WayOfTheDodo wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:The facts are clear, Iran does not generally have a historical record of starting wars if we are to look at Post WWII.

...

If we go by historical reference, the chances are more likely that a future major war involving Iran would not be initiated by Iran.

You are forgetting that they have been involved in war. Also, did they not start the war in Afghanistan if they funded the people who attacked WTC?

I salute u for still showing your face in this thread

David M wrote:

Virus wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:

So a similar policy should have been taken based on american support for the IRA then?

Oh yes the "I know you are but what am I?" argument. The left's favorite. But if you're going to use it, at least pick something the American government actually did.

You thought you'd slip in that little whopper didn't you? Prove the US government funded the IRA.

I'd like an answer to the topic. When's the last time Iran started a war and invaded another country?

A long time ago, they're trying to take us by suprise.

Virus wrote:

David M wrote:

Virus wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:

So a similar policy should have been taken based on american support for the IRA then?

Oh yes the "I know you are but what am I?" argument. The left's favorite. But if you're going to use it, at least pick something the American government actually did.

You thought you'd slip in that little whopper didn't you? Prove the US government funded the IRA.

I'm sure the US government didn't. But a lot of misguided USAians who mistakenly believed they were Irish had an arrogant belief that they should intervene in a situation they didn't begin to understand. They certainly did support the IRA, with large amounts of money. Whether that was grounds for any government-to-government negotiations I don't know. In the context of this discussion, though, it's clear that the US government was not shielding supporters of the IRA. If any of them were caught (I don't know if any ever were), they'd have been prosecuted.

Galaxian wrote:

Roger Cooke wrote:(Yesterday I heard that Afghanistan has enormous mineral wealth. If only Bush had known that, he might have gone after that wealth instead of the oil. Not that it would be morally better to do so, but at least perhaps Afghanistan might be on the way to becoming a real state.)

Hi Roger. They already knew about Afghanistan's mineral wealth decades ago (most mountainous regions are mineral rich). That together with the greed for a gas pipeline, together with imperialistic ambitions & hatred of 'a-rabs', together with the desire to further box-in Russia & China, was what drove them to it. Bin Laden was a handy excuse. By the way here's the correct spelling for "Real Estate" when used by the White House.

I stand corrected.

Virus wrote:

David M wrote:

Virus wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:

So a similar policy should have been taken based on american support for the IRA then?

Oh yes the "I know you are but what am I?" argument. The left's favorite. But if you're going to use it, at least pick something the American government actually did.

You thought you'd slip in that little whopper didn't you? Prove the US government funded the IRA.

He doesn't have to. Here's all the missing parts.

David M wrote:

Virus wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:
Do you have any evidence that Iran funded the terrorists that pulled 9/11?

Btw, the Taliban didn't pull 9/11, Al Qaeda did. The Taliban did not attack the U.S., Al Qaeda did.

Al Qaeda =/ The Taliban

Al-Qaeda were the Taliban's guests. You harbor them, you're responsible for them. The Taliban had to be destroyed.

So a similar policy should have been taken based on american support for the IRA then?

All that needs to be shown is that America harbored members of the IRA.

Virus wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:
Do you have any evidence that Iran funded the terrorists that pulled 9/11?

Btw, the Taliban didn't pull 9/11, Al Qaeda did. The Taliban did not attack the U.S., Al Qaeda did.

Al Qaeda =/ The Taliban

Al-Qaeda were the Taliban's guests. You harbor them, you're responsible for them. The Taliban had to be destroyed.

Didn't answer the question I see. What a surprise.

Don't move Andyxx goalposts. He knows what he said. He claimed the US supported the IRA which is ass.

Virus wrote:Don't move Andyxx goalposts. He knows what he said. He claimed the US supported the IRA which is ass.

David M made that post, not me.

And what did he say?

David M wrote:So a similar policy should have been taken based on american support for the IRA then?

He didn't claim that the U.S. supported the IRA, he claimed that "americans" supported the IRA.

There is a difference between terrorists USA think are OK, like IRA and Israel and terrorists USA don't like, Al-Qaeda, Taliban etc.

One is welcomed and financed and supported, the other ... not so much...

andyx1205 wrote:

Virus wrote:Don't move Andyxx goalposts. He knows what he said. He claimed the US supported the IRA which is ass.

David M made that post, not me.

And what did he say?

David M wrote:So a similar policy should have been taken based on american support for the IRA then?

He didn't claim that the U.S. supported the IRA, he claimed that "americans" supported the IRA.

I don't even know why Virus bothers turning up anymore. His posts show a massive fail in the most simple logical principles.

andyx1205 wrote:Name me the last war that Iran started. So far the last one was in 1946.

You missed a biggie. The current government of Iran started a war in the form of the Iranian revolution in 1979. They attacked the U.S. embassy, which is legally an attack on a foreign country.

