What do you think about U.S. military action against Iran?

Filed under: Iran

Over the weekend, President Bush paid a surprise visit to Iraq for a "war council." This is apparently meant to suggest he feels the "surge" has improved security sufficiently to allow his visit. At the same time, British troops are pulling out of the key Shiite city of Basra, implying Iran's influence may consolidate there. Yesterday, we reported on the Pentagon's exploration of military alternatives against Iran, now we'd like to know your views about U.S. military options. Please respond to our poll:

Feel free to add your own alternative action scenarios in the comments section. If allies are not mentioned in a response, this implies approval for the U.S. acting alone if necessary.

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Comments

freeluncher says:

Iran just this week recieved a clean bill of health over its nuclear program from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Surprisingly this has not been widely reported. Bush and co are LYING about Iran's activities and intentions.

Regarding the poll, I found it very interesting that the only legal option for military action - with the support of the United Nations - was NOT listed. Without UN sanction, any military action would be a crime of aggression by the United States, sorta like Iraq was.

La Russophobe says:

Here we have quite an nice example of the pot calling the kettle black. Although you say that Bush is "lying," The U.S. does not need U.N. permission to declare war on Iran and attack it in order for the act to be legal. All it need do is comply with the U.S. Constitution, and that compliance is assumed in regard to any military option.

It's rather disturbing that you would fail to include any link to actual evidence supporting your statements about Iran's nuclear program while claiming that others are lying, and you say nothing at all about Iran's provocation of Israel or its activities in Iran, other options in the poll, much less give evidence about them. It's difficult to take such empty rhetoric at all seriously.

Slave Revolt says:

You people are absurd--as wacked out as the apologists for Nazi Germany's imperialism back in the day.

"Fanatics" is too soft a description for the type of terror and lawlessness that you endorse.

But, keep going, you will see the empire finally put out of its misery like all rabid dogs should be.

Don't see you lining up to going the ranks of cannon fodder. Same old fanatical hypocrisy--talk big until someone whose country you've invaded puts a bullet in your little brains.

freeluncher says:

La Russophobe, you asked for evidence of that Iran is lying about Iran's nuclear intentions. I suggest you read this entry on my blog, and get educated. You will find a lin to the International Atomic Energy Agency's website, and their report which states -
"4. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use."

Which means that Bush is lying when he says Iran is trying to build a bomb.

Your reference to the invasion/bombing of a foreign country only needing to be in accordance of the US constitution, and not the UN is amusing, absurd, and frightening.

You are seriously misinformed my friend.

Did you know, that under Hitler's German law, the gas chambers were legal?

Think about it.

freeluncher says:

oops link -
http://talkingliberties.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/iran-gets-clean-bill-of-health-from-iaea/

John Hussey says:

Somewhere between the fruits and nuts of the looney left and the sword carriers of the right is the truth. Another view of the same 28 August 2007 IAEA report says, and I qoute, "...U.N. nuclear watchdog remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”..." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295721,00.html Or, try this if you don´t like FOX: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/02/wiran302.xml "Iran claims key nuclear milestone reached..." Last but not lease, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/world/middleeast/03iran.html?ref=middleeast "On Two Fronts, One Nuclear, Iran Is Defiant..."

John Hussey says:

And, if we dig a little deeper we discover this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1295288/posts "...Dr. El Baradei is married to Aida Elkachef, a kindergarden teacher at the Vienna International School. They have a daughter, Laila, a lawyer, and a son, Mostafa, a sound engineer, both of whom live and work in London, England. But perhaps the most telling information about the good doctor is found at the Italian website, http://web.tiscali.it/iranian/Notizia%20arch001/15092004c002.htm [NOTE: You must use search words “Alberadi il Presidente di AIEA,” for the Google search to bring back a hit on this site. If you can’t read Italian, Google will translate the site into English.]

This site describes El Baradi’s wife as an Iranian, and a first cousin of Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani, one of the "brains" of the Iranian regime and close associate of the tyrant Khomenei. In the article by Dr. Kameran Pirnia, he states “...Baradei cannot be neutral toward Iran" because of his wife relationship to Mahdavi Kani. A further Google search reveals that Mahdavi Kani heads up the Iranian Militant Clerics Association, one of the main political groups in Iran’s Theo-Nazi government...."

freeluncher says:

With all due respect John Hussey, the links you offer giving some "views" on the IAEA report are all very interesting, but I'll stick to listening to the experts on this matter of life and death, and not paid pundits.

