Iran is 'out of step' with region: US State Department

[CamEdwards]

http://www.thewgalchannel.com/news/4...p=nationalnews

And do you seriously not see a difference between people captured on the battlefield and people captured in an Embassy?

Good Lord, man.

[Dutch]

Mr. Bigglesworth,

I have stated on a few different occassions that I was appalled by what those soldiers did in Abu Graib. So I think those soldiers were acting no better than terrorists. Try to keep up.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And do you seriously not see a difference between people captured on the battlefield and people captured in an Embassy?

Good Lord, man.

Unfortunately, everyone that is following the news knows that the people in our custody include not only those picked up on the battlefield, but also innocents taken off the streets of cities, taken away from their homes in the middle of the night, etc. Let's revisit the story of Dilawar:

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

Good Lord.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Mr. Bigglesworth,

I have stated on a few different occassions that I was appalled by what those soldiers did in Abu Graib. So I think those soldiers were acting no better than terrorists. Try to keep up.

You have on many occasions noted your approval of tactics used by the Iranians when they are used by American soldiers (held captive without trial, solitary confinement, etc). It's just plain partisan intellectual dishonesty.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm guessing the hostages felt pretty terrorized.

So now taking hostages is a terrorist act? Damn, we got a lot more terrorists in the US than I thought there were!

[panerd]

I love these partisan debates because I enjoy watching both sides look like fools. Lately it has been more Democrats than Republicans. Why does every thing have to be taken to the extreme to prove a point? Of course the Iranians who took the hostages were terrorists, they were taking people prisoner to push a political agenda on the Western countries. And some ultra-left posters are going to try to seriously post that a crack addict who holds a gun to his ex-girlfriends head during a bender has same agenda? Dream on. If you give them time the Republican posters will make a similar error but until then this thread is now balanced in favor of the red posters.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by panerd

Of course the Iranians who took the hostages were terrorists, they were taking people prisoner to push a political agenda on the Western countries.

If you change the definition of 'terrorist', then I guess you can make it fit anything. Needless to say, nobody here in the US were scared ('filled with terror', if you will) of being kidnapped by the Iranians. They also weren't killing civilians indiscriminately. Calling them terrorists, besides being incorrect, is too dismissive of the people and the situation. I'm not going to defend their actions, the Iranians were obviously wrong to hold those people captive, but we too often see things from only our side. Sometimes, when faced with a big threat, countries do crazy things (see: Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Gitmo) that look f'ed up to outside observers and many inside observers.

[ISiddiqui]

Of course the Iranians who took the hostages were terrorists, they were taking people prisoner to push a political agenda on the Western countries.

That's ridiculous. Apparently 'terrorist' can now mean anything you want it to mean, even when it doesn't involve filling a society with terror.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If you change the definition of 'terrorist', then I guess you can make it fit anything. Needless to say, nobody here in the US were scared ('filled with terror', if you will) of being kidnapped by the Iranians. They also weren't killing civilians indiscriminately. Calling them terrorists, besides being incorrect, is too dismissive of the people and the situation. I'm not going to defend their actions, the Iranians were obviously wrong to hold those people captive, but we too often see things from only our side. Sometimes, when faced with a big threat, countries do crazy things (see: Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Gitmo) that look f'ed up to outside observers and many inside observers.

They weren't terrorozing American's and their families? Like I stated earlier I have no policital agenda. I can't stand Bush, but almost care as less for the current Democratic leaders. But to compare this to Gitmo is for lack of a better word, fucking stupid.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's ridiculous. Apparently 'terrorist' can now mean anything you want it to mean, even when it doesn't involve filling a society with terror.

To assert that those that overran the U.S. embassy and held 60(?) Americans hostage for a year and change strictly for political purposes weren't terrorists, is among the most absurd thing I've seen here on this board.

Originally Posted by [b

MrGigglesworth[/b]]...Calling them terrorists, besides being incorrect, is too dismissive of the people and the situation...

This is the same ultra PC garbage that the BBC spewed when they declared that they wouldn't be calling terrorists terrorists anymore. Give me a break.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

To assert that those that overran the U.S. embassy and held 60(?) Americans hostage for a year and change strictly for political purposes weren't terrorists, is among the most absurd thing I've seen here on this board.

