Talk:Support for military action against Iran

The contents of the Talk:Support for military action against Iran page were merged into Talk:Views on military action against Iran. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article talk page please see its history.

Deletion of article

This article was nominated for speedy deletion, but the nominator failed to present any speedy deletion criteria. Editors who feel this article should be deleted should nominated it through the AfD process. Rklawton 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can well understand why this article has been nominated for fast deletion. It raises almost every warning flag I've ever seen on a Wikipedia article. On bias alone, it should have been sent to oblivion long ago. I only came to this discussion page to suggest the "Opposition" article should be merged and not tucked under the warmongering one, and that the poll statistics are presented in a fraudulent way. Some lawyers might be interested in the assertions the author of this article has made. As a former soldier, I do not appreciate conflict being sold so candidly by civvis either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.71.229 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iran: Another Perspective. A Photo Tour

can we create a new section for that?

"Thousands of friends are far too few, an enemi is too much"

Thank you. 69.116.234.208 07:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here: Opposition to war against Iran Rklawton 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean a new section for your youtube video, you could of course form a new page, but my guess would be that it would qualify and quickly succumb to speedy deletion, a move which I would wholeheartedly support. Rudy Breteler 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support or marketing the war on Iran?

The war on Iran is a product that is being marketed in the same way as the Iraq war was. Like with any new product, you create the necessity, and then offer the solution. The title of this article should reflect that. I suggest it to be changed to marketing the war on Iran. --tequendamia 02:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would be a good idea. Support reflects the grievances needed to market the war.--Southern Texas 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing implies commercialism. There is no product being sold. Therefore, although you may feel that the techniques used in promoting military action against Iran are similar to those used in some forms of marketing, this is not an appropriate name change for the article, but would rather introduce bias (which is your real intent anyway, isn't it?) Rudy Breteler 04:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do think that would be a good idea. Especially since the article is entitled "American military action" and not even "Support for American military action". A neutrally titled article should present the "Opposition" section in THE SAME ARTICLE. And given that your polls suggest that THE MAJORITY DO NOT WANT A WAR WITH IRAN, the poll results should be changed from "40%" to "60% said they do not want to go to war with Iran". The same with 55% and another 60%, by the very polls cited here.

And this is the most wonderfully classic hypocrisy and oxymoron I've read in a long time:

"Marketing implies commercialism. There is no product being sold. "but would rather introduce bias (which is your real intent anyway, isn't it?)" Rudy Breteler 04:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Marketing does NOT imply commercialism, the techniques are exactly the same, if not more deceptive, when called Propaganda. Which we can change it to if you'd prefer.

And as for bias...that is the whole reason that Tequendamia and others are disputing this article. And appealing its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.71.229 (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge|Opposition to military action against Iran

The administrator that closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support for war against Iran suggested this article be merged with Opposition to military action against Iran--Victor falk 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and perhaps the article's name could be changed to, Opinions toward potential military action against Iran. --Southern Texas 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hm.. why not just "Opposition and support for military support against Iran"?--Victor falk 14:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the title "Opposition and support for military action against Iran" as it is the clearest possible title for the article. Jayran 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed "opinions" because there are many who have views that are not support nor oppose. I think it is too broad an issue to put such a one dimensional title, which expresses that people are only either supporters or opposers. There is a middle road and I would like the new article to express this. --Southern Texas 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I opined on the other page they should not be merged because "In case of catastrophic war it's important that people know that Israel and its supporters were the main people pushing the war, as the Support for page does show - and copious more evidence can be added and I might do so. Merging them would set off too many editing wars, especially if there is a real war, at least for the few days until the whole thing escalates into nuclear holocaust." Boy am I snotty!! Anyway, when does this subject become moot so we can delete the front page notes? Carol Moore 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Yes it should, that argument makes the most sense. I am strongly opposed to edit warring and any little thing that we can do to prevent that should be done.--Southern Texas 22:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever name we agree upon, I firmly believe that these two articles should be merged. Rudy Breteler 05:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section

The article contained an unsourced section dealing with Iranian support for attacks on IRan. The text was:

According to the National Public Radio source, the silent majority of Iranians inside and outside of Iran support surgical and precise aerial and naval attacks on military installations of the Quds and IRGC (Islamic Republic Guard Corps) and the leadership establishments. There are currently 2000-2500 hard core mullahs and their supporters in key positions in the government. By targeting their interests, some Iranian people will see the opportunity to rise and remove the weak remnants of the battered regime. By following this strategy some claim that America would have accomplished 5 objectives.