The IAEA is far, far more than just El Baradei. Alluding he is not to be trusted does you little credit.

Nothing you have said disproves my contention that every time Bush and Cheney et al say Iran "IS building a bomb", they are lying, if the experts in the field are to be believed. And they have done it before, remember Saddam's WMD?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

John Hussey says:

This is old news but it proves a point. "Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq". Monday, May 17, 2004.. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html "...BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered...."

Please remember that, "the truth doesn't mean anything, it just is". I agree with most reports that state "No significant numbers of WMDs found in Iraq". (I am very sure that most of the really nasty stuff was moved by the Russians to Syria just before the war started and "freelunch", my sources are a LOT better than yours will ever be.) I admit that there have been very few intact and working WMDs found in Iraq but small amounts of WMD's keep turning up as these two exploding shells did and they are STILL turning up. There is no such thing as a "free lunch".

John Hussey says:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html Document Details WMD Recovered In Iraq, Santorum Says
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 21, 2006

"...Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent...."

La Russophobe says:

FREELUNCHER:

John has done a wonderful job of obliterating your "point" about nuclear weapons, so I'll just mop up. You are truly demented. The fact that you can find something both "amusing, absurd, and frightening" is bizarre in the extreme, a serious minded person can't do so. What's truly outrageous is that you feel the U.S. has a legal obligation to subordinate its national security to the whims of the United Nations, a group ruled by countries that despise the United States.

Again, you totally ignore the fact that the main body of responders to this poll indicate that Iran should be attacked because of the way it is undermining security in Iraq, not because of its nuclear program. Your propaganda is that of a little boy, uninformed and ludicrous on its face. Your haughty personal invective clearly shows you are not interested in any kind of meaningful discussion but only a frenzied partisan attack on those you personally despise - which makes you no better than those you attack.

armchair pessimist says:

Much as I would love to see Iran deleted, we lack the necessary ruthlessness to do the job right.

Probably we'd try another over-thought, under-armed bombing campaign that would take too long and acheive too little, giving China and Russia enough time to react and issue an ultimatum: stop or else. Remember how the US stopped the French-Brit-Israeli Suez operation 50 years ago with one phone call? This time it'd be our phone that rings. We'd end up looking even more toothles than we do now.

Of course, esteemed LaR, if we were to somehow break up the Russia-China romance, then many delightful prospects open up.

freeluncher says:

La Russophobe wrote -
"Your haughty personal invective clearly shows you are not interested in any kind of meaningful discussion.."

Erm, read through the thread amigo, nowhere have I indulged in personal invective. That has been purely the domain of your good-self, with your "demented.. little boy", "frenzied attack" comments. Care to quote these alleged attacks?

Your disdain for the United Nations is self-evident. Though I'll guess you were quite happy for Iraq to be bombed for 'defying the will of the United Nations'....?

Your contention that John "obliterated" my point about Iran's nuclear weapons program is false. He did no such thing. He cast aspersions on the head of the IAEA, unfounded rumours, and posted a couple of reports from Fox News. I mean, Fox News for crying out loud! Possibly the most unreliable news service in the western world.

And as for undermining security in Iraq, it is frankly laughable for America to claim Iran is destabilising Iraq! Since America invaded in 2003, somewhere in the region of a million people have lost their lives. THAT is the main source of de-stabilisation in Iraq.

jim says:

Mark it down countries of the world:

Anything you do is "OK" as long as it abides with your constitution.

(or is this special rule just for the paper tiger going by the name of "the U.S.A." ?)

Tom says:

Freeluncher:

The recent Iraq war has killed tens of thousands of people, but around a million is a matter of conjecture. And even if it has killed 1 million, Saddam killed much more with his genocide of the Kurds and his war with Iran.

The real question is "Will the world be safer, long term, with Saddam out of the picture?" And I'm afraid, that question is impossible to answer. Perhaps after September 11th, if Saddam were approach nicely, he would have discouraged Al Qaeda and kept his conflicts regional. Or maybe he would have allied with them, or been overthrown by extremists. No one knows.

My point is, we need to focus on what to do now and stop fighting with each other. The same goes for the rest of you.

RTLM says:

The US has the legitimate right to attack Iran at a time we see fit. We have a right to retaliate for 52 hostages held illegally for 44 days. We have the legitimate right to retaliate for 241 dead Marines in Beirut in 1983.

