Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by Gujjar, Dec 13, 2011.
What's your opinion on threatening of US to Iran on its missile program?
Back in the 50s it was for oil...
Paul Vallely: War on Iran has begun. And it is madness - Commentators - Opinion - The Independent
...this time it's a mixture of oil, pressure from powerful pro-Israel lobbies in the US, and Iranian efforts to expand their zone of influence clashing with US designs in that region.
No it's because missiles make very good delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads.
Following the WMD in Iraq fiasco do you still believe this scaremongering?
WMD fiasco? You don't know much more than what the local media reports on, do you?
There was a LOT more to Iraq than the intelligence reports of WMDs. How quickly people are to forget that Saddam was left in power after Desert Shield (do I need to remind you the horrible things he did to cause us to show up on scene then?) with a VERY specific set of guidelines he was required to follow. Not only was he not to attempt to attain WMDs but he was ALSO required to allow UN inspectors to make sure he was abiding by this very important rule. After almost a decade of not allowing inspectors into the country and thumbing his nose at the US and all we stood for daring us to do something about it we finally decided to take him up on that after 9/11. We were at a point where we decided that waiting for threats to materialize resulted in WAY too high of an innocent body count and decided to neutralize any and all threats to the US and who do you think was at the top of that list? Iraq. You can only rattle the cage of a sleeping dog for so long before he lashes out in retaliation. Not only was he not complying with the very rules he agreed to in order to remain in power but he was actively attempting (if not successfully) to attain yellow cake uranium as well as many other chemical agents all of which he agreed not to do and when faced with these blatant violations he proceeded to not deny any of it as some sort of a scare tactic. For many years the UN was aware of these blatant violations and transgressions and in order to avoid additional conflict that would cause the loss of human life the decision was made to begin sanctioning Saddam into cooperation. The sanctions were doing nothing and meanwhile he was torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his own innocent people. Ask me if I'm sorry we invaded Iraq? Hell no. The world is a safer place because of it and the people of Iraq as well as neighboring nations by and large are thankful for what we did. Sure you will see a few that have something negative to say but, much like news here, the happy & appreciative people don't make the news. It's the angry and disgruntled people who make the news and suddenly they're the voice of a nation/race/religion. The fact of the matter remains that Saddam was a threat to us, citizens of Iraq and free nations all around the region.
Iran is not Iraq.
Because the country is run by a bunch of radical muslims. They have threatened many countries including the U.S. but especially Isreal. So yea let's let them make missles that can deliver a nuclear weapon.
We need to stop them period. Iran obtaining nukes would be big trouble for the middle east, because the People who run Iran would probably use them and call for jihad.
Yes I know not all muslims are radical, but the ones in question are.
No WMD were found in Iraq. In light of what certain people said in the build up to the war, calling it a 'fiasco' is an understatement:
I don't wish to rehash the old arguments about Iraq, but specifically the lies about WMD are relevant because they are using the same bs scaremongering tactics they used 9 years ago. The old "you fool me once, shame on you..." saying comes to mind.
Did I once try to argue this statement? All of my points are still relevant.
The fact that no WMD were found and that the yellowcake procurement claims turned out to be bogus, undermine this:
And what I posted illustrates how the US (and UK for that matter) administration deliberately lied and mislead people regarding the threat from Saddam. How could they have got it so wrong? They were BSing, that's how.
We're seeing the same scaremongering tactics now with respect to Iran. Sad to see people being duped all over again.
Yeah, you're right. Saddam was a threat to nobody & the world is worse off w/o him alive. You sure proved me wrong.
Glad to be of service but for the record, Iraqis hated Saddam and they are better off without him. That doesn't change the fact that our governments lied to us about the threat from him when making the case for war. That's where it parallels with the case being made for war against Iran.
It is well worth noting the difference between how Iraqis felt about Saddam and how Iranians feel about their government. The latter enjoys fairly popular support and even those Iranians that hate their government would hate Western interference even more. To the extent that any Western attack would unite the country against us.
You just want to argue. I got involved because you brought up Iraq and said it was just like Iran. Then you said you didn't want to reach into the past to discuss Iraq when I made valid points. Then you agreed with me when I said the nation of Iraq (and the rest of the world as an extension) and it's people were better off as a result regardless of the many reasons (you see fit to focus on but one for some reason) we had to go to war to begin with. There were many, many, MANY solid reasons for that war & the anti-war media found a single reason which ended up being harder to prove (I happen to have knowledge that suggests otherwise but it's classified and will be for quite some time) and focused on it as if that was the ONLY reason presented to congress. 9/11 was a game changer & we were no longer to be content with large threats to our nation and their saber rattling which we thought was harmless. Once we lost thousands of American lives to these types of individuals we made the decision as a nation to take the war to those who would mean to do us harm and had the means to do so before they were able to act. At the top of that list: Osama Bin Laden. Next up: Saddam Hussein. OBL wasn't as easy to track down as Saddam and we had solid info to point to the fact that OBL had spent some time in Iraq and most likely was indeed in that country at the time we invaded. Two birds. One stone. Once we discovered threat #1 had absconded from said nation we still had threat #2 on the hook. You wanted us to just toss him back?
Would you rather have a POTUS like Obama that illegally goes to war w/o the backing of Congress? He didn't even bother to try to present reasons and facts he just acted which is a blatant violation of the position which he holds.
If I had it my way we wouldn't invade any nation. We would also cut off all foreign aid and support and back door deals immediately as we have our own problems here. We would issue a stern warning to the world that anyone who means to the US any harm will be met with consequences previously unimaginable. I would then peacefully go about our business and the first nation that dared challenge us we would take it to them with the FULL force of our entire military might and make the act so swift and brutal that nobody would dare question the US and it's threats from that point forward.
