NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm confused:

"Petraeus says Iran stoking Iraq violence"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071007/ts_nm/iraq_dc

"EAST OF BAQUBA, Iraq (Reuters) - The U.S. military commander in Iraq has stepped up accusations that Iran was stoking violence in Iraq and said Tehran's ambassador to Baghdad was a member of the Revolutionary Guards Qods force."

Here's the problem. Am I the only person seeing a double standard?

The US is openly killing Iraqis, but Iran is "stoking violence in Iraq"?

"Washington accuses the force, the elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, of inciting bloodshed in Iraq and of training and equipping militias who have attacked U.S. troops.

General David Petraeus, speaking at a U.S. military base about 30 km (20 miles) from the Iranian border on Saturday, said Iran was giving advanced weaponry to militias in Iraq.

"They are responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed U.S. soldiers," Petraeus told a small group of reporters when asked if the Iranian government was responsible for killing U.S. troops.

"There is no question about the connection between Iran and these components, (the) attacks that have killed our soldiers.""

Again - isn't it official US policy to be "providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed..." people in Iraq?

Is the US not "inciting bloodshed in Iraq and of training and equipping..." people in Iraq?

Is the US not "giving advanced weaponry to..." people in Iraq?

Wouldn't it be equally true to say "There is no question about the connection between the US and these components, (the) attacks that have killed..." people in Iraq?

"Iran dismissed Petraeus's comments as "baseless." ...Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a news conference: "His remarks are not new and what he said was in the line with the previous accusations against Iran.""

Iran says they aren't doing what they are accused of. The US says Iran is doing it. In the absence of some pretty damning evidence, it's just suspicion versus claim of innocence.

On the other hand - we know that the US is doing all those things...

Does it only 'matter' if the people getting killed are Americans?

Other than that, considering the recent allegations of Blackwater arming the insurgency, I think the US administration should get their own citizens in order before acting like they have any credibility to claim Iranians are a massive problem in iraq.

I don't think its a double standard at all, we are trying to provide safety and security while the Iranians, if the accusations are true, are trying to get people killed and promoting instability in Iraq.

of course its not a double standard

the US is the good guys. everything we do is GOOD.

iran is the bad guys. everything they do is BAD.

so our training and arming iraqis is GOOD and iran training and arming iraqis is BAD.

its all very simple minded really.

On the other hand - we know that the US is doing all those things...Its not Proliferation if we do it.
Its not Kidnapping if we do it.
Its not a Gulag if we run it
Its not Torture if we do it.
Its not a WarCrime if we do it.
Its not Terrorism if we do it.
etc etc etc

BTW "we" could be used to design any imperial Forces like Mondor, USSR, US, etc...

Its not Proliferation if we do it.
Its not Torture if we do it.
Its not a WarCrime if we do it.
Its not Terrorism if we do it.

etc etc etc

Testify!

Testify!

But all they gave were testicles. :p

I don't think its a double standard at all, we are trying to provide safety and security while the Iranians, if the accusations are true, are trying to get people killed and promoting instability in Iraq.

Two things, of course:

1) "...if the accusations are true..."

Should we be going down this road again? Making foreign policy decisions on "I think...", "maybe..." and (what boils down to basically) "you just can't trust ay-rabs"?

Did we really not learn that lesson? I guess not.

2) The death tolls in Iraq are what... lower since the occupation? Do we believe the violent fringe of Islam is being pacified by our occupation of Iraq?

Surely, since the deaths just keep rolling in, and since experts agree our foreign policy is actually destabilising the whole region, we can't really claim to be handsfree on the whole "trying to get people killed and promoting instability" front.

Testify!is Thursday afternoon good?

its the only free slot on my agenda.

of course its not a double standard

the US is the good guys. everything we do is GOOD.

iran is the bad guys. everything they do is BAD.

so our training and arming iraqis is GOOD and iran training and arming iraqis is BAD.

its all very simple minded really.

Ah, it all becomes clear. Thankyou for spending a little time explaining to me the error of my ways.lol

Yes, of course it is a double standard. I would say you could expect some heavy flaming from nationalistic tools, but there are actually a few more smart people here than dumb ones.

The U.S. military commander in Iraq has stepped up accusations that Iran was stoking violence in Iraq and said Tehran's ambassador to Baghdad was a member of the Revolutionary Guards Qods force.
correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't nearly anyone high up in Iran be members of the Revolutionary Guards?
Aren't the RG kinda like being in the Communist Party in China, in that you pretty much have to be a member of if you want promotion up through the bureacracy.
So this is hardly damning evidence. More like an attempt to play on the average reader's ignorance.
i.e.
Member of the RG = terrorist.

That said, I would not be at all surprised to find that Iran is doing it's best to push unrest in Iraq. Causing the deaths of Iraqis and Americans are hardly going to give Iranian government sleepless nights.

Ah, it all becomes clear. Thankyou for spending a little time explaining to me the error of my ways.lol

youre welcome.

sometimes the simplest explanation is the most correct.

unfortunately.

I'm confused:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071007/ts_nm/iraq_dc



Here's the problem. Am I the only person seeing a double standard?

The US is openly killing Iraqis, but Iran is "stoking violence in Iraq"?



Again - isn't it official US policy to be "providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed..." people in Iraq?

Is the US not "inciting bloodshed in Iraq and of training and equipping..." people in Iraq?

Is the US not "giving advanced weaponry to..." people in Iraq?

Wouldn't it be equally true to say "There is no question about the connection between the US and these components, (the) attacks that have killed..." people in Iraq?



Iran says they aren't doing what they are accused of. The US says Iran is doing it. In the absence of some pretty damning evidence, it's just suspicion versus claim of innocence.

On the other hand - we know that the US is doing all those things...

Does it only 'matter' if the people getting killed are Americans?

You've nailed it right on the head... It's perfectly ok for America to fund and equip mercenaries, to develop and supply weapons, to engage in torture, to define away convention rights... Because Americans in charge operate on the self-delusion that it's all for "good", and that makes it ok....

Boot, eff dem dar sahnd-n!@@&# do dat, dems dee ebil terroarests.