Aside from the fact that it's true?

Of course the "Bay of Pigs" wasn't a terrorist act, but a hostage situation due to the US harboring an Iranian criminal was... hmmmm.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by panerd

They weren't terrorozing American's and their families? Like I stated earlier I have no policital agenda. I can't stand Bush, but almost care as less for the current Democratic leaders. But to compare this to Gitmo is for lack of a better word, fucking stupid.

All I am saying is that if that is the definition you are going to use for terrorists, then tell me why the American soldiers aren't terrorists for terrorizing the Iraqi/Afghani/etc people that we are terrorizing. And you are correct, it's stupid to compare what we are doing to what the Iranians did, in many cases what we do is far worse.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

To assert that those that overran the U.S. embassy and held 60(?) Americans hostage for a year and change strictly for political purposes weren't terrorists, is among the most absurd thing I've seen here on this board.

This is the same ultra PC garbage that the BBC spewed when they declared that they wouldn't be calling terrorists terrorists anymore. Give me a break.

We invaded Iraq for political purposes. Does that make us terrorists? If you dilute the phrase to mean "any enemy of the United States" then it is practically worthless as a designation. Terrorists are bad, everyone agrees on that. But there is an effort on the right to call everyone who dares oppose the interest of the United States 'terrorists', and everyone who disagrees with that is a 'traitor'.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

We invaded Iraq for political purposes. Does that make us terrorists? If you dilute the phrase to mean "any enemy of the United States" then it is practically worthless as a designation. Terrorists are bad, everyone agrees on that. But there is an effort on the right to call everyone who dares oppose the interest of the United States 'terrorists', and everyone who disagrees with that is a 'traitor'.

Nobody is buying your BS, go burn a flag or something. FWIW, lots of people, groups, organizations, countries oppose our interests and we don't call them all terrorists. Try to be more realistic. Refine your debating skill. They are kind of weak.

[clintl]

The Embassy hostage takers were terrorists. Just about everyone on both sides of the political spectrum considered them as such at the time. I'm quite surprised to see anyone argue otherwise.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

We invaded Iraq for political purposes. Does that make us terrorists? If you dilute the phrase to mean "any enemy of the United States" then it is practically worthless as a designation. Terrorists are bad, everyone agrees on that. But there is an effort on the right to call everyone who dares oppose the interest of the United States 'terrorists', and everyone who disagrees with that is a 'traitor'.

Our Uniformed armed forces invaded Iraq, under orders from the President and Congress of the United States. Those that took the Embassy in Tehran were opportunistic thugs with automatic weapons and grenades. They weren't under the control of any Nation's armed forces or Government. They took innocents captive at gun-point, and held them by force of arms.

Based on your and Isdiqui's assertion, were those that captured the athletes in Munich, just misunderstood as well?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Third - Times change. We were in fact Neutral with that man at that time vs with the Iranians. It's common practice for foreign dignataries to shake hands and smile to one another in public, even when they are Neutral towards one another. Sometimes even when they are enemies.

There's plenty of evidence to indicate that the Reagan Administration gave military aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

Stick with me, and I'll keep you boys learned.

Learn yourself: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[ISiddiqui]

It's incredible what has turned into a terrorist act. The taking of hostages in Iran was in retaliation for us not releasing the Shah, an Iranian criminal, back to Iran. You didn't see specific demands and the unrealization of any demands leading to escalation (killing as hostage). In the end, the Iranian hostage crisis was settled by the US unfreezing the money it froze after the hostage crisis and a claims tribunal. Not exactly any political realization of extremist views which it seems people think the Iranians demanded.

And anyway, this seems to be a good, comprehensive list of commonly known as terrorist acts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rist_incidents

The Iran hostage crisis is no where to be seen.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And do you seriously not see a difference between people captured on the battlefield and people captured in an Embassy?

Right, those taxi drivers and farmers, captured on the battlefield.

Of course, given that all of Iraq is a battlefield, I suppose you're right.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's incredible what has turned into a terrorist act. The taking of hostages in Iran was in retaliation for us not releasing the Shah, an Iranian criminal, back to Iran. You didn't see specific demands and the unrealization of any demands leading to escalation (killing as hostage). In the end, the Iranian hostage crisis was settled by the US unfreezing the money it froze after the hostage crisis and a claims tribunal. Not exactly any political realization of extremist views which it seems people think the Iranians demanded.

