Recent atrocities in Iran has gotten people asking if the US should intervene, after the reports of two of the twentysomething kidnapped South Koreans have been murdered by the cowards.

This isn't the first time this century that the US has been asked to go in defense of human suffering worldwide.

With all of the rhetoric surrounding our involvement in other world theaters, as well as UN involvement worldwide, why would we want to extend ourselves any more than any other countries peoples want their own governments to step in?

Aren't you talking about the recent atrocities in Afghanistan? Why did you write Iran? You seemed sort of vague about why you put Iran in there. Please explain further and I'll try to comment better on your post.
Exactly what are you talking about? Be very "specific" about the "recent" atrocities you just talked about above, and provide up-to-date news links. Thanks.

Sorry. I meant Afg. My haste, my bad. I realised my error but the post was up. Did you not clue into the S Koreans murdered?

Yes I did CaptainRich, and that is one hell of a mistake. This mistake sort of scares me... so I'm going to get a little side-tracked here and not comment on the actual situation at hand.
I guess it's easy to make that mistake because Iran has been paralleled to Afghanistan in the sense that they are both labeled Terrorist As*holes. I have seen these mistakes time and time again on the news, when Bush said "Saddam, no I mean Binladin". Anyway, that was not Bush-bashing for you (I'm a Republican).
It's just interesting that two countries like Iran and Afghanistan, who are so damn different, have been easily mixed up. Captain, please don't take offense to what I just wrote (it is an honest mistake on your part, I realize this, but it is a "particular" mistake that is being produced over and over again... as if we are learning or being taught to make these types of errors).

So you meant Afghan, but I'll still post my thoughts on Iran.


Waiting for the UN's usual rhetoric measures will resolve nothing. They'll make note of the situation and say they are investigating. Well Ok they'll probably go the minor sanction route. On the other hand, the U.S. is keeping tally and I fully expect Iran and Syria (and a few others) are on the radar to pay a thousand fold in the next decade or so. No! I don't think we will get directly involved in Iran yet and we're already involved in Afghanistan. I guess we will have to see what direction the US is headed after the 2008 elections and to understand exactly the world's current affairs and what might be necessary. But as for as I'm concerned, no calendar is needed for dying and both Mahmoud Ahmadnejah and Bashar al-Assad are begging to see Jim Morrison.





Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big10

Yes I did CaptainRich, and that is one hell of a mistake. This mistake sort of scares me...so I'm going to get a little side-tracked here and not comment on the actual situation at hand.
I guess it's easy to make that mistake because Iran has been paralleled to Afghanistan in the sense that they are both labeled Terrorist As*holes. I have seen these mistakes time and time again on the news, when Bush said "Saddam, no I mean Binladin". Anyway, that was not Bush-bashing for you (I'm a Republican).
It's just interesting that two countries like Iran and Afghanistan, who are so damn different, have been easily mixed up. Captain, please don't take offense to what I just wrote (it is an honest mistake on your part, I realize this, but it is a "particular" mistake that is being produced over and over again...as if we are learning or being taught to make these types of errors).

---

These two countries have displayed some distinct similarities, here of late. Radicals in that "global region" have rallied around the bridge collapsing in Minnasota.

I've clarified my error. Had I left out the particular country where this happened, would you be more willing to discuss the issue?

In case you don't remember the US has already invaded Afghanistan.

The Coalitions resources are stretched enough trying to clean the mess up in Iraq. Iran would be on the radar but I think it would take something pretty drastic to happen for an invasion in the near future.

Who knows though with this president..

We didn't "invaded" Afghanistan. We pursued al qaida and taliban forces that lead us into Afghanistan. Our goal wasn't to take the country or regime change. When we finished what we started, we mostly left them to pick up where we left off. The problem is that they didn't pick up, and that's why they're doing thing there again.

The terrorist/murderers are largely a non-uniformed multinational army (why do most of them hide there faces?) and allow themselves no border. They go were ever they want and anyone who confronts them is killed. Kind of like wild wild west, a hundred fold

We're told the are cells in the US. Why are they allowed to sustain ops here?? If you know acancer is building and that it will kill you, why not cut it out?

Capt. Our intentions certainly was to force regime change in Afghanistan after the taliban refused to cooperate with us in taking down AQ. We supported the Northern Alliance during the war and we were more than helpful in helping Karzai consolidate his position as leader of the country. No we did not take over the country but let's say the Talkban had been democratically elected after the war... do you really think we would've accepted the outcome ?

The rest of your statements in this posting I agree with . I am all for humanitarian interventions but there must be other compelling American national interest in the decision to intervene.

As for Iran I think both criteria are met . Iran has waged an almost one sided war against the US since 1979 . I say almost because we did respond militarily late in the 1980s and waged a pretty significant under-reported naval war against them in the Persian Gulf.

We know they actively support our enemies in Iraq and we now know they have taken direct military actions that have resulted in American casualties. As far as I'm concerned a state of war already exists between us and them . There are significant human rights outrages happening there now as the hanging parties they are conducting on political prisoners show. The people of Iran I know would more than welcome our intervention . To me it's a no brainer . To succeed in the ME Iran will eventually have to be dealt with .