America is fucking up Iraq. That's a given. We already know that.

However they need to stay the course now, so what they are doing now (although they are shit at it) is probably right. However, what Iran is doing is fucking stupid (assuming they are). So fucking stupid and dangerous, as it could seriously cause more long term trouble, that we should harshly criticise them if they are.

Note: It would seem perfectly natural to hear Bush say:

"Gotta do summin about Iran, dem Moooselimbs gettin' too upity."

Two things, of course:

1) "...if the accusations are true..."

Should we be going down this road again? Making foreign policy decisions on "I think...", "maybe..." and (what boils down to basically) "you just can't trust ay-rabs"?

Did we really not learn that lesson? I guess not.

2) The death tolls in Iraq are what... lower since the occupation? Do we believe the violent fringe of Islam is being pacified by our occupation of Iraq?

Surely, since the deaths just keep rolling in, and since experts agree our foreign policy is actually destabilising the whole region, we can't really claim to be handsfree on the whole "trying to get people killed and promoting instability" front.

I didn't say anything about foreign policy decisions- your issue was the double standard here, not our diplomacy(or lack thereof) with Iran. But, no its not a good idea to go do things on a hunch, and we've seen this in Iraq. I also agree that we have destabilized the region, however that is already done and I don't think we intentionally got innocent people killed- which is somewhat different, we might be guilty of manslaughter on a global scale but probably not murder. I don't think its a good idea to just pull out of Iraq since there is certain to be an even worse disaster than what has already happened if we do.

You've nailed it right on the head... It's perfectly ok for America to fund and equip mercenaries, to develop and supply weapons, to engage in torture, to define away convention rights... Because Americans in charge operate on the self-delusion that it's all for "good", and that makes it ok....

Boot, eff dem dar sahnd-n!@@&# do dat, dems dee ebil terroarests.

I can't help it... gotta go there...

"...The Greater Good..."

"...up to our necks in jugglers..."

http://i22.tinypic.com/11w64x3.jpg.

It all depends on how you view good and evil. This guy: :sniper: just shot JFK. He thinks he was doing good, when the majority of this country thinks he was doing bad.

I didn't say anything about foreign policy decisions- your issue was the double standard here, not our diplomacy(or lack thereof) with Iran. But, no its not a good idea to go do things on a hunch, and we've seen this in Iraq. I also agree that we have destabilized the region, however that is already done and I don't think we intentionally got innocent people killed- which is somewhat different, we might be guilty of manslaughter on a global scale but probably not murder. I don't think its a good idea to just pull out of Iraq since there is certain to be an even worse disaster than what has already happened if we do.

If you starve a man until he steals your bread... did you do the right thing? How should he be punished? What should be your share of the guilt?

We are in Iraq killing people. What we do over there, is making the world a more dangerous place, in terms of inciting sympathisers in the region and beyond.

This whole 'stay the course' argument falls down on that regard. If you are sticking your dick in a wasp nest, you got to be some kind of idiot to keep screwing it.

America is fucking up Iraq. That's a given. We already know that.

However they need to stay the course now, so what they are doing now (although they are shit at it) is probably right. However, what Iran is doing is fucking stupid (assuming they are). So fucking stupid and dangerous, as it could seriously cause more long term trouble, that we should harshly criticise them if they are.

I wasn't really talking about 'staying the course'... I was talking about perception.

We arm people = good.

They do it = bad.

We kill people = good.

They do it = bad.

We train them to kill = good.

They do it = bad.

That's the point... all our allegations of 'the troublemaker in Iraq', look just as valid when someone else labels us with them.

Note: It would seem perfectly natural to hear Bush say:

"Gotta do summin about Iran, dem Moooselimbs gettin' too upity."

Moose limbs can deliver very powerful kicks I'm told :p

I don't think its a double standard at all, we are trying to provide safety and security while the Iranians, if the accusations are true, are trying to get people killed and promoting instability in Iraq.

Yeah.....Just a few questions though. How is destroying (by executive order) the infrastructure of a country promoting "safety and security"? How is having a blanket exemption for your from Iraqi law citizens helping provide "safety and security"? Whose "safety and security" is helped by a US presence in the middle east?

I wasn't really talking about 'staying the course'... I was talking about perception.

We arm people = good.

They do it = bad.

We kill people = good.

They do it = bad.

We train them to kill = good.

They do it = bad.

That's the point... all our allegations of 'the troublemaker in Iraq', look just as valid when someone else labels us with them.

But how exactly do you go about changing the perception of someone that isn't bright enough to notice the difference between people that are being trained and armed to protect the people of Iraq and people that are being trained and armed to murder?

Moose limbs can deliver very powerful kicks I'm told :p

Mind you, Moose bytes kan be pretti nasti...:D

But how exactly do you go about changing the perception of someone that isn't bright enough to notice the difference between people that are being trained and armed to protect the people of Iraq and people that are being trained and armed to murder?

A very good question. Of course, the problem with the question is that there are a lot of allegations about other people training and arming people to kill, but precious little evidence. Then there is a wealth of evidence about the people the US government sanctions, pays, and orders to go to Iraq and train and arm people to kill.

The US says Iran is a dangerous interloper, destabilising the region, arming and training people to kill, inciting violence... and Iran says the same thing about the US, no?

The US says Iran is a dangerous interloper, destabilising the region, arming and training people to kill, inciting violence... and Iran says the same thing about the US, no?

Indeed. This goes to show that all imperialism is bad for whoever it is who's being trampled underfoot by the imperialist nations.

In this particular case, neither country ought to have been involved in Iraq in the first place. But now it's gotten to the point where both are trying to gain leverage against the other to prove their point; the USA to show it's still the world's prominent superpower, and Iran to establish itself as the prominent regional power in the Middle East.

And both are ready to fuck up Iraq as much as they need to, and kill as many Iraqis as needed in order to achieve their goal. :headbang:

A double standard? Yes.

Anything new to world politics? No.

A very good question. Of course, the problem with the question is that there are a lot of allegations about other people training and arming people to kill, but precious little evidence. Then there is a wealth of evidence about the people the US government sanctions, pays, and orders to go to Iraq and train and arm people to kill.