The U.S. and Iran have been in a low level war ever since. It's one that was started by Iran, not by the U.S.

andyx1205 wrote:

Virus wrote:Don't move Andyxx goalposts. He knows what he said. He claimed the US supported the IRA which is ass.

David M made that post, not me.

Sorry.

andyx1205 wrote:
And what did he say?

David M wrote:So a similar policy should have been taken based on american support for the IRA then?

He didn't claim that the U.S. supported the IRA, he claimed that "americans" supported the IRA.

So the statement is pointless then. There are Americans that fund Hamas. That doesn't mean that "America funds Hamas".

Warren Dew wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Name me the last war that Iran started. So far the last one was in 1946.

You missed a biggie. The current government of Iran started a war in the form of the Iranian revolution in 1979. They attacked the U.S. embassy, which is legally an attack on a foreign country.

The U.S. and Iran have been in a low level war ever since. It's one that was started by Iran, not by the U.S.

That's his mistake?

How about thinking that past actions determine future ones? Or not providing any evidence?

Virus wrote:

David M wrote:

Virus wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:

So a similar policy should have been taken based on american support for the IRA then?

Oh yes the "I know you are but what am I?" argument. The left's favorite. But if you're going to use it, at least pick something the American government actually did.

You thought you'd slip in that little whopper didn't you? Prove the US government funded the IRA.

I did say support, not fund. Do you deny that amercians supported the IRA?

Ted Kennedy > Noraid > PIRA. Thats a member of the US government involved in fundraising with those funds going to terrorists. Thats an incomparably greater indictment than some statements made by the Iranian president to play to his political supporters.

Mayak wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Name me the last war that Iran started. So far the last one was in 1946.

You missed a biggie. The current government of Iran started a war in the form of the Iranian revolution in 1979. They attacked the U.S. embassy, which is legally an attack on a foreign country.

The U.S. and Iran have been in a low level war ever since. It's one that was started by Iran, not by the U.S.

That's his mistake?

How about thinking that past actions determine future ones? Or not providing any evidence?

Of course the CIA's removal of the duly elected Mossadegh and installation of the Dictator the Shah and basing US forces in Iran for 20 years had nothing to do with the 1979 Iranian "revolution" and taking of the US Embassy and 450 hostages. Oh no.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Mayak wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Name me the last war that Iran started. So far the last one was in 1946.

You missed a biggie. The current government of Iran started a war in the form of the Iranian revolution in 1979. They attacked the U.S. embassy, which is legally an attack on a foreign country.

The U.S. and Iran have been in a low level war ever since. It's one that was started by Iran, not by the U.S.

That's his mistake?

How about thinking that past actions determine future ones? Or not providing any evidence?

Of course the CIA's removal of the duly elected Mossadegh and installation of the Dictator the Shah and basing US forces in Iran for 20 years had nothing to do with the 1979 Iranian "revolution" and taking of the US Embassy and 450 hostages. Oh no.

They didn't really 'install' the Shah, he was already there as emperor but just increased his powers to that of an absolute monarch after he kicked Mossadegh out at the behest of MI6/CIA. I really don't know why Mossadegh thought he could actually survive politically after telling the British to fuck off and stripping the Shah of most of his power and wealth - he was just asking to be overthrown or assassinated.

David M wrote:
Ted Kennedy > Noraid > PIRA. Thats a member of the US government involved in fundraising with those funds going to terrorists. Thats an incomparably greater indictment than some statements made by the Iranian president to play to his political supporters.

What did he do exactly? Iran is a full state-sponsor of terrorism. They ship boatloads of rockets to them. Not, just one politician going off on his own and giving money to terrorists.

AndreD wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Mayak wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Name me the last war that Iran started. So far the last one was in 1946.

You missed a biggie. The current government of Iran started a war in the form of the Iranian revolution in 1979. They attacked the U.S. embassy, which is legally an attack on a foreign country.

The U.S. and Iran have been in a low level war ever since. It's one that was started by Iran, not by the U.S.

That's his mistake?

How about thinking that past actions determine future ones? Or not providing any evidence?

Of course the CIA's removal of the duly elected Mossadegh and installation of the Dictator the Shah and basing US forces in Iran for 20 years had nothing to do with the 1979 Iranian "revolution" and taking of the US Embassy and 450 hostages. Oh no.

They didn't really 'install' the Shah, he was already there as emperor but just increased his powers to that of an absolute monarch after he kicked Mossadegh out at the behest of MI6/CIA. I really don't know why Mossadegh thought he could actually survive politically after telling the British to fuck off and stripping the Shah of most of his power and wealth - he was just asking to be overthrown or assassinated.

So if you oppose being a puppet of the West and instead want to work for the people of your country, then you are just asking to be overthrown or assassinated?

Spoken like a typical defender of imperialism and oppression.