Israel has the legitimate right to attack Iran for myriad kidnappings, murders, rocket attacks, bombings (by Hizballah) and stated threats by the Iranian President to "Wipe it off the map."

Argentina has a right to attack Iran for the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and a JCC in 1994 - both in Buenos Aries killing 115 people. Again via the Iranian backed Hizballah.

The US has a right to attack Iran for the Bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996.
The US has the right to retaliate against Iran for the EFP attacks against our troops on patrol today and the operations of Quds Force in Iraq.
We also have the OBLIGATION to eliminate the indigenous burgeoning Chemical Weapons operations in Iran.

I won't attempt to dissuade the above commenters from their walk-on-the-ceiling leftist logic, but - let's just say - dog food can be made of many things.

And it won't be me.

freeluncher says:

RTLM, using your logic -

Iraq has the right to bomb the US for the destruction it has rained on the country.

Iran has the right to bomb the USA for the shooting down of a passenger plane by the US Navy in 1988(ish).

Palestinians have the right to attack the USA because they subsidise Israel's occupation of their lands.

Oh, and RTLM, the Iranian president DID NOT say he wanted Israel "wiped from the map". More bullshit propoganda I am afraid.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/360405.html

freeluncher says:

Tom, a million deaths may be "conjecture", but it is no mere idle conjecture.

The respected medical journal The Lancet estimated about 650,000 excess deaths thanks to the invasion and occupation 18 MONTHS AGO. Their methodology has been accepted as "close to best practice"

That being the case, we must be approaching a million now. Which makes the occupiers little or no better than Saddam. The only difference is in the numbers, and even then there aint much!

Jim "Heart Attack" Nelson says:

Freebird, I'm afraid the only bullshitter here is you. Did you even read the article? Assuming the person who wrote it is even correct, Ahmadinejad said he wants to destroy the current regime in Israel. Only people willfully ignorant could interpret this to mean that he wants peace with Israel.

Here are some more gems from Ahmadinejhad, that great peace loving man who in no way wishes harm to non-Muslims, especially Jews:

TEHRAN (AFP)---Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday described Israel as "the flag of Satan" and said the Jewish state was destined to fall apart, the official IRNA news agency reported.

http://ejpress.org/article/19326

Calling people "Satan" and saying you will deal with them just as your country (which has a history of violent religious extremism) is on the verge of aquiring nuclear power is not how adults act. Nor is it how someone acts who is interested in peace. I'm sure you will find a way to blame this on the US. Or Fox news.

"Clashes today are only a pretext and they confront us because the revolutionary Iran aims a global government and a genuine Islamic culture so as to gain a loftier position worldwide."

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0709067783172740.htm

Gee, what could he possibly mean by this? I'm sure it's just a coincidence that such bravado is happening at the same time they are aquiring the ability to make nuclear weapons.

Oh, well, there's nothing to worry about, Mohammed Elbaredi is on the case.

" "The arrogant superpowers and the Zionist regime invested all their efforts during the 33-day war, but after 60 years, their pride has been trampled and the countdown to the destruction of this regime has been started by Hizbullah fighters," the president was quoted as saying by Iranian news agency Mehr."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3407915,00.html

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that "there is a group occupying the young Palestinians while the latter are defending their mothers and fathers, and presenting them as terrorists. "Do these criminals believe in God and in the Bible? They are like beastly persons; they have no faith in God." "

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3404396,00.html

Aris Katsaris says:

By USA's own choice it *is* part of the United Nations -- if you don't want to abide by UN definition of legality, you can always choose to leave it. But as long as you remain in it, you can't simply dismiss it and scorn it as you do, because it merely reveals you as hypocrites.

And Russophobe, if you're talking to people all over the world about whether country A has the legal right to do something against country B, then you can't be using country A's own laws as the sole criterion for your answer, because then the answer becomes "every country in the world has the legal right to do whatever the hell it chooses to do against every other country in the world, given how every country in the world can redefine its laws to be whatever the hell it likes".

If you want to talk about America's *moral* right to do something like that, then make it clearer that this is what you mean, and stop meaningless fooling around with words like "legal" that you don't mean and don't really care for.

"We have the legitimate right to retaliate for 241 dead Marines in Beirut in 1983."