The US says Iran is a dangerous interloper, destabilising the region, arming and training people to kill, inciting violence... and Iran says the same thing about the US, no?


There are a lot of allegations, and a lot of evidence that Iran is training terrorists and sending them to Iran. There is a lot of evidence that Iran is supplying rockets to foreigners who are murdering Iraqi police. I have yet to hear of any American training of Iraqi terrorists in the region, let alone foreign terrorists.

Of course, fuck up the country and blame someone else...

There are a lot of allegations, and a lot of evidence that Iran is training terrorists and sending them to Iran. There is a lot of evidence that Iran is supplying rockets to foreigners who are murdering Iraqi police. I have yet to hear of any American training of Iraqi terrorists in the region, let alone foreign terrorists.

The US has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis - well over 100,000.

The US dismantled the Iraqi states infrastructure.

Since the US has arrived in Iraq, there has been a number of "mysterious" bombs that have gone off in Iran. There has also been trouble amongst minority Arab groups within Iran. The US has previously supported a dictator that greatly repressed the Iranian people, and took a great deal of wealth from Iran in oil revenue. The US effectively acted as the Iraqi navy in the Iran-Iraq war, as well as supplying funds, intelligence and weapons to Iraq.

Need I go on?

The US has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis - well over 100,000.

The US dismantled the Iraqi states infrastructure.

Since the US has arrived in Iraq, there has been a number of "mysterious" bombs that have gone off in Iran. There has also been trouble amongst minority Arab groups within Iran. The US has previously supported a dictator that greatly repressed the Iranian people, and took a great deal of wealth from Iran in oil revenue. The US effectively acted as the Iraqi navy in the Iran-Iraq war, as well as supplying funds, intelligence and weapons to Iraq.

Need I go on?

The United States did kill thousands of enemy soldiers, but to blame them for all the deaths caused by militias and foreign fighters in Iraq has no merit. The US did dismantle the infrastructure in the course of the war.....which it then went on to rebuild in the years after. Whatever the source of these "mysterious" bombs as you call them.....maybe a few of them should hit some arms caches and terrorist tents before these people and weapons make it into Iraq.

Erm seemingly they're not arming them all that well. Where are the RPG-29s, for example?

There's been like one instance with them, where a Challenger 2 was penetrated and 3 crewmen were injured.

You'd have thought that with all of this alleged training and arming, we'd be losing our tanks and APCs a lot faster, but no.

The United States did kill thousands of enemy soldiers, .

I was referring to civillians. I suggest you examine the study by the lancet.
link (http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf)


but to blame them for all the deaths caused by militias and foreign fighters in Iraq has no merit. .

They supplied the petrol, and idly tossed lit matches about. Yes, they are to blame.



The US did dismantle the infrastructure in the course of the war.
.

I was perhaps unclear. I was referring to the dissolution of Iraqs state bodies by Bremers CPA, which was far more damaging than anything inflicted during the war.


.which it then went on to rebuild in the years after.

Au Contraire. As Bremer removed the states ability to repair, he also botched the rebuild.

"At the end of the Iraq war, vast sums of money were made available to the US-led provisional authorities, headed by Paul Bremer, to spend on rebuilding the country. By the time Bremer left the post eight months later, $8.8bn of that money had disappeared."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html


"Fewer people have access to clean water than did under Saddam Hussein, and 80% have no access to effective sanitation, a figure comparable to sub-Saharan Africa. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6921623.stm

And of course theres similar decay in power, medical facilities...And then theres the ones fleeing the violence, (and the various problems mentioned above)
"Latest figures from the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, show the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes is rising.

The latest figure is 60,000 per month, compared to a previous level of 50,000, a UNHCR spokeswoman said.

The body estimates 4.2m Iraqis have been displaced since the 2003 invasion. Of those, two million have gone abroad. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6968538.stm

Of that total, America has taken in 7,000. Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the evil Arabs generally have taken in the majority of the rest.

I'd love to hear exactly what country is capable of building an infrastructure incabable of being torn down. America rebuilds.....some people that have no real purpose other than causing pain and misery for others tears things down.....and it is America's fault that things aren't better?

I don't think its a double standard at all, we are trying to provide safety and security while the Iranians, if the accusations are true, are trying to get people killed and promoting instability in Iraq.

The problem is that the US and Iran have differing ideas on what stability should look like and how it should come about. Similar to Korea where China and the US wanted stability but not in the same manner.

I'd love to hear exactly what country is capable of building an infrastructure incabable of being torn down.


I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The US bombed Iraq and caused damage, but the CPA then dissolved the Iraqi states means of rebuilding.


America rebuilds.....

...but not in this instance. Nor would it nessecarily had to, had it left the arms of the state capable of doing so in place.


some people that have no real purpose other than causing pain and misery for others tears things down.....and it is America's fault that things aren't better?


Again, I don't see what this had to do with any of the points raised.....

I'd love to hear exactly what country is capable of building an infrastructure incabable of being torn down. America rebuilds.....some people that have no real purpose other than causing pain and misery for others tears things down.....and it is America's fault that things aren't better?

Yes, it's our fault. We're the one that tore it down in the first place. We've hired the worst possible companies to do the rebuilding (and they're botching and stealing left and right); spending money on mercenaries; and watching attempts to point fingers elsewhere by those in charge...

You're surprised that a significant portion of the US's own population, a number of American veterans, and a good chunk of the rest of the world can see that which you are blind to?

Yes, it's our fault. We're the one that tore it down in the first place. We've hired the worst possible companies to do the rebuilding (and they're botching and stealing left and right); spending money on mercenaries; and watching attempts to point fingers elsewhere by those in charge...

You're surprised that a significant portion of the US's own population, a number of American veterans, and a good chunk of the rest of the world can see that which you are blind to?

I'm surprised that you are blind to what a significant portion of the American population, a number of American veterans, and a good chunk of the rest of the world can easily see....despite the new fad in blaming America for everybody's problems, America isn't actually to blame for all of the world's problems. I'm sorry about all the wasted effort of things the US has built in Iraq only to have them looted, blown up, and torn down, but that isn't our fault. OH NO...mercenaries?!?!?, heaven forbid that we protect American civilians in Iraq. Why don't we just let some Iranians or Saudis in Iraq shoot them after bombing their cars?