And anyway, this seems to be a good, comprehensive list of commonly known as terrorist acts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rist_incidents

The Iran hostage crisis is no where to be seen.

It was a terrorist act. Who cares if whether it made Wikipedia's list? Kidnapping and hostage-holding to gain political leverage are violent acts that fit well within the definition of terrorism. What the Iranian students did was no different than what Hezbollah did in the 1980s when they were in the hostage-taking business in Lebanon. The fact that they were demanding the return of the Shah for trial does not in any way justify their actions. Oh, and I was around when all that was happening, and it is simply not true that the possibility of harm coming to the hostages was not a consideration and fear.

[panerd]

I am really scared for this country. Some of you Bush haters have such tunnel vision that you are talking complete nonsense. I hope that you guys weren't old enough during the Iran hostage crisis and all of your disinformation comes from Dr. Liberal professor in your modern history class. But if you were around at the time, then you have really lost all ability to think rationally. The United States are terrorists and the Iranian hostage takers were not? WTF?

As I have stated before I do not lean right at all, but fucking bullshit like this makes me scared of what the alternative on the left has to offer. Please tell me this is a select few left-wingers who were trying to make a point, went too far, and are just too stubborn to admit it and this is not how some people truly feel.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by panerd

I am really scared for this country. Some of you Bush haters have such tunnel vision that you are talking complete nonsense.

I'm scared BECAUSE of Bush and his cronies, and I'm far from a bleeding heart.

Bush has set this country back a long way in the worlds eyes with his reckless decisions and "bring 'em on!" attitude.

Let's not even mention the crippling debt and increasing illegal immigration problems.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by panerd

I am really scared for this country. Some of you Bush haters have such tunnel vision that you are talking complete nonsense. I hope that you guys weren't old enough during the Iran hostage crisis and all of your disinformation comes from Dr. Liberal professor in your modern history class. But if you were around at the time, then you have really lost all ability to think rationally. The United States are terrorists and the Iranian hostage takers were not? WTF?

As I have stated before I do not lean right at all, but fucking bullshit like this makes me scared of what the alternative on the left has to offer. Please tell me this is a select few left-wingers who were trying to make a point, went too far, and are just too stubborn to admit it and this is not how some people truly feel.

This whole mini rant here, while filled with opinion and not making a single factual point, is based on the quote that I have bolded. However, that quote is completely wrong and is merely a strawman. Nobody here that I know of has said that the United States soldiers are terrorists AND the Iranian hostage takers were not. So it kind of makes the rest of your post look asinine.

So, while I appreciate you lending your opinion, please base it off of some type of factual argument and do not limit it to 'so and so are teh suck!' Please also try and have the facts be correct. If you disagree with me, fair enough, but do not distort my argument into something that I did say.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I'm scared BECAUSE of Bush and his cronies, and I'm far from a bleeding heart.

Bush has set this country back a long way in the worlds eyes with his reckless decisions and "bring 'em on!" attitude.

Let's not even mention the crippling debt and increasing illegal immigration problems.

Hey, I am not in disagreement with you there. I don't like the man and fear that he has really set us back with the rest of the world. But as much as I don't like him his actions are far from the Iran hostage situation. And the standard in this country seems to be you have to disagree with everything the other side stands for and make awful generalizations. (The right does this all the time with gay marriage, so I am just not upset with the liberals) But the direction some posters have headed in this thread have put their credibility at about 0.

Like I stated before I hope they are young and were not around (or too young to remember) the Iran hostage crisis. Because the shit that is getting posted is far from the way me or anybody I know remembers 1980.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This whole mini rant here, while filled with opinion and not making a single factual point, is based on the quote that I have bolded. However, that quote is completely wrong and is merely a strawman. Nobody here that I know of has said that the United States soldiers are terrorists AND the Iranian hostage takers were not. So it kind of makes the rest of your post look asinine.

So, while I appreciate you lending your opinion, please base it off of some type of factual argument and do not limit it to 'so and so are teh suck!' Please also try and have the facts be correct. If you disagree with me, fair enough, but do not distort my argument into something that I did say.

fine take out the bolded part and answer the other 90% of the post.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by panerd

fine take out the bolded part and answer the other 90% of the post.