Didn't the oh-so-wonderful Reagan administration "retaliate" by selling weaponry to Iran? Both after the hostage situation and years later in the Iran-Contra scandal as well? Why, yes it did! Yay for such "retaliation".

But either way, if you make this a war of "retaliation" over 1979 or 1983, you yourselves destroy any arguments about this being a necessary war of self-defense over modern-day threats the Iranian regime poses.

Same way that "the unfinished business" you had with Saddam Hussein, as every right-wing warmonger evilly spewed in right-wing forums, not realizing they themselves were revealing themselves and destroying any credibility about the supposed modern-day threats of the Iraq regime.

Here's my option - the option you've not put in your poll. America would have the right to fight against Iran, if this was part of a true campaign on the part of democracy against tyranny, of secularism against religious fascism, of human rights against regimes of torture, of lawfulness against the right of might and chaotic violence.

But as long as the Bush administration scorns democracy, secularism, human rights, and the rule of law (and it scorns them *all*, and its supporters tend to scorn them all even more loudly) -- as long as it utilizes torture and murder as it does, then I will *never* support any "preemptive attack" on their part ever again.

If I do, I'll have become complicit on every single one of the rapes and tortures and murders in their prisons that they commit on people that their army arrests.

So are you gonna add that option? "Yes, as long as America never uses torture ever again on anyone at all, and respects the rights of its prisoners, and actively promotes secularism, human rights and, democracy."? I'm choosing that one. But since I don't see Bush administration ever going that route, I'm saying "no".

Jim "Heart Attack" Nelson says:

Freeluncher, any credibility you may have had has now been destroyed. The Lancet report is only believed by extreme leftists or people who don't know better.

"The (Lancet) authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions... "

This is from that great bastion of right-wing, pro-Bush, pro-war insanity, the London Times.

"Dr Hicks says: : “I have started to suspect that they [the American researchers] don’t actually know what the interviewing team did. The fact that they can’t rattle off basic information suggests they either don’t know or they don’t care.”"

Oops!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece

RTLM says:

Hiya Aris. Happy to get under your skin (again).

/per usual. Heh!

freeluncher: The UN is a anchor on human rights and belongs in Europe. If your collective would remove your self loathing blinders, you'd agree.

But you (and Aris) hate the United States and would feel the utmost Narcissistic satisfaction if it were to fail. Temporarily. You two would also likely be the first to willingly board the box cars too. Hand in hand.

Like I said - some of us refuse to be dog food,

And yes - Amagonnajihad did mean Israel-be-gone.

Nice try.

http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=21&p=142

RTLM says:

And Aris - come again about the Bush Admin torture/murder...

Stomach this pal.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1185106657

(way worse than girly panties on the head - or anything else at Abu Ghraib. Or Haditha.)

Aris Katsaris says:

Shouldn't you be trying to defend your civilisation, instead of being a self-admitted troll that merely seeks to get under people's "skins"?

Other than that, you once again stop trying to even pretend you have an argument -- when anyone challenges you with facts, you merely respond that they must hate America.

It doesn't surprise me, that's the typical Bush defense after all, revealing the moral bankruptcy of his administration's ideals, and the failure to withstand even the slightest moral scrutiny.

And you've repeatedly shown your willingness to be dog food, as long as the dog happens to be Fundie Christian, rather than Islamofascist.

Some of us don't want to be anyone's dogfood, but I don't expect you to get that. Feel free to choose your dog, RTLM.

Aris Katsaris says:

"(way worse than girly panties on the head - or anything else at Abu Ghraib. Or Haditha.)"

Because America has never executed convicted criminals, obviously? Are you serious?

Iran has done times a thousand times worse than executing convicted murderers. I never denied that. I'm even more opposed to Iran attacking other countries, than I'm to America attacking other countries.

But what America is doing in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and many other places (namely torturing-to-death complete innocents) is a thousand times worse than what you showed in that video.

Again I must ask, are you serious? Even as a *troll* you fail.

RTLM says:

Aris - I didn't mean the Dog Food crack figuratively. I meant it literally.

You're obviously a westerner - and you hate your own culture.

Pardon me for questioning your so called "patriotism". You are absent that quality. As are all Lefists.

RTLM says:

[quote]But what America is doing in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and many other places (namely torturing-to-death complete innocents) is a thousand times worse than what you showed in that video.[/quote]

A thousand times worse? Not. The Newsweek reporter caused more deaths by his false Koran Flush report than any deaths at Gitmo.

