the Iran-Iraq War, which ended up nowhere. They may or may not be spying in Iraq, but Iranians in Iraq are nowhere near as bad as Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Syrians in Iraq. Al-Quaeda came from Saudi Arabia and even if bin-Laden lives he had better mellow out very soon to avoid being captured.

The dangerous countries to look out for right now would be Lebanon, then Afghanistan, then Syria.

There are competent enough US allied military forces in Iraq to make Iraq become less and less of a problem daily, even hourly, from the USA perspective.

Jacob