America has plenty to be blamed for, but I'm tired of all the people out there whining about how America is the source of the world's problems, even when the actions of others are to blame (obviously America influenced them or put them in a postition where they had no choice, right?)

There are a lot of allegations, and a lot of evidence that Iran is training terrorists and sending them to Iran. There is a lot of evidence that Iran is supplying rockets to foreigners who are murdering Iraqi police. I have yet to hear of any American training of Iraqi terrorists in the region, let alone foreign terrorists.

Allegations I've seen. Evidence... not so much.

I'd love to hear exactly what country is capable of building an infrastructure incabable of being torn down.

Sorry we blew your shit up, killed your people and then dissolved all the worthwhile institutions.

Your own fault. You should have 'built tougher'.

Allegations I've seen. Evidence... not so much.

Well, I'm sorry that the rockets and mortars aren't evidence in your eyes. I'm sorry that the staging camps for attacks in Iraq based in Iran don't have any value in your eyes. Although, I admit, I AM curious about what would actually be convincing 'evidence' to you.

I'm surprised that you are blind to what a significant portion of the American population, a number of American veterans, and a good chunk of the rest of the world can easily see....despite the new fad in blaming America for everybody's problems, America isn't actually to blame for all of the world's problems. I'm sorry about all the wasted effort of things the US has built in Iraq only to have them looted, blown up, and torn down, but that isn't our fault. OH NO...mercenaries?!?!?, heaven forbid that we protect American civilians in Iraq. Why don't we just let some Iranians or Saudis in Iraq shoot them after bombing their cars?

America has plenty to be blamed for, but I'm tired of all the people out there whining about how America is the source of the world's problems, even when the actions of others are to blame (obviously America influenced them or put them in a postition where they had no choice, right?)

the US is not the cause of all the troubles in the world. so what? we ARE the cause of all the troubles in iraq. every thing that happens in iraq is our fault.

I'm surprised that you are blind to what a significant portion of the American population, a number of American veterans, and a good chunk of the rest of the world can easily see....despite the new fad in blaming America for everybody's problems, America isn't actually to blame for all of the world's problems. I'm sorry about all the wasted effort of things the US has built in Iraq only to have them looted, blown up, and torn down, but that isn't our fault. OH NO...mercenaries?!?!?, heaven forbid that we protect American civilians in Iraq. Why don't we just let some Iranians or Saudis in Iraq shoot them after bombing their cars?

America has plenty to be blamed for, but I'm tired of all the people out there whining about how America is the source of the world's problems, even when the actions of others are to blame (obviously America influenced them or put them in a postition where they had no choice, right?)

Boo hoo boo hoo people shoot at us when we get in warzones wahhh cry cry

I'm surprised that you are blind to what a significant portion of the American population, a number of American veterans, and a good chunk of the rest of the world can easily see..

Would you just care to address some of the facts pointed out to you so far, rather than speak so generally. Thanks.

Boo hoo boo hoo people shoot at us when we get in warzones wahhh cry cry

Oh yeah, because civilians trying to help and rebuild Iraq deserve to be murdered. Aww, your parents didn't love you and now your only 'skill' is internet troll? boo hoo hoo

Oh yeah, because civilians trying to help and rebuild Iraq deserve to be murdered. Aww, your parents didn't love you and now your only 'skill' is internet troll? boo hoo hoo
Yeah, and quite why does it need to be rebuilt?

Oh, now I remember - because you blew it up. Oh, and then you're sorry that your people are getting shot at? Quelle fucking surprise.

the US is not the cause of all the troubles in the world. so what? we ARE the cause of all the troubles in iraq. every thing that happens in iraq is our fault.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of responsibility. Terrorists in Iraq kidnap and murder a few dozen police recruits, Iranian gunmen shoot into a line of civilians on the street, militias killing members of other ethnic groups.......oh wait a minute, none of those are Americans!!!!!

Why exactly are there so many people that want to blame America for the actions of others?

Oh yeah, because civilians trying to help and rebuild Iraq deserve to be murdered.

He never said "civillians". Nor did he say anybody actually deserved to be killed. he merely pointed out that in a war zone (and I might add far more so in an aggressive occupation) that the military forces can expect to be shot at.

I'm surprised that you are blind to what a significant portion of the American population, a number of American veterans, and a good chunk of the rest of the world can easily see....despite the new fad in blaming America for everybody's problems, America isn't actually to blame for all of the world's problems. I'm sorry about all the wasted effort of things the US has built in Iraq only to have them looted, blown up, and torn down, but that isn't our fault. OH NO...mercenaries?!?!?, heaven forbid that we protect American civilians in Iraq. Why don't we just let some Iranians or Saudis in Iraq shoot them after bombing their cars?

America has plenty to be blamed for, but I'm tired of all the people out there whining about how America is the source of the world's problems, even when the actions of others are to blame (obviously America influenced them or put them in a postition where they had no choice, right?)

I was talking about Iraq. Don't try to side step the issue by trying to falsely state that I'm blaming the US for every problem in the world. America is directly to blame for the problems in Iraq... Why?

Because WE (America, I use that because I am in fact a US Citizen) destroyed their government, WE destroyed their infrastructure (power and water), WE destroyed the remains of their military...

So, what's happening in Iraq IS OUR FAULT...

(This message brought to you by a US Veteran AGAINST the continued occupation of Iraq)

You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of responsibility. Terrorists in Iraq kidnap and murder a few dozen police recruits, Iranian gunmen shoot into a line of civilians on the street, militias killing members of other ethnic groups.......oh wait a minute, none of those are Americans!!!!!


I've already linked for a report which outlines quite clearly the amonut of civillian deaths that can be squarely blamed on America. You didn't address that. Nor did you address the fall out from the dissolution of the apparatus of the Iraqi state, carried out by the US.

Is there some reason for this failure on your part?