You're a self loathing hypocrite. You hate the nation that enables you, that enriches you and that affords you the leisure and affluence you obviously take for granted.

As a petulant juvenile rebels against his parents you rebel against Daddy Bush.

You're beneath contempt.

Aris Katsaris says:

"You hate the nation that enables you, that enriches you and that affords you the leisure and affluence you obviously take for granted. As a petulant juvenile rebels against his parents you rebel against Daddy Bush."

Actually, my nation (Greece) hates Bush -- though unfortunately it hates him for all the wrong reasons (proven by the fact that Greece loves even more murderous and villainous Putin).

So who am I exactly rebelling against? My parent's nation, Greece, by the fact I despise someone she loves (Putin) -- but how would you know that by how I feel about Bush?

Or is it Western Civilization -- though since the greatest part of western civilization also hates Bush, then in what way am I "rebelling" against it?

"You're obviously a westerner - and you hate your own culture."

Eastern Orthodox culture you mean? The culture of Greece and Serbs and Russians, that mostly despises America to its guts and finds more in common with the Islamofascists of Iran?

My culture isn't your culture. And the sort of civilization I defend isn't the sort of "civilization" you defend.

The sort of "civilization" you and Bush defend is threatened by things like gay rights, Darwin, or Habeas Corpus, and it's supported by things like torturing innocents and having the executive branch run unchecked.

The sort of civilisation I defend is *threatened* by torture and the unchecked power of the executive, but it's supported through gay rights and Habeas Corpus.

So our goals and oru chosen civilisation are opposites, and you, RTLM, are also the enemy of my chosen civilization, same as the Islamofascists are.

I've long since stopped being so self-deluded as to think you a merely wrong-headed ally.

armchair pessimist says:

Greece loves even more murderous and villainous Putin

Why does Greece love Putin so?

Jim "Heart Attack" Nelson says:

Uh, no, Abu Ghirab isn't "1000 times worse". Iranians actually mutilate, torture, and kill people to extract information. All muslims do. Soldiers' bodies found after they have been captured by Al Qaida have often been emasculated.

Recently one of their torture manuals was released, featuring instructions on gouging out eyes, hacking off limbs, and using a blowtorch on living people. Why aren't you complaining about this? Could it be because you're a hypocritical, ignorant dipshit?

This is how we know you're a bullshitter. Americans do sophomoric pranks like panties or this kiddie "waterboarding" crap and you go apeshit against Bush. Real religious fanatics threaten to kill you and actually torture their victims to death and you couldn't care less.

Artfldgr says:

then the answer becomes "every country in the world has the legal right to do whatever the hell it chooses to do against every other country in the world, given how every country in the world can redefine its laws to be whatever the hell it likes".

ah.. thats exactly what the world is like. there is NO country that doesnt act like that. in fact, people are exactly the same way!!! its not laws that limit people its their morality in following them, and their desire to see more benifit in one action (following the law) over benifit in another (breaking the law).

this is even MORE true in a world that believes in relativism. however to attempt to make my point breif (not something i am good at). There is no country fool enough to actually cooperate and not follow exactly what your just described (that you dont believe given the incredulity you put in it).

this is why detent and all other political games are actually very real and serious things. And this is why you cant truly trust a declared enemy, let alone a trusted friend.

you havent noticed that the world game is "get away with anything that you can with minimum effect to yourself if at all possible"?

in fact, the fact that the US and other western countries follow a moral code that does not include not having morals, means they are at the logical disadvantage in the dark areas where things really happen. while eastern soviet style countries have a declared non morality, anything goes that they can think of that would work without limits other than the "minimum effect to yourself if at all", and by yourself meaning the leadership. the people are just one more material to move.

as far as voting, i didnt because i think the game is about building a wall in which material cant move. turkey, iraq, iran, afghanistan makes a land wall that does not permit overland movement of weapons into the middle east, or into africa.

without that, things get very messy for them and their ability to do things would get hindered... another reason for their sudden interest in opening up more weapons plants in other places rather than controlling it from home. what good is weapons you make if its too hard to move them if centralized. but from a lot of countries, its easier to send a bit here and there and sum them up.

the issue is control, and small arms weapons are favored. 3g warfare is over, and 4g is what we are into, and maybe 5g (unlimited warfare). i will say 5g is conducting 4g by proxy.

western states are very vulnerable to this kind of warfare because they cant muster the brutality necessary to stop it, and that leaves them to long term attrition which their people will not let them maintain given ideologies.

as far as nuclear iran... your damn straight they are trying to make nuclear weapons. not abusing the material that is given to you and tracked does not have any bearing to what your doing with other material that is not tracked and is not accounted for. in fact, the peaceful use leverages the other use by providing a rich knowhow and expertise and that one doesnt need to use the inkown stuff for basic work.

to conclude that everything above board looks good means it is all good all the way through is not valid logic.