But I digress. You're going to believe whatever you want, facts be damned. Have at it.
Okaaaaaaaay, let's everyone pull in your horns, go easy on the dramatic rhetoric and discuss this civilly please. "Attack issues, not people", remember? Oh, and avoid sweeping generalisations (on either side) that may cause unwitting offence to others reading from the sidelines.
Is it too late to nominate Ostrich for President?
^The trouble with that line of thinking is you really need aircraft carriers to project force if your target is on the other side of the world. Very expensive, and something you can't do overnight. You also need people on the ground...you can't win wars just by dropping bombs. That's even more expensive. Recent events (the shoot down over Iran) has also shown that drones aren't a complete solution either.
Because ignoring Iran would be the same mistake we made ingnoring Hitler's Germany.
It's the same concept. We let Hitler and Germany build up their armed forces over 7 years , we stood back did nothing, and it lead to WWII.
Same concept here. We are supposed to learn from history. Not make the same mistake.
The worst thing the Iranians are actually doing is their influence and interference in the affairs of other Middle Eastern countries. It's one of the reasons why the Saudis dislike them. They blame the Iranians for the unrest in Eastern SA and Bahrain during the Arab Spring among other things.
I don't like it, however, it's no worse than the interference by the US, UK, France, China or Russia or that of the Saudis themselves in the region. Ultimately, this clash of interests is one of the main reasons for this conflict.
Foreign policy has nothing to with childish notions of good vs evil or protecting the fair and the free. It's every major player trying to secure and increase their power and wealth. The righteous rhetoric serves to get the electorate eager and on board. Once we understand this, we can begin to understand global current affairs.
Unfortunately I don't yet meet all of the requirements but I will by the 2016 election so look for me at a booth near you then!
Edit: Of current candidates Ron Paul probably is the closest to my stance on most topics so if you want nice head start to the OstrichSak/Stewart 2016 contingency vote Ron Paul 2012!
I don't hear any problems here. We do have aircraft carriers. Lots of them. We have wonderful men and women that make them run like a top as well. Who says we need people on the ground? Who says we can't just win with air support? I didn't say anything about a long occupation of a foreign country I'm talking about a show of might to prove we mean what we say and it's best to stay on our good side and not even attempt to challenge us. The problem is we get caught up negotiating with bullies which costs TONs of time & money and serves only to give the bully more confidence. You deal with a bully one way and one way only; you warn them and if they don't heed that warning you smack 'em in the mouth. Hard. Trying to be diplomatic with a bully is an exercise in futility.
As for the drone situation... that whole situation was handled wrong from the beginning. Our SCOTUS has failed us at every step of that and now we must suffer the repercussions. Unmanned drones are indeed the answer to most of our problems however and work quite well with what I've stated if they're handled properly. This means if downed one must be ready to do what it takes to recover or destroy immediately. Not waiting several days and asking a bully nicely for our lunch money back. Good luck with all that.
I used some more childish notions to prove that sometimes the simplest solution is the best. Problem is the simple solution doesn't line the coffers of the 'consultants' who come up with the complicated and less effective plans. If we were all about wealth why are we so far in debt? You know how easy it would be to conquer the entire world if that was what our plan was? Your 'quest for world domination' theory is entertaining and is just the sort of thing that gets headlines & draws in people who can't think for themselves but it's not entirely accurate.
I realise that with both beginning with the same letter it's confusing, but Iran is the topic; Iraq is off-topic, as is other general geo-political discussion. If it doesn't fit in to this topic, it deserves a separate one of its own.
The pursuit of power and wealth underpinning the foreign policies of most major nations is the simplest and most elegant explanation for conflicts we are witnessing today. When do you ever hear an analysis of this making headlines?
Anyway, another way to analyse this conflict with Iran is to simply look at our history with the country. Back in '53 when the CIA and MI6 colluded to overthrow the democratically elected Mossadegh and replace him with the tyrant, Shah, was it because the former was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, threatening us, his neighbours or his people? No, we did it for oil.
In 1980 when the US encouraged and heavily supported Saddam (our friend back then) in his war against Iran including providing him with WMD to use on the Iranians (we knew he was using it on his own people too btw), was the latter pursuing a nuclear weapons programme or threatening us in any way at all? The answer is again a resounding no.
In light of that, nobody with knowledge of the history of the region could fall for the scaremongering used to hype up Iran Part III. There's always another agenda and you have to think away from the headlines to work out what that is.
Not only the first letter, but the middle two!
Also, does anyone have some unbiased new on this topic, I am very uninformed (besides tv news >.>).
This may be on the border of off topic, but I do think it fits.
A lot of people believe in "End Days" or something similar (be it in their religion or in 2012 Mayan calendar things...) and well, now with nuclear weapons, mankind could actually cause the end of days, which to me is scary. Let's hope against a self fulfilling prophesy in this case
You could start with reading some of the articles by Robert Fisk about Iran. He has lived in Beirut for over 30 years and there are few Western journalists that come even close to matching his knowledge when it comes to the Middle East.
The problem is that these days his focus is more on Syria and Egypt so there might not be a lot of fresh stuff from him about Iran but it's still worth reading his older articles to help piece together the bigger, long term picture in the context of history.
The price of oil has been dropping. Many of these countries need the oil revenue to keep their people in line... Iran more then most.
So the Iran leaders rattle their sabers and the price goes back up.
On top of that you have plenty of big corporations and politicians in their pockets seeing their profits being cut because we are winding down the 2 wars. They are more then happy to join in the rhetoric to try to manufacture excuses to keep defense spending high.
And for the trifecta... it's a general election year. Obama's perceived weakness ( and a perceived republican strength ) has instead turned into his strength. Republican candidates will join in the rhetoric so they can attack him on it.