NPR did not make this claim in the interview it was sourced to. Find real impartial surveys as to what the discontent is with the current President as well as the idea of the government being an Islamic Republic (these are two different things.) Repeating a talking point from a AEI resident doesn't cut it. --20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not really a big deal. It would be good if you could rephrase it somehow to reflect what the source does say instead of deleting the whole section in this article in need of expansion.--Southern Texas 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is ok to remove unfactual or inacurate information, but in the case of this article which is in need of expantion, it would have been better to change the section so that it reflected what the source actually did say, rather then ridding us of a perfectly good source Rudy Breteler 05:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where I am coming from is that I know that many Iranian dissidents think that an attack on Iran will strengthen the government or lead to a major unnecessary loss of life. Such as this conversation between Nobel prizing winning dissident Shirin Ebadi and Radio Fardi (a US-funded radio channel) [1]:

RFE/RL: There are increasing reports about a possible U.S. military strike against Iran, although U.S. officials say they are committed to diplomacy, What impact would a U.S. military attack against Iran have on Iranian society?

Ebadi: As I said, breaches of human rights are widespread in Iran. But that doesn't mean that I believe the solution to Iran's problems is a military attack. A military attack will under any circumstances worsen our situation. It'll give the government the opportunity to use defense of national security as a pretext to increase its suppression of defenders of freedom. This is what we're currently witnessing. Whoever speaks of democracy and human rights in Iran is accused of receiving funds from the United States' $75 million budget [for Iranian civil-society and human rights programs] and of trying to launch a velvet revolution in Iran. Therefore, a military attack, and even the threat of a military attack, against Iran won't improve the human-rights situation in the country.

RFE/RL: What advice would you give to U.S. policy makers?

Ebadi: Policy makers in the United States have their own advisers. So instead of giving them advice, I will recommend to Iranian policy makers to help solve people's problems, to listen to people's demands and to reduce the gap between the government and the people. In sensitive situations, the government has to strengthen its popular support.

Also here is another conversation with Ebadi.

I watched an interview with Azar Nafisi, the author of "Reading Lolita in Tehran", another vocal Iranian dissident. She also has spoken out against military action saying that military action will harm and set back Iran's people. I saw this interview on "McLaughlin's One on One" on PBS a couple months ago. I can't find a transcript of this program on online. I do see that Google picks up a transcript for this NPR program but when you click on the link you have to pay for the transcript. In that transcript on Google is this quote from Azar "So I don't think that the United States should or needs to attack Iran." --Lucretius 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Perspective

I find that this article, which is brief to begin with, only addresses the issue from an American point of view. There are, of course, other countries which have stated that the military option is not off the table- France, England, and Germany to name a few- and others which would most likely be directly involved and within which there is limited to large support for military action, such as Turkey and many of the Arab states. But missing most blatantly, obviously, is any refference to Israel, and the wide public support in Israel and the world-wide Jewish population for a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. Rudy Breteler 05:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing also is the fact that the Israel Lobby in this country is the main proponent of such an attack, along with their neocon representatives through the government and Think Tank world, and they are bullying US politicians to go along with it. Yes, this article is seriously lacking in info!

Carol Moore 18:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Your terms are decidedly un-neutral and narrative is a product of original research. Perhaps you should find some authority on the matter with your views to feed into a constellation of perspectives both criticizing and defending the position. --Rev Prez (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel something is missing then click the edit button and add it.--S TX 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's my line!! So many articles, so little time!

Carol Moore 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[User:Carolmooredc]] User talk:Carolmooredc

Small quote correction

The quote in the article is not correct. McCain said: "You know that Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bo--uh, anyway..." and then continued with his speech. Any objections to changing it? BTW, here's the video where you can watch him saying it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I&feature=related Graymornings (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this US right centric nonsense

Seriously, what? Its all just talking points by some current and former politicians. Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: uncontested move. DrKiernan (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military action against Iran → Support for military action against Iran – As this article is a complement to Opposition to military action against Iran, and not a broad overview of military action in general, it should be renamed to make clear it only presents one side of the issue. Kernsters (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support this clearly isn't about the Iran-Iraq War or Operation Desert Sword, so the current title is wrong. Though both pro and con articles should address temporality since they only concern the Post-9/11 world, and not other points in history. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]