RTLM says:

I've long since stopped being so self-deluded as to think you a merely wrong-headed ally.

Aris - Ever considered the probability that its you who is the wrong headed ally?

freeluncher says:

"heart attack" Nelson wrote -
"..All muslims do."

If that is not a racist comment, I do not know what is.

Is it the same as saying all christians blow up health clinics?

Jim "Heart Attack" Nelson says:

You apparently don't know what a racist comment is, since islam is a religious/political ideology, NOT A GENETIC/ETHNIC IDENTITY. How does someone like you manage to breathe, being so ignorant and hateful?

Name one christian who blew up a health clinic. For every one you name (if you can even find one), I'll produce FIFTY news items about DIFFERENT islamic terror attacks.

Further, please name one (1) Islamic country that implements laws against torture. I can tell you that you probably won't find one because they love to torture. See the recent health workers in Lybia fiasco.

Not only can you not refute my previous points, you have to resort to the classic leftist warcry when you're losing an argument: RACISM!

Aris Katsaris says:

Uh, no, Abu Ghirab isn't "1000 times worse". Iranians actually mutilate, torture, and kill people to extract information.

No shit Sherlock, learn to read. I already said "Iran has done times a thousand times worse than executing convicted murderers".

I'm not to blame for your illiteracy.

Further, please name one (1) Islamic country that implements laws against torture.

Ooh, that's a nice game. Let me add my own questions:

- Name me one (1) third-world nation, regardless of religion, that implements laws against torture.
- Name me one (1) Christian Catholic nation in the 1930s that implemented laws against torture.
- Name me one (1) Eastern Orthodox Christian nation that implemented laws against torture in the late 1960s.
- Name me one (1) nation of any religion that implemented laws against torture in the 1400s.

Jim "Heart Attack" Nelson says:

No shit yourself, learn to think. You're complaining about Americans when you admitted the Iranians are doing worse. This is pretty amoral.

And the behavior regarding torture during the 30s-60s is relevant to my question...how? Oh, wait, that's right, it isn't, you just can't answer the question so you decided to shift blame to someone else in another century.

I find it interesting that instead of answering the question, you can only whine about someone else's behavior... seventy years ago. After all, Catholics and Orthodox were widely known for torturing people and mass human rights abuses in the 1930s - 1960s, right?

I'm talking Islamic countries, right *now*. Non-islamic peoples, especially Americans, are the only ones falling over themselves to (rightly) ban torture.

So, back to the original question... name one that has politicians agitating against torture against their enemies.

Hint: "Name one x that did y 300 years ago" does not actually answer the question.

Artfldgr says:

Aris Katsaris,
you still didnt answer him... your other questions were a distraction from you actually answering.

but your quesitons are pretty easy...

mexico... a third world nation that has laws against torture. (as do many countries that torture - the difference is in implementation. for instancve the us laws are supposed to be neutral, and vawa is gender specific).

a christian catholic country that implemented laws against torture... most western countries... the first geneva convention was in 1864... way before the 30s...and it was long ago decided that any country that didnt uphold them was not subjevted to the defenses of them. and so if one is against a country who didnt sign it, and who favors torture and announced it, one was not forced to stand up against such and not return in kind. i will pull off your finger nail with a pliers, when i am done, dont get angry, just go home... right? it wasnt till 1977 that the thing was changed to be just like that... they can torture you, we cant torture them (read protocol 1 of 1977 to geneva conventions)

Eastern Orthodox Christian nation that implemented laws against torture in the late 1960s. Greece as they and others signed on to the unieversal declaration of human rights in 1948... there were others too. Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

did you notice that his example was today.. and your 'game' goes back to the turn of the century and more than 500 years ago?

yeah... the past was brutal... now how about getting back to the NOW...

Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. (care to see? http://www.rawa.org/handcut0.jpg)

6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated (In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia)

certainly not 500+ years ago..