Keep in mind that there are more similarities between Iranian leadership and Afghanistan/Taliban than many people realize. Anyone here remember the fact that Iran recently took a bunch of British sailors hostage, and tried to do the same to some Aussie sailors? I don't see much of a difference between using kidnapped Brit sailors as political leverage and using South Korean nationals as political leverage. Do you?

Back to the original issue:

We have already intervened in Afghanistan. We have about 30,000 - 50,000 troops there. They are fighting the Taliban and winning. We already ended the Taliban regime's control of Afghanistan. I'm curious as to what other action people think we should be taking. I might argue that we should be fighting HARDER and being more ruthless than we currently are with our hands partially tied by the ROE. But other than that, what action should we be taking in Afghanistan?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Back to the original issue:

We have already intervened in Afghanistan. We have about 30,000 - 50,000 troops there. They are fighting the Taliban and winning. We already ended the Taliban regime's control of Afghanistan. I'm curious as to what other action people think we should be taking. I might argue that we should be fighting HARDER and being more ruthless than we currently are with our hands partially tied by the ROE. But other than that, what action should we be taking in Afghanistan?

Elliot

---

Just a thought as many are talking about the humanitarian aspect of this situation...
Many of the so called taliban militants that are being killed are not just taliban forces,
What about the mostly under reported cases of women and children that are being killed in Afghanistan?
Fighting the taliban, all right I believe that, but winning?
I wonder then if US is winning why does every bomb scare or every suicide bombing is the taliban's or maybe AL Qaeda's doing?

Being more ruthless than now would be to wipe out the whole nation of Afghanistan...

Just my opinion and I am not up to fighting for my thoughts!

If any force that is contrary to global peace and regional security, hides it's militants and murders amongst the innocent civilian population, well then we should bow our heads and back out.

NOT! That makes everything more difficult for the troops on the ground. We'll have to work hard to go around that ruse. I'm not going to apologize for collateral damages, but when the people in that region don't do everything within their own villages to help us flush out the bad guys, that's tantamount to aiding and abetting! A classic example of "If you're not with us, you're against us." And we can't afford that kind of capitualance. And they can't either, long term.

I know someone will say they're frightened and being threatened. But hiding your head in the sand isn't going to help.

I agree w/ ETW that perhaps we need to step things up there.

Firmbeliever wrote

Quote:

---

I wonder then if US is winning why does every bomb scare or every suicide bombing is the taliban's or maybe AL Qaeda's doing?

---

We've seen reports that both factions want more credit for this kind of activity, and they're sprinkled around so many areas over there globe, how do we know it isn't a look-a-like that simply thinks they're right and wants to be on their side (until the vest say boom!) I'll probably never understand suicide murderers! Are they just to cowardly to stand and fight like men do? I wonder if covert ops has tried to sneak some vest to them that, as soon as the vest is fastened, the thing goes off...

I really do not think I am in a position to say what is really happening on the ground level of all the countries involved in such fights.
Troops fighting so called militants or militants fighting their so called enemies.

I only know that unless I was in the heart of the war , I could never really say if what each one is doing is justified or not.
All I know is that killing for killings sake is not allowed in Islam. Strapping oneself with bombs and going into another country where no war against Islam is being fought and to blow oneself up is not also allowed in Islam.

But if one was to look into the casualties of different wars, some ae physical injuries,while others are mental injuries, and my guess is that among the many suicide bombers there must be something which triggers people to go into the midst of inoocent people and blow themselves up.

Please refer following article
---------------
The Salafee Position on Terrorism, Suicide Bombings, and Hijackings

Learn what orthodox Salafee Scholars say concerning the what has become widespread in contemporary times of the ideologies of terrorism, suicide bombings, and hijackings, protests and revolutions as independent means of reform and societal change, clothed in garb of Islaam and Salafiyyah. These are no more than the sickly outward expressions and practical requirements of the doctrines of the likes of Sayyid Qutb [the Fusionist of Alexis Carrel's “Barbarism”, the Leninist Marxist “Revolutionary Vanguard Elite”, and Mawdudi's “Raafidee Imaamate”] as exemplified in the actions of contemporary Takfeeri, Jihaadee and Khaarijee renegade sects, masquerading their actions as Islaam and masquerading themselves as Salafiyyah.

CLICK HERE:

http://www.salafipublications.com/sp...=channel&CID=3

I would never declare war against a religion, such as Islam. But Islamic extremists have declared jihad against me and my kind, stating that if we don't share the same religion that we are all infidels and must die. And their methods are to aid killing their own: suicide murderers, etc. They started this, long before 9-11, and don't show any signs of stopping, until they are all gone. It's their call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

Recent atrocities in Iran has gotten people asking if the US should intervene, after the reports of two of the twentysomething kidnapped South Koreans have been murdered by the cowards.