Like I mentioned before, there are no facts in the other 90%, and the other 90% seems to be based on the bolded part. Therefore, the 90% is invalidated and everything in the post has been answered already.

Is it your view though that we can hold and torture innocent people, while the Iranians can not? Do you have a reason for that other than nationalism?

[Glengoyne]

Panerd,

Thank You for coming here and showing that not everyone on the left has lost their senses. I think a lot of folks hate Bush so much that it clouds their judgement even moreso than some Republicans feelings about Clinton did for them.

As for Giggles, There are plenty of assertions, in this thread and out, that roughly equate the United States or its soldiers to Terrorists, or their acts to terrorist acts. So don't try and hide behind specific quotes.

As for your question. No it is not acceptable for the United States to hold and torture Innocent people. I expect those involved directly in those events to be punished to the full extent of the law. If that isn't being done, then I want the people not holding them accountable to answer for their actions. The soldiers involved in Abu Gharaib(sp?) and incidents like those quoted above aren't acting on the behalf of this country. Their actions are contrary to their orders. This government doesn't stand behind them or their actions.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

There's plenty of evidence to indicate that the Reagan Administration gave military aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

Rarely are you anywhere near this correct.


but I do believe that the Governments "official" position was one of Neutrality.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Panerd,

Thank You for coming here and showing that not everyone on the left has lost their senses. I think a lot of folks hate Bush so much that it clouds their judgement even moreso than some Republicans feelings about Clinton did for them.

I think you only hear what you want to hear, because Panerd has expressed many times that he thinks that he is a centrist. You don't have to be on the left to hate Bush.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for Giggles, There are plenty of assertions, in this thread and out, that roughly equate the United States or its soldiers to Terrorists, or their acts to terrorist acts. So don't try and hide behind specific quotes.

Blen, you are missing the main point. I nor anyone else has called the American soldiers terrorists. What I did do is point out that if you are going to dilute the definition of 'terrorist' as much as Dutch and others here have, then you have to call the Americans terrorists, which is absurd. So it points out the absurdity of calling the Iranians terrorists because they 'terrorized those American families'.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

As I have stated before I do not lean right at all, but fucking bullshit like this makes me scared of what the alternative on the left has to offer. Please tell me this is a select few left-wingers who were trying to make a point, went too far, and are just too stubborn to admit it and this is not how some people truly feel.

Sadly panerd, this is what passes for "reason" with a lot of these people, and a great example of why I don't bother to disguise my contempt for them.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

I am really scared for this country. Some of you Bush haters have such tunnel vision that you are talking complete nonsense. I hope that you guys weren't old enough during the Iran hostage crisis and all of your disinformation comes from Dr. Liberal professor in your modern history class. But if you were around at the time, then you have really lost all ability to think rationally. The United States are terrorists and the Iranian hostage takers were not? WTF?

As I have stated before I do not lean right at all, but fucking bullshit like this makes me scared of what the alternative on the left has to offer. Please tell me this is a select few left-wingers who were trying to make a point, went too far, and are just too stubborn to admit it and this is not how some people truly feel.

I'm a Republican (of the G.H.W. Bush / Bob Dole kind), but thanks for playing. Beyond what Mr. Bigglesworth said, what political objective were a bunch of rioters going for there back in 1979? I didn't realize they were organized either. Furthermore, I don't remember hearing that they threatened the hostages lives if they didn't get what they wanted. From everything I've heard and read, the hostages were treated fairly well.

When the US accidentally hit the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia and the protests went around the US embassy, if the Chinese demostrators ended up breaking through and taking the embassy hostage, would that be a 'terrorist' activity?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What I did do is point out that if you are going to dilute the definition of 'terrorist' as much as Dutch and others here have, then you have to call the Americans terrorists, which is absurd.

Image of Iranian terrorists victims. Were the terrorists convicted? No. In America, if you are convicted of a crime, you cannot be President. So if you were to hold hostages, you're done.


Terrorist


Accused President-Elect an ex-terrorist?