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed. [while the west debates they can or cant marry, the east says we have a solution - oh.. and the communsits have the same solution too] (On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.' )

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death. [In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex. ]

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture.

(2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this. [ergo the large upswing of gang rapes in western countries]

(3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low.

(4) Old men and monks could be killed.

(5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar,/b> in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.

whats good for the prophet....

(6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim.

(7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (which is why the communists promoted them against the west. and why islam will take the blame for their manipulations)

(8) Civilian homes may be destroyed.

(9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed.

(10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.

(11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?

your an idiot reletivist... you cant see the difference between the middle ages and today... (your 1400 comment trying to go back to pagan witchcraft)...

but socialist ideologies are responsible for more than 200 million of their own people dead. feminism is socialist, and abortion on demand has tainted US morals with 40 million dead... (note that just after wwII russia had over 300 million people, even after 23 million soldiers went to war... now they have less than 140 million, and china has 30 million extra men with no hope of wives)

and you CAN name islamic countries that sign treaties agasint torture(saudis) but they all ignore it since sharia, dhimmi, etc is ABOVE mans laws.

its like when my contemporaries talk about helpng the poor... i grew up in a very bad poor area.. my parents were poor, my granfather and grandmother illiterate...and i was white in an almost all black neighborhood at the height of 60s racial riots and such.

but they dont want to hear anything from someone that actually lived there... they want to imagine their fantasies are real. they arent.

sooner or later we will all dine at a table laden with consequences...

and your table will have more unpalitable things on it than most..

a useful idiot doesnt generally find out what they are until they are done with you.

RTLM says:

So our goals and oru chosen civilisation are opposites, and you, RTLM, are also the enemy of my chosen civilization, same as the Islamofascists are.

So who are your "friends" Aris - budding Russian Totalitarians?

What a sad shame what has happened to the Greeks.

Golden Boy says:

Anyone notice how freeluncher complained about Fox News as a source and then he goes and supplies a link to Indymedia?!

MB says:

First, I think it is about time that the West fully believe the term: "Defend Islam"
…and what it means to Moderates (with respect to their alignment with Radicalized Islam.)

It is the duty of all followers of Islam to come to the aid of ANY Islamic Oil region under attack; regardless of the circumstances. This means Pakistani, Egyptian, Saudi, Syrian, Iranian, Turkish, Iraqi, and many other forces would mass their armies to join in alliance AGAINST our troop’s attack on Iran. (Basically, this is what we are seeing in Iraq.)

And to add to this complicated feat; China and Russia will most certainly protect their financial interests to provide weaponry, if needed…

We can’t change the past of making threats we weren't able to carry out; while this regime was allowed to buy support against our demands… But really, our only option is to:

1. Exclude the votes of those engaged in key business projects with Iran.

2. Broaden the spill of relevant World entities, with the reality of Arab Nations.

3. And improve missile intercept for Israel and America.

-I see Iran meeting its match from a totally unrelated entity, than our troops.
Justice has this way, you know.

cheap World of Kung fu Gold says:

warhammer gold
warhammer Online gold
warhammer money
buy warhammer gold
cheap warhammer Online gold
twelve sky Gold
12sky gold
twelvesky Gold
12Sky Silver Coins
12 sky gold
shaiya gold
shaiya money
cheap shaiya gold
shaiya online gold
buy shaiya gold
priston tale Gold
priston tale Money
buy priston tale Gold
cheap priston tale Gold
Anarchy credits
Anarchy Online credits
Anarchy gold
Anarchy online gold
buy AO credits
World of Kung fu Gold
WoKf gold
buy World of Kung fu Gold
cheap World of Kung fu Gold
World of Kung fu money
kal geons
kal gold
kal online geons
kal online gold
kalonline Geons
Archlord gold
Archlord money
archlord online Gold
Archlord cheap
buy Archlord gold
Tiffany jewelry
replica tiffany Jewelry
tiffany Replica Jewelry
knockoff jewelry
Tiffany 925 Silver
925 tiffany Jewelry
Tiffany Silver Jewelry
Tiffany jewelry
replica tiffany Jewelry
tiffany Replica Jewelry
knockoff jewelry
Tiffany 925 Silver
925 tiffany Jewelry
Tiffany Silver Jewelry

TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/371

What do you think about U.S. military action against Iran?

Filed under: Iran

Comments

Post a comment

TrackBack