This isn't the first time this century that the US has been asked to go in defense of human suffering worldwide.

With all of the rhetoric surrounding our involvement in other world theaters, as well as UN involvement worldwide, why would we want to extend ourselves any more than any other countries peoples want their own governments to step in?

---

Because that was where the war on terrorism began…the government just seems to have lost track of that detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Keep in mind that there are more similarities between Iranian leadership and Afghanistan/Taliban than many people realize. Anyone here remember the fact that Iran recently took a bunch of British sailors hostage, and tried to do the same to some Aussie sailors? I don't see much of a difference between using kidnapped Brit sailors as political leverage and using South Korean nationals as political leverage. Do you?

---

The Iranian leader gave the Soldiers that they said were in Iranian waters back because they respect Easter (as they too believe in Jesus). The Iranians were trying to get the British government to admit that the Soldiers were in Iranian waters. And when the Soldiers were returned (even though the British maintained the stance that their soldiers were not in Iranian waters), the soldiers did not have permission to speak to the media at all until the British military talked to them first. This was a rule. No solider was allowed to talk to the media before the military talked to them first. After the British military talked to their soldiers, only 6 of the 15 captured crew came to talk to the media…that's less than half of them wanting to talk to the British media to confirm that “we were never in Iranian waters”. I found this a bit bizarre.

I'm not sure if that scenario was even close to the Afghanistan one. That incident does not make those two countries similar at all…they are outstandingly different. Women in Iran go to school, are professors, women are doctors, and the Iranian leader is democratically elected through votes. That is a far far far cry from the disgusting regime of Afghanistan. Although I do admit that Mouhamad-whatever (the Iranian President) is one crazy son-of-a-bit&ch, I think it should still be made clear that the two countries (including their systems), Afghanistan and Iran, are extremely different. To come on this board and to try and make them appear similar because of the British soldiers incident is weak. Look at the way Iran handled their capture of British Soldiers versus the way Afghanistan did. In fact, Iran handled their prisoners far better than we Americans handle our “suspected terrorists”. I'm not saying the two countries do not have similarities, but I am saying they are far far far more different than they are similar.

This is all coming from a Republican who supports a War on Terror, but in the process, I believe we should not shade the truth. We should not even half-lie to strengthen our own position.

Point of order, Big10. Afghanistan didn't kidnap the S Koreans. Terrorist murderers did.

Reports from those British sailors whose chose to face the media after their release had some very different things to say about the way they were treated. We will never know, persoanlly.

I'm not proud of everything we did to some of the terrorists, but they chose to associate with the bad guys.

How about the way the terrorists deal with their own! Beheadings and other horrific executions, left to the discretion (though not discrete) of whatever crazy is in charge that day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

Point of order, Big10. Afghanistan didn't kidnap the S Koreans. Terrorist murderers did.

Reports from those British sailors whose chose to face the media after their release had some very different things to say about the way they were treated. We will never know, persoanlly.

I'm not proud of everything we did to some of the terrorists, but they chose to associate with the bad guys.

How about the way the terrorists deal with their own!! Beheadings and other horrific executions, left to the discretion (though not discrete) of whatever crazy is in charge that day!

---

Okay then lets go with what WE DO KNOW FOR SURE about how the British soldiers were treated. They came back perfectly unscratched. They came back and were released because the Iranian President recognizes Easter. Those are things we do know for sure. The British Soldiers were also (6 out of 15 of them being interviewed at the same time) were at their conference seemingly very very very healthy, and not in a state of frenzy or depression from torture (which is strange because the Iranians have been depicted as savages in the media). Although, as you say, we will never know personally what went on, these are the things we do know for sure.

As for the Afghanistan situation, I agree with you. A totally different scenario. Whereas the Iranian one has stood out internationally and will go down in history for releasing the Brits in a very healthy condition, and with respect for the Easter season, the Afghanistan situation is a testament to the savagery of the Taliban. The Afghanistan situation shows all the more reason why the Taliban must be stopped.

And yes, Captain, it's good of you to mention beheadings that terrorists do... although it is a little distracting... I'm not sure why you had to remind us of this. This is a "fact" that you have presented, but it doesn't seem to be in it's place. This is a red herring; where we discuss A, and then B is thrown in under the guise of a "good point"... as if you are sticking to "A".

OK I have brought this up before to little or know response. We are very quick to blow the whistle on Middle Eastern nations and there treatment of prisoners etc. Why are we so scared of the skeletons within our closet?

Law Council of Australia - David Hicks - Five Years Without Justice

JURIST - Forum: David Hicks and the US Military Commissions Process: Next Steps

David Hicks wasn't treated like a human or with an ounce of Justice. He was a man whose initial charges after 2 years in captivity were thrown out because they were considered unconstitutional. So in effect he was a man held five years without charge. His charges were written whilst he was in detention specifically to deal with his case.

And whilst being held was treated like an animal.

Hicks: my life of terror and torture - World - smh.com.au

The Military Commissions Act certainly doesn't seem to have humanitarian interests at heart!