miditek wrote:Persians do not respect "diplomacy".
NeonVomit wrote:Nice. Watched 300 recently? Same way that 1 billion people in the world want to see everyone else either convert, or die, correct?
Careful how you put things. Not only can it potentially be racist and offensive, but simply inaccurate.
Neither Persians nor Arabs respect weakness, or the perception of weakness. Why did Tehran hold American hostages for 444 days during the Carter Administration, only to release them moments before the Reagan Administration took power? The answer there is simple: they knew very well what Reagan was likely to do. If this were not the case, then the hostages would have still been held, and this was based on Teheran's
perception of Reagan, and they elected not to take any chances.
Just like the here and now; Iran seized British sailors as opposed to Americans- since they (correctly) perceived what the likely outcome would be. Iran will do this, and worse, again in the future. You'll see.
NeonVomit wrote:(Oh and for the record, they refer to themselves as 'Iranians'. They speak Persian. Just a little detail there.)
In America, they refer to themselves as "Persians", I should know since my cousin is married to one, and I also have several business partners in Philadelphia that would say the same thing. In other words, it can be a little hazardous to your health in some areas to openly admit to being an Iranian. Also, they refer to their native language as "Farsi" rather than Persian. My cousin speaks to her daughters in English, while their dad typically addresses them in Farsi.
NeonVomit wrote:Foreign policy is a lot more complicated than you're making it out. There are many, many things that go on behind the scenes that we will never know of.
Like convoys of trucks sneaking across the border to Iran and Syria on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Such as Iran's and Syria's continued interference in Iraq? Russia continuing to arm Iran?
Oh yes, it's complex alright. However, the fact remains that, like a dog, if an enemy sees weakness or fear, he will exploit the situation to his advantage. Some facets of human nature do not change, even when ran through PC (political correctness) filters.
NeonVomit wrote:And why do you continue to believe that Ahmandinejad is in charge when it has been clearly explained that he is not? You seem to want him to be a figurehead, and he's playing his role perfectly as far as you're concerned, getting all the attention while the Ayatollah and the council are pretty much ignored. They keep quiet and get along running the country.
What difference does it make by whom is running the country- officially or unofficially? It is a rogue regime, and the US State Department has been doing its best to isolate the regime over the years, but if you look at the numbers, it appears that the EU is Iran's biggest trading partner. (Thanks, Brussels!)
NeonVomit wrote:Before you say it, I'm not excusing anyone of anything, but how different was the whole situation from the way human rights are clearly being violated at Guantanamo Bay? Perhaps they believe they were justified in doing something similar, if for no other reason than to prove a point.
Why should anyone give a flying fuck about what's going on at Guantanamo? These are enemies of the west being held there, and they are lucky to still have their heads attached to their bodies! Geneva does not offer any protection to irregulars, not to mention spies, saboteurs, etc.
You seem to believe that this is a gulag or a stalag, which is not a completely accurate statement. So, you are more concerned with the "rights" of terrorists than you are with stopping them from doing their handiwork? What would you say if Gitmo was filled with Turks rather than Arabs? Would your opinion be, perhaps, somewhat different?
Also, why no complaints about Iranian, Syrian, or Egyptian jails? Why is it always Gitmo? Does everyone else get a pass since they are not American?
Food for thought, I reckon.