Well, I'm sorry that the rockets and mortars aren't evidence in your eyes. I'm sorry that the staging camps for attacks in Iraq based in Iran don't have any value in your eyes. Although, I admit, I AM curious about what would actually be convincing 'evidence' to you.

I'm old fashioned.

I like things like proven links, rather than conjecture.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of responsibility. Terrorists in Iraq kidnap and murder a few dozen police recruits, Iranian gunmen shoot into a line of civilians on the street, militias killing members of other ethnic groups.......oh wait a minute, none of those are Americans!!!!!

Why exactly are there so many people that want to blame America for the actions of others?
...

Oh wait - you're an idiot!

Saddam Hussein kept such things down. The US took him out of the equation. Shit went pear-shaped. Hence, the US' fault.

Oh yeah, because civilians trying to help and rebuild Iraq deserve to be murdered. Aww, your parents didn't love you and now your only 'skill' is internet troll? boo hoo hoo

Why does Iraq need rebuilding? It was already built, wasn't it?

I won't dignify your "troll" stupidity.

...killing members of other ethnic groups.......oh wait a minute, none of those are Americans!!!!!


We have a winner!

...

Oh wait - you're an idiot!

Saddam Hussein kept such things down. The US took him out of the equation. Shit went pear-shaped. Hence, the US' fault.

Oh yes....the murder of civilians by terrorists is all the fault of the United States, because we killed a different murderer of civilians.......so if we just allowed the government to continue murdering people, then we wouldn't have to worry about non-government entities murdering people.

Who cares if innocent people are murdered, as long as it's done by the government, huh yootopia? Just out of curiosity, do you have any connection to the former Soviet government? What about Nazi Germany?

Oh yes....the murder of civilians by terrorists is all the fault of the United States, because we killed a different murderer of civilians.......so if we just allowed the government to continue murdering people, then we wouldn't have to worry about non-government entities murdering people.

Who cares if innocent people are murdered, as long as it's done by the government, huh yootopia? Just out of curiosity, do you have any connection to the former Soviet government? What about Nazi Germany?

Anyone that disagrees with you is ex-KGB, or a Nazi?

Oh... not worth getting to know you then... you won't be here long.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of responsibility. Terrorists in Iraq kidnap and murder a few dozen police recruits, Iranian gunmen shoot into a line of civilians on the street, militias killing members of other ethnic groups.......oh wait a minute, none of those are Americans!!!!!

Why exactly are there so many people that want to blame America for the actions of others?

because if we hadnt invaded a country that has done nothing to us, it wouldnt be happening.

Anyone that disagrees with you is ex-KGB, or a Nazi?

Oh... not worth getting to know you then... you won't be here long.


No, it's just that when someone supports the murder of civilians by their own government, I automatically associate them with groups that feel the same way.

Hey, don't worry about it.....you've been around a long time and you still aren't worth getting to know.

Oh yes....the murder of civilians by terrorists is all the fault of the United States, because we killed a different murderer of civilians.......so if we just allowed the government to continue murdering people, then we wouldn't have to worry about non-government entities murdering people. ?

I seem to remember pointing out to you US aid to Saddam in an earlier post. Wouldn't it strike you as strange act for the US, if it was genuinely worried about Iraqi civillians (or indeed any civillians within his reach)?


Who cares if innocent people are murdered, as long as it's done by the government, huh yootopia?

Well some of us do, particularily as US employed non-state forces have immunity from prosecution under Order 17 of the CPA.

Would you like to address that, or is it going to be more pathos over evil "terrorists", followed with a tribute to the virtues of mom, apple pie, old yeller and giving them one for the gipper?

Well, I'm sorry that the rockets and mortars aren't evidence in your eyes. I'm sorry that the staging camps for attacks in Iraq based in Iran don't have any value in your eyes. Although, I admit, I AM curious about what would actually be convincing 'evidence' to you.

Well, I've seen reports of that stuff. Of course, thanks to past experience, I don't trust any of it... Your president (I certainly didn't vote for the prick) has proven himself a very untrustworthy character in these matters.

Whether you think the US should stay in Iraq or not, there is a fundamental difference between what the US is doing in Iraq, and what Iran is doing.

The US's goal is to bring stability; whether it is effective at it or not. The US wants to bring the three groups in Iraq together and stop violence. Iran on the other hand, wants the Shia militias to gain power, kill Sunnis, cause more conflicts, and in the case the US leaves, take over the country with no consideration for the other 2 factions in Iraq.

That is why there is no double standard. Had Iran provided weapons, training, etc. with the intent of stabilizing the country, and pushing forward a fair solution to the conflict in Iraq, then Iran's actions would be considered good.

No, it's just that when someone supports the murder of civilians by their own government, I automatically associate them with groups that feel the same way.

Hey, don't worry about it.....you've been around a long time and you still aren't worth getting to know.

Your words wound! They cut me to the very quick!

Oh no, wait... you expressed a dislike for me because I called you on your bullshit on a grand total of one issue.

I doubt I'll lose any sleep tonight.

Oh yes....the murder of civilians by terrorists is all the fault of the United States, because we killed a different murderer of civilians.......so if we just allowed the government to continue murdering people, then we wouldn't have to worry about non-government entities murdering people.

Who cares if innocent people are murdered, as long as it's done by the government, huh yootopia? Just out of curiosity, do you have any connection to the former Soviet government? What about Nazi Germany?


First of all, you've claimed that Iran is messing with Iraq. You provide no evidence whatsoever. You say that the mortars and bombs are evidence, but that doesn't prove anything. Iraqis could have easily made those themselves, so that they could get rid of their occupiers.

And yes, the U.S. is occupying Iraq. We're raping their country, killing civilians, and making the country worse and worse. We've hired fucking mercenaries to do the work, people that we can't hold accountable. We don't know how many civilians they've killed. And we're spending all our money in their, and millions of dollars are disappearing. You really think we're the good guys here?

No, it's just that when someone supports the murder of civilians by their own government, I automatically associate them with groups that feel the same way.

Hey, don't worry about it.....you've been around a long time and you still aren't worth getting to know.

