Talk:Iran

2007-08-25T03:37:36Z

ElSTeve9:

QUOTE:
The debate, however, appeared to have been won decisively by the hawks following the regime's suicidal decision in late March 2007 not to promptly release 15 British sailors and marines it had captured on March 23, 2007.

"Suicidal" doesn't seem objective to me.

-Stephen

I wouldn't wish to give this article an anti-American spin, as I think is present to an extent in the Wikipedia version, but I think it's important to mention the circumstances before the revolution and the reasons for the embassy hostage incident. -Rafa

I think there should be a "proposed targets" Section possibly with diagrams potential causalty numbers etc.

: This is an encyclopedia article, not a war strategy page. I don't think the invasion of Iran should be written up as fact before it has happened, or before any leaders have committed their countries to it. --[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] 14:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== The April 2007 attack? Is there some piece of news I'm not aware of? ==

'The April 2007 attack on Iran was anything but a surprise. Websites and print media throughout the world, mostly of leftist orientation, trumpeted the imminent outbreak of war, with some even specifying that it would commence before dawn Iranian time on April 6, 2007. Wikipedia had reported as early as January 20, 2007 that the attack would come in April (quoting the Arab Times, which reported it on January 18), and that this month was chosen because British Prime Minister Tony Blair would be leaving office that summer, or even as early as May.'

I cut this. It seems to be referring to the hostage crisis, but it seems to refer to events that haven't happened. Wuh? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

I think that this article could do with adding the first 6,000 years or so of Iranian history; If no one else knows much about it I'll do it myself but I could probably only do a kind of summary.

Talk:Nicaragua

2007-08-25T03:25:52Z

ElSTeve9:

I think the mention of war between the sandinistas and the contras should be altered to refer to a war between "the sandinistas and the somoza government" to clarify who the war was fought with (well, because it's true and what is there now isn't.) Then an addition would be required to explain the development of the contras, who are not synonymous with the somoza government.

-Stephen

Cut from article:

:This was revealed, in the case Nicaragua v. the United States, heard before the International Court of Justice, to be instigated by the [[Reagan]] administration, which was worried as a result of a left-wing country within its sphere of influence. The United States government, as a result of this, refused to pay the $12 billion in reparations to Nicaragua that the court deemed appropriate, despite a UN General Assembly mandating this, and announced that it did not recognise the court. <ref>http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html</ref> <ref>http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r031.htm</ref>

What exactly was revealed?

It sounds like the previous contributor has objections to US intervention on behalf of the contras. It also sounds like the UN agrees with this contributor's objections.

It might be better to say:
*Some people and organizations objected to the US intervention
*The basis of their objection was (blank)

We should also explain the US rationale for intervention. My friend Lee Shapiro filmed a documentary on the issue, "[[Nicaragua Was Our Home]]". The film described the plight of the [[Misquito Indians]] who were being decimated by the Sandinistas.

Another question is what is meant by "democratically elected". I hear that so often; it's like a code phrase for something. Is the point that any government which comes to power via an election should forever after be immune to any alteration, reform, coup, revolution or invasion? Abe Lincoln said it was the right of the people to "alter or abolish" the US government. Should this standard apply to all governments, or should socialist governments get a pass? (Hm, sounds like a [[Debate topic]] is emerging.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I wondered how long it would take before this became a hot topic :).

'It sounds like the previous contributor has objections to US intervention on behalf of the contras. It also sounds like the UN agrees with this contributor's objections. '

The judgement of the ICJ -

[http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inus_ijudgment/inus_ijudgment_19860627.pdf ICJ judgement]

Quite clearly shows that the US intervened illegally. Unless you also don't recognise the ICJ, but that's another issue.

The UN would seem to agree -

[http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r031.htm UN Resolution]

US rationale for intervention - the fact that the Contras didn't improve matters would suggest that human rights weren't the reason - given that, at the Nicaragua v. USA trial, Father Jean Loison gave this testimony -

"Yes, I could give you several examples. Near Quilali, at about 30 kilometers east of Quilali, there was a little village called El Coco. The contras arrived, they devastated it, they destroyed and burned everything. They arrived in front of a little house and turned their machinegun fire on it, without bothering to check if there were any people inside. Two children, who had taken fright and hidden under a bed, were hit. I could say the same thing of a man and woman who were hit, this was in the little co-operative of Sacadias Olivas. It was just the same. They too had taken fright and got into bed. Unlike El Coco, the contras had just been on the attack, they had encountered resistance and were now in flight. During their flight they went into a house, and seeing that there were people there, they threw grenade. The man and the woman were killed and one of the children was injured."

About Contra kidnappings:

"I would say that kidnappings are one of the reasons why some of the peasants have formed themselves into groups. Here (indicates a point on the map) is Quilali. Between Quilali and Uilili, in this region to the north, there are hardly any peasants left of any age to bear arms, because they have all been carried off".

I'd say that the sphere of influence remark is fairly accurate.

'democratically elected' - the fact that the Sandinista government practiced political pluralism, together with the election in 1984, with electoral observers from around the world - including groups from the UN as well as many from Western Europe and independent human rights organisations - finding that the elections had been fair - I'd say they were democratically elected - the FDN had a perfect right to stand against Ortega + co through democratic channels, but they didn't. I don't like your assumption that I'm giving them a pass because they're left wing.

There - those are my suggestions. This isn't Wikipedia, so I don't have to assume good faith, but I think that, for the good of the article, I won't revert it before you have a look at these sources. I can add them in, if you think it would be helpful. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Iran

Talk:Nicaragua