It may not be him, and I hope it's not, I truly do. But don't confuse our wish to investigate this with knowing the facts. The purpose of investigating is to determine the facts. If we should request that Guantamo Bay be investigated...again, surely we should follow this lead, just to be sure.

Also, this just in...

Iranian President-Elect May Be '89 Killer
Saturday, July 02, 2005
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161419,00.html

VIENNA, Austria — An exiled Iranian dissident on Saturday said Iran's newly elected president — already accused of taking American diplomats hostage 36 years ago — played a key role in the 1989 execution-style slayings of a Kurdish opposition leader and two associates in Vienna.

However, a top adviser to outgoing reformist President Mohammad Khatami (search), denied that President-elect Mohmoud Ahmadinejad (search) was involved in the Vienna killings. He also said the new president was not involved in the hostage-taking.

"I'm opposed to Ahmadinejad's policies and thinking, but he was not involved in the hostage drama nor in the assassination of an Iranian opposition Kurdish leader in Vienna," said Saeed Hajjarian (search), the Khatami adviser, who was reached Saturday in Tehran.

Austria's daily Der Standard, meanwhile, quoted a prominent Austrian politician as saying authorities have "very convincing" evidence linking Ahmadinejad to the attacks in Vienna in which the Kurds were killed.

The reports follow recent accusations from some of the 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days in Iran beginning in 1979 that the hard-line Ahmadinejad was among the hostage-takers.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

When the US accidentally hit the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia and the protests went around the US embassy, if the Chinese demostrators ended up breaking through and taking the embassy hostage, would that be a 'terrorist' activity?

Hypothetically, would the terrorists be unsantioned by the Chinese government and be threatening death to any hostages and have demands that had to be met in order to save the lives of the hostages?

Of course, the tricky part with Iran is that the government did sanction it (and received an $8 BILLION dollar check from the US for the hostages release--but Iran is and has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1980, so I digress.)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

...but I do believe that the Governments "official" position was one of Neutrality.

Given the context, I'd say the official position was merely a legal technicality. Bottom line: we gave military aid to Saddam Hussein and helped him (indirectly) develop his weapons program. You & Dutch can hide behind the legal technicality of stated neutrality all you want, but in real terms you're using a double standard here (and that's assuming the president-elect was a hostage-taker, which hasn't quite been proven yet).

If one man can go from a key backroom ally to the greatest possible enemy in 20 years, can not another man go from a stated enemy to a potential neutral project in the same length of time?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Given the context, I'd say the official position was merely a legal technicality. Bottom line: we gave military aid to Saddam Hussein and helped him (indirectly) develop his weapons program. You & Dutch can hide behind the legal technicality of stated neutrality all you want, but in real terms you're using a double standard here (and that's assuming the president-elect was a hostage-taker, which hasn't quite been proven yet).

If one man can go from a key backroom ally to the greatest possible enemy in 20 years, can not another man go from a stated enemy to a potential neutral project in the same length of time?

You make it sound like absolutely nothing of note happened with regard to Saddam Hussein from 1980 to 2005.

But to answer your question, thanks to US pressure from the Bush Admin, I'm guessing Qadaffi has made some progress. At least more than we were typically used to.

This Iranian guy? Well, his nation still supports terrorists, so I doubt he's a reformed terrorist. You never know, but actions speak louder than words. If he bans support to Hizbollah and any other Shia terror-groups and allows the UN to inspect and help dismantle Iran's nuclear ambitions, then sure, I'll say he's a changed man.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You make it sound like absolutely nothing of note happened with regard to Saddam Hussein from 1980 to 2005.

We supported him at a time when he was developing and testing dangerous weapons, and in general being very beastly to his populace. How's that different from the 1990s?

But to answer your question, thanks to US pressure from the Bush Admin, I'm guessing Qadaffi has made some progress. At least more than we were typically used to.

Qadaffi started changing his tone in the late 1990s because a) his dream of Arabic nationalism wasn't coming to pass and b) his oil wealth was dissapating. When he made his announcement (2003, I believe), that he'd let U.N. inspectors in to dismantle his WMD programs, it came to pass that he'd be working through back channels since the late 1990s with British officials, a process that started with both countries trying to sort out the Lockerbie mess.