I thought it was WMD's... Or was that last year, and now it was because of atrocities Sadam's regime was committing, or was it the reports of him housing Al-Queda? I cannot keep these stories and revision of history straight when it keeps changing all the time... What's the story [lie] of the week this week?

All this is besides the point. I really do not care how many Iraqi civilians were/are being killed by whoever, the fact is my fellow americans in uniform are being killed and injured, and I want them back home... Their job is to protect and defend the Constitution and people of the United States; and that is the job I want to return them to doing.

Well, I've seen reports of that stuff. Of course, thanks to past experience, I don't trust any of it... Your president (I certainly didn't vote for the prick) has proven himself a very untrustworthy character in these matters.

Ah, so as long as you don't trust it, the people, mortars, and rockets all just magically go away. With your special ability....why don't you just start not trusting in violence and get rid of all this conflict in the world? For the record, he's your president every bit as much as he is mine. There are very few of these annoying big-government democrats or republicans that I would ever vote for.

Why exactly are there so many people that want to blame America for the actions of others?

It goes something like this:

American Gov.:"Hey guys, I am just going to pour this one thousand gallon of oil on this bonfire you're all sitting around..."

The follow up sounds something like this:

*Boom!*

Who cares if innocent people are murdered, as long as it's done by the government, huh yootopia? Just out of curiosity, do you have any connection to the former Soviet government? What about Nazi Germany?

When Nazi Germany was invaded in WWII, the amount of civilian deaths decreased, because they were killing a lot and rather indiscriminately.

Now, however horrible Iraq may have been and let there be no doubt, it wasn't paradise for those who were judged enemies by the state, the current situation far outdoes what Saddam Hussein managed to do. He actually wanted a country to lead, you know.

Ah, so as long as you don't trust it, the people, mortars, and rockets all just magically go away. With your special ability....why don't you just start not trusting in violence and get rid of all this conflict in the world? For the record, he's your president every bit as much as he is mine. There are very few of these annoying big-government democrats or republicans that I would ever vote for.

No, but mortars and rockets are not proof... People fighting our forced occupation are not proof either...

Let me tell you something absolutely straight. WE WILL NEVER create a stable Iraq... The only group of people that can stabilize that country is the Iraqi's themselves... We will be entrenched there FOREVER... And I refuse to foot that bill.... This occupation is doing absolutely nothing for anybody except those companies getting handouts from pork-legislation in this conflict.

Whether you think the US should stay in Iraq or not, there is a fundamental difference between what the US is doing in Iraq, and what Iran is doing.

The US's goal is to bring stability; whether it is effective at it or not. The US wants to bring the three groups in Iraq together and stop violence. Iran on the other hand, wants the Shia militias to gain power, kill Sunnis, cause more conflicts, and in the case the US leaves, take over the country with no consideration for the other 2 factions in Iraq.

That is why there is no double standard. Had Iran provided weapons, training, etc. with the intent of stabilizing the country, and pushing forward a fair solution to the conflict in Iraq, then Iran's actions would be considered good.

the US is trying to stabilize iraq on its own terms. we are not interested in allowing the current iraqi government to do what it thinks is right. if the iraqi people should desire a shiite theocracy like iran has, we will not allow it.

we are pressing our own best interests in iraq

just as iran is. they cannot come right out and support the side they want to win as that would start a war with the US. but they still do what they can to get the outcome in iraq that is best for them.

there really isnt much difference between the 2.

The US did dismantle the infrastructure in the course of the war.....which it then went on to rebuild in the years after.

Which is why Iraqi's have regular power, health services and clean water supply.

Oh wait. They don't. :rolleyes:

the US is trying to stabilize iraq on its own terms. we are not interested in allowing the current iraqi government to do what it thinks is right. if the iraqi people should desire a shiite theocracy like iran has, we will not allow it.

we are pressing our own best interests in iraq

just as iran is. they cannot come right out and support the side they want to win as that would start a war with the US. but they still do what they can to get the outcome in iraq that is best for them.

there really isnt much difference between the 2.

Of course we won't let that. We have 2 demands. One, that the resolution be fair to all 3 factions. So even if the majority of Iraqis want a Shiite theocracy, it is not democratic because a democracy must follow the majority's wishes while protecting minorities. Our other demand is that the Iraqi government not be hostile to us.

The first demand is a fair one. I would be truly ashamed of my government had it not demanded this. The second demand is simply a necessity. Whether fair or not, the US can't support a government that is hostile to it for practical reasons.

Had Iran worked to make the government of Iraq friendly to it, I would not complain. But Iran is fighting the fair solution demand. That is why Iran is wrong.

We have 2 demands. and if your 2 demands are not willingly met by the people of Iraqi..

you will do what? Force them to accept your conditions? are you going to bend their resolve? are you going to keep killing them until they cant take it anymore?

Of course we won't let that. We have 2 demands. One, that the resolution be fair to all 3 factions. So even if the majority of Iraqis want a Shiite theocracy, it is not democratic because a democracy must follow the majority's wishes while protecting minorities. Our other demand is that the Iraqi government not be hostile to us.

Translated: "You can only have US manufactured and approved democracy. Obey and conform!"

The US isn't the one killing most Iraqis. That's done by their rival faction. The US is fighting the insurgents. If you have a problem with that, then something is wrong with you.

And no, the government doesn't have to be American style, it has to be fair. If you consider fair an American concept, then I'm proud to be an American.

If they refuse to meet our demands, then we will leave at some point. Some believe that point has already come, some don't. But at some point, if they don't try to work out a proper government, we will leave. That maybe what they want even. Then we shall grant them their wishes, and personally I think the only one who will lose anything from that is the Iraqis.

The US isn't the one killing most Iraqis. That's done by their rival faction. The US is fighting the insurgents. If you have a problem with that, then something is wrong with you.

My problem is the US governments "Oh, we never do any wrong. We're saints. Any FUBAR isn't our fault" stance.

Its not Proliferation if we do it.
Its not Kidnapping if we do it.
Its not a Gulag if we run it
Its not Torture if we do it.
Its not a WarCrime if we do it.
Its not Terrorism if we do it.

All of those its require apostrophes, and except for Gulag they don't need capitals. War crimes is also either two words or hyphenated.

I don't think its a double standard at all, we are trying to provide safety and security while the Iranians, if the accusations are true, are trying to get people killed and promoting instability in Iraq.

Why would Iran want instability?

Why would Iran want instability?

Silly you! Because Iranians are evil terrorists. Didn't you get the memo? Or are you not from the States?

Anyone, individual, group, nation, or coalition, that opposes the United States of America in any way, shape, or form, is a terrorist. There are many sub-classes of terrorist, not all of which are necessarily violent, but all of them are inherently violent and it should be assumed that they aim to kill 'muricans to further their agenda (which is to terrorize 'murica).

China, for instance, as a nation, is an economic terrorist. China is slowly destroying 'murica's economy.

Russia, as a nation, is a technological terrorist, because it's been our main rival for the last century.

North Korea, as a nation, is not a terrorist because it hasn't done anything to God's People ('murica).

You see? Don't look into these things too much; just remember that 'murica is the only one that matters when evaluating world events. Iran is obviously trying to cause the death of all our troops (God bless 'em), and eventually will take over Iraq and become terrorist state no. 1, using Saddam's WMD's against us.

Oh yes....the murder of civilians by terrorists is all the fault of the United States, because we killed a different murderer of civilians.......so if we just allowed the government to continue murdering people, then we wouldn't have to worry about non-government entities murdering people.
Correct.

Saddam Hussein kept that kind of shit down.
Who cares if innocent people are murdered, as long as it's done by the government, huh yootopia?
I hate to be vulgar like this, but hey, at least LESS people died under Saddam in 20 years than died in 4 years of what has essentially been a government with fuck all power, which is almost universally hated, rightly, as a puppet of the US.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any connection to the former Soviet government? What about Nazi Germany?
None at all.

You have any connection with the US government?

The US isn't the one killing most Iraqis. That's done by their rival faction. The US is fighting the insurgents. If you have a problem with that, then something is wrong with you.

That's hardly the point. The US bears prime responsibility for the entire current situation in Iraq, a situation that continued occupation will do absolutely nothing to redeem; quite the contrary.

We have 2 demands. One, that the resolution be fair to all 3 factions.
Won't happen. Ever.
So even if the majority of Iraqis want a Shiite theocracy,it is not democratic because a democracy must follow the majority's wishes while protecting minorities.
No, that's not really a democracy. A real democracy does what it's told. If that's "kill all of the Kurds", then that's what it should do, were it a democracy.

This is why democracy is pretty crappy.
Our other demand is that the Iraqi government not be hostile to us.
The government might bow down and kiss the US' oversized arse, but that's not going to be what the general public of Iraq is going to think of the US for a very long time yet.
The first demand is a fair one.
Not really. You either have democracy in a state like Iraq, or you have a vaguely benevolent rule.
I would be truly ashamed of my government had it not demanded this.
I'd be more ashamed of a government that thought its citizens stupid enough to believe democracy and a better higher quality of life would go hand-in-hand, as far as Iraq goes.
The second demand is simply a necessity. Whether fair or not, the US can't support a government that is hostile to it for practical reasons.
What 'practical reasons'?

Oh, because most of the places that the US hates, like North Korea and Iran have amazing levels of force projection, and comparibly well trained and well-equipped armies, and could economically survive a war against, erm, anyone.

Yes.
Had Iran worked to make the government of Iraq friendly to it, I would not complain. But Iran is fighting the fair solution demand. That is why Iran is wrong.
Perhaps had Cheney and Rumsfeld not thrown Iran's offer for help in the 'War on Terror' back in its face, we wouldn't have this problem. As it stands, Iran is doing what the US is doing - arming forces friendly to its cause and trying to get as much out of the conflict as possible.

Oh, what an astonishing surprise.

My problem is the US governments "Oh, we never do any wrong. We're saints. Any FUBAR isn't our fault" stance.

Ok, you got me wrong there. I don't think the US government is a saint, and it is always right. The US government has done SO much wrong. And yes, I agree, the situation in Iraq is completely America's fault. We have many horrible policies. I am not a Bush supporter. I can go on and on, but that doesn't change what I said. Had I been able to undo it all, I would, but that's not possible. We need to fix what's going on there, and what Iran is doing isn't helping at all. Perhaps what the US is doing isn't helping either. That may in fact be highly likely. But at least our intentions are good (I believe they are). Iran's intentions are not.

Splintered Yootopia, you jsut seem to be anti democracy. Seems to me like you just want the Shiite majority to massacre the Sunnis. I can't debate something like that. I have no doubt democracy is the best solution. Not a complete majority rules. A democracy where minorities are protected.
As for demanding that Iran not be hostile to us. Well, it'd be completely retarded to support the Iraqi government if it was hostile to us.

It's kind of silly to accept an offer from Iran to help in the war on terror when they are one of the biggest problems in the war. That's like accepting the Soviet Union's offer to help in the cold war.

We could talk to Iran to try to resolve problems, but accepting their help wouldn't do anything. Iran is trying to promote an oppressive Shiite state. Now please, tell me you think that's wrong. I don't care if you think what the US is doing is wrong, but do you agree that what Iran is doing is horribly wrong?

The US isn't the one killing most Iraqis. That's done by their rival faction. The US is fighting the insurgents. If you have a problem with that, then something is wrong with you.


Not at all. Ideally, I'd love to see a united non-sectarian insurgent movement hand the US its ass and escort it to the door. Why? So a million other poor fuckers don't have to get killed by another US cock up 10 years from now. Seeing as the Vietnam effect has worn off, it would appear another shot is needed.

.

It's kind of silly to accept an offer from Iran to help in the war on terror when they are one of the biggest problems in the war. That's like accepting the Soviet Union's offer to help in the cold war.


The Iranians are Shia muslims. Al Qaeda and related groups are Sunni muslim and consider Shia apostate. Please learn facts, then formulate an opinion.