This Iranian guy? Well, his nation still supports terrorists, so I doubt he's a reformed terrorist. You never know, but actions speak louder than words. If he bans support to Hizbollah and any other Shia terror-groups and allows the UN to inspect and help dismantle Iran's nuclear ambitions, then sure, I'll say he's a changed man.

Saddam Hussein was the same dangerous madman in 1983 as he was in 2003. You're employing a double standard, which is my point.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Saddam Hussein was the same dangerous madman in 1983 as he was in 2003. You're employing a double standard, which is my point.

So what are you suggesting should have happened with regard to Saddam Hussein?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So what are you suggesting should have happened with regard to Saddam Hussein?

Nice try, Dutch, but that wasn't the point.

To quote myself:

If one man can go from a key backroom ally to the greatest possible enemy in 20 years, can not another man go from a stated enemy to a potential neutral project in the same length of time?

A yes or no answer will do.

[Dutch]

It's a legitimate question that you haven't answered. Are you saying that the US should have had the goal of regime change in Iraq in 1983?

And I did answer your question - Qadaffi has become somewhat nuetral. This Iranian guy is getting into office whether or which--it's really up to him to answer your demand for a "yes or no". I suggested he could show his support for the international community by abandoning Iran's support for terrorist activities such as Hezbollah, assisting the UN in dismantling it's nuclear ambitions, and other actions such as these.

What would you think would prove or hint that he's trying to get Iran to rejoin the international community? What steps would you consider positive?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It's a legitimate question that you haven't answered. Are you saying that the US should have had the goal of regime change in Iraq in 1983?

That's rich. Tell you what, how about you answer my question, which was the first question asked in this current charade, and then we can get to your question, OK?

My question again, for reference:

If one man can go from a key backroom ally to the greatest possible enemy in 20 years, can not another man go from a stated enemy to a potential neutral project in the same length of time?

And I did answer your question - Qadaffi has become somewhat nuetral.

That's your way of answering "yes" to a yes or no question?

This Iranian guy is getting into office whether or which--it's really up to him to answer your demand for a "yes or no".

No it isn't. It's up to you to answer the above question. Let me rephrase it for you: can or can not someone change in the space of 20 years?

You seem to indicate that Hussein did, and you seem to indicate that Qadaffi did. Yet you're not willing to extend the same grace to Ahmadinejad.

I suggested he could show his support for the international community by abandoning Iran's support for terrorist activities such as Hezbollah, assisting the UN in dismantling it's nuclear ambitions, and other actions such as these.

Until such a time as he does these things, though, he's a terrorist, right? Even though 25 years have passed? Even though it's not been proven he was a hostage taker?

What would you think would prove or hint that he's trying to get Iran to rejoin the international community? What steps would you consider positive?

Jesus, he's not even taken office yet. Can we wait and see, you know, just a little bit? Or must it always be a rush to judgment for you?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

and received an $8 BILLION dollar check from the US for the hostages release

The $8 Billion was Iranian assets in the US that had been frozen after the hostage crisis began. So, obviously, that money was going to be unfrozen after release.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But to answer your question, thanks to US pressure from the Bush Admin, I'm guessing Qadaffi has made some progress. At least more than we were typically used to.

That's not how it went down at all. The Libyans couldn't give a crap about us--much like the Iranians, their economy is linked closely with Europe. The unilateral sanctions (and military actions) imposed by the US in the 1980s did nothing to hurt the Libyans, since their trade with Western Europe (who elected not to impose sanctions) was as healthy as ever. The Libyans f-ed up royally by involving themselves with Lockerbie: the Libyans were hurt by the multilateral sanctions imposed by the UN post-Lockerbie.

By the late 90s, Qaddafi (and his ego) realized that he could be a player in African politics/diplomacy and that his economy would continue to slide if ties to Europe weren't restored soon, any ties to terrorism would be counter-productive in either case. Hence, Libya's cooperation on Lockerbie and the re-embrace with Western Europe.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What would you think would prove or hint that he's trying to get Iran to rejoin the international community? What steps would you consider positive?

Iran is already part of the international community. Iran has decent relations with pretty much everyone except the US, Israel, and Saddam era Iraq. Trade with Western Europe is pretty strong, and the Europeans are pouring a lot of money into the country much like they are doing in Cuba.