Ok, you got me wrong there. I don't think the US government is a saint, and it is always right. The US government has done SO much wrong. And yes, I agree, the situation in Iraq is completely America's fault. We have many horrible policies. I am not a Bush supporter. I can go on and on, but that doesn't change what I said. Had I been able to undo it all, I would, but that's not possible. We need to fix what's going on there, and what Iran is doing isn't helping at all. Perhaps what the US is doing isn't helping either. That may in fact be highly likely. But at least our intentions are good (I believe they are). Iran's intentions are not.
Iran has the exact same intentions as the US. It wants to gain an influence in a rich country, which could have some level of stability in some years' time. No more, no less.
Splintered Yootopia, you jsut seem to be anti democracy. Seems to me like you just want the Shiite majority to massacre the Sunnis. I can't debate something like that.
No, I don't want the Shi'ite majority to massacre the Sunnis. And the Kurds. And the other minorities they hate. This is why I'm anti-democracy.

Were it a democratic state, this could 'legitimately' happen, because it'd be what the majority wanted.

You can't debate that because you evidently lack the intellectual prowess to do so, not because it's a particularly controversial issue. Democracy is a crock in the Middle East. There, I said it. Debate.
I have no doubt democracy is the best solution. Not a complete majority rules. A democracy where minorities are protected.
Yes, well that's not really a democracy, then, is it?

It's a democracy with certain provisos. Hence not the real thing.
As for demanding that Iran not be hostile to us. Well, it'd be completely retarded to support the Iraqi government if it was hostile to us.

It's kind of silly to accept an offer from Iran to help in the war on terror when they are one of the biggest problems in the war.
...

The main reason that they're one of the biggest problems is absolutely caused by a refusal to accept their help. The Persians talked to the US government about whether they could help out (as you should know, Shi'ite Iran doesn't get on at all with Sunni Al-Qaeda, who are best chums with the US' mates in Saudi Arabia) and it was thrown in their faces.

Let's go for an example which would involve the US in Iran's current place.

Let's say that Japan and China have a territorial dispute over some hypothetical islands near US territory, which then descends into a pointless war for both parties, that the US could head off in areas near its zone of control fairly easily. When the US asks whether it should help out, China quite simply sends the US diplomats home with a flat 'no'. Japan then starts making some gains, to the US' advantage.

In those kind of circumstances, the US would probably arm up guerrillas in the region to fight against the Chinese forces. Whether they then fought the Japanese isn't really an issue, it's more about making an impact against a common foe, possibly at the expense of what should be an ally.

Do you kind of get it now?
That's like accepting the Soviet Union's offer to help in the cold war.
You're correct.

The Soviet Union and US could easily have got on with each other, but because Truman was an utter buffoon with no kind of subtlety in dealing with Communist states, the two split apart.

Iran and the could easily have got on with each other, but because the old hawks, Rumsfeld and Cheney had no interests in helping out Muslim states, especially Iran, who they'd armed Iraq to try and polish off, the two split.

The parrells are stunning, and it's a shame that things went the way they did, in both cases, because all it led to was anti-US resentment in both of those two states.
We could talk to Iran to try to resolve problems, but accepting their help wouldn't do anything.
Other than the flow of illegal arms over the border - instead, Iran would probably send in peacekeepers, in return for being taken off the Axis of Evil list, and having US trade resumed with it.

The US gets to put its overstretched troops where they're really needed, and the Persians can get rid of Achmujenidad when they start to get rich again, and realise that maybe, just maybe, a more sensible man at the top would be a better idea.
Iran is trying to promote an oppressive Shiite state. Now please, tell me you think that's wrong. I don't care if you think what the US is doing is wrong, but do you agree that what Iran is doing is horribly wrong?
Iran supports people like Al-Sadr because it knows that it's the way to get some kind of influence in the south.

I'm sure that they could probably do without an oppressive Shi'ite state, and would probably prefer something more akin to a pro-Iran version of Saddam Hussein, a man who could stop terrorists through what was, essentially, a reign of terror.

But they're probably thinking that people like Al-Sadr will eventually take out all of their political enemies until they're the number one person, at which point they'll probably realise that religious issues are the least of their worries, and that Iraq has fair greater problems than that.

I'm confused:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071007/ts_nm/iraq_dc



Here's the problem. Am I the only person seeing a double standard?

The US is openly killing Iraqis, but Iran is "stoking violence in Iraq"?



Again - isn't it official US policy to be "providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed..." people in Iraq?

Is the US not "inciting bloodshed in Iraq and of training and equipping..." people in Iraq?

Is the US not "giving advanced weaponry to..." people in Iraq?

Wouldn't it be equally true to say "There is no question about the connection between the US and these components, (the) attacks that have killed..." people in Iraq?



Iran says they aren't doing what they are accused of. The US says Iran is doing it. In the absence of some pretty damning evidence, it's just suspicion versus claim of innocence.

On the other hand - we know that the US is doing all those things...

Does it only 'matter' if the people getting killed are Americans?
It's not just a double standard, GnI. It's Doublethink.

http://www.orwelltoday.com/doublethink.shtml

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

But at least our intentions are good (I believe they are).

You're personal intentions, yeah, I could believe that. The US government's intentions? The one under the Bush-Haliburton coalition? No. I don't believe that at all.

I believe their intentions are to squeeze every penny they can out of Iraq and the American public for their adventures in the Middle East.

Screw it. I doubt anyone in congress or higher in the political ladder for that matter gives a hoot about Iraq and the suffering its people are put through. All they care about is expanding their power and Iraq is a decent hot button issue to get the average American to care about "bringing home the troops" or "fighting eeeviiiilll terrorists abroad"

Iraq's just fuel for American politicking.


Iran's intentions are not.


You mean like US intentions to destabilize Afghanistan under Soviet occupation? I can see parallels there.

The difference is that Iraq borders on Iran. Iran likely only wants the instability to last long enough to force potentially unfriendly America away, and then move in to mop up and enforce stability. I doubt they're dumb enough to believe an unstable neighbor without someone to take the shots will leave them alone. Nobody that dumb gets to power in a dog eat dog world.

All of those its require apostrophes, and except for Gulag they don't need capitals. War crimes is also either two words or hyphenated.yes mother. :D