Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Iran- A lion that cannot be stopped?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Question: Why is the world playing the negotiating game with this sociopathic extremist dictator? This goes to show that whenever a crazy leader like this does something disasterous in the world, it could have, and should have been stopped. There is no negotiating with a person like this. He will see the western world fall, and see islamic extremism rise, or he will do whatever he can to make it happen. We should not give him a chance.

Actually there is nothing new of the world's pacifist reaction. Several years before Hitler came to power in Germany, like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hitler informed the world through his book Mein Kampf, how Hitler planned to enslave Europe. The world especially the liberal media just laugh at him. Ten years before World War 2, Winston Churchill strongly warned the world the dangers of Hitler but the newspaper & radio ridiculed his warnings. The world strongly influenced by liberal media made the fatal mistake of relying on the League of Nations to contain Hitler. It is no small matter for the liberal media to be wrong on Hitler! Now the world strongly influenced by liberal media is unfortunately making the fatal mistake of relying on the very unreliable United of Nations to contain President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Is history repeating itself only this time with more dangerous nuclear weapons? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Why is the world playing the negotiating game with this sociopathic extremist dictator? This goes to show that whenever a crazy leader like this does something disasterous in the world, it could have, and should have been stopped. There is no negotiating with a person like this. He will see the western world fall, and see islamic extremism rise, or he will do whatever he can to make it happen. We should not give him a chance.

Actually there is nothing new of the world's pacifist reaction. Several years before Hitler came to power in Germany, like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hitler informed the world through his book Mein Kampf, how Hitler planned to enslave Europe. The world especially the liberal media just laugh at him. Ten years before World War 2, Winston Churchill strongly warned the world the dangers of Hitler but the newspaper & radio ridiculed his warnings. The world strongly influenced by liberal media made the fatal mistake of relying on the League of Nations to contain Hitler. It is no small matter for the liberal media to be wrong on Hitler! Now the world strongly influenced by liberal media is unfortunately making the fatal mistake of relying on the very unreliable United of Nations to contain President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Is history repeating itself only this time with more dangerous nuclear weapons? :dough:

The world, especially the Brits, managed to "muddle through" the disaster wrought by Neville Chamberlain. That was a different time. Aerial Bombardment was in its infancy and wars, ever so bloody and messy, never endangered the survival of the human race. Now we live with viruses that can be purchased on the internet, nuclear weapons which can be readily built, radiological weapons (radioactive waste plus high explosives) which -anyone- can build, chemical agents which can poison a city water supply and good old plastic explosives and fertilizer bombs which can blow up bridges and tunnels). In short, our opportunities for "muddling through" are gone. Unfortunately our political leaders (the curse of democracies is to be governed by fools) still haven't caught on. They are unclear on the concept.

We are in deep deep kimchi and we are in the midst of a Culture War, whether our Fearless (and Stupid) Leaders wish to admit it or not. They are still channeling the ghost of Neville Chamberlain.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

In other news, the United States has detained two suspected smugglers in Iraq who are supposedly linked to Iran's al Quds force, the branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that answers directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran. I wonder what effect this will have on the upcoming meeting between the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The United States Government is currently considering labeling the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization or possibly just the al Quds branch (those who directly answer to the Supreme Leader). The IRGC group is part of the Islamic Republic of Iran's military.

This should be interesting.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States Government is currently considering labeling the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization or possibly just the al Quds branch (those who directly answer to the Supreme Leader).

This seems like just another sign of our timid and weak foreign policy under Bush. How absurd is it to label the Iranian military or just the Al Quds branch a terrorist organization? It's pretty clear that Iran considers us to be their enemy and they're actively engaged in killing American soldiers in Iraq. Applying a new label to the Iranian military isn't going to stop their aggressive behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a rather odd thing to do. While it "ups the rhetoric", it also points to the lack of moral certainity in the U.S. The "Guard" is not a rogue unit, it is controlled by the Iranian government. This would be like the US in WW-II declaring war against the Waffen SS, not against Germany. The Libertarian chickens come home to roost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States Government is currently considering labeling the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization or possibly just the al Quds branch (those who directly answer to the Supreme Leader). The IRGC group is part of the Islamic Republic of Iran's military.

This should be interesting.

Indeed. Which raises a general question: Is there a legal mode in which the U.S. can militarily act against an adversary which is NOT a nation-state or a government? Answer: Yes. Congress can issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal authorizing the executive branch to take such actions.

On the other hand, I would not hold my breath until Congress summons up the courage to do any such thing.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of "terrorism" is hotly debated. But one aspect that has pretty much universal support among scholars and experts is that a terrorist group is by definition not a state actor.

This new labeling is ridiculous and a pitiful attempt at shoring up support for a war...one that can certainly be supported without misnaming our enemy. It's kind of reminiscent of Fox News' policy of referring to suicide bombers as "homicide bombers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Bush intends to stick with the doctrine he laid down in 2001, then the designation of an Iranian military unit as a terrorist group should mean American can attack Iran as a country that harbors a terrorist group.

Given the conditions we live in, though, I think Bush will first go after the IRGC diplomatically first (pressuring our so-called allies to seize their foreign assets and such) before, if ever, he attacks Iran militarily.

Of course, in a rational world Congress and the media would be screaming their heads off at Bush to bomb Iran back to the stone age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

*** Mod's note: Moved some posts from another thread, to this one - sN ***

How about some less sensationalist facts for consideration. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/the-fa...ium-enrichment/

This link barely contains any information and offers no valid counterpoints. Consider this quote:

Iran enriched the uranium using a cascade of 164 centrifuges that spin uranium hexafluoride gas at supersonic speed. This process extracts U-235—usable in power reactors and nuclear weapons—from the gas. The enriched uranium that Iran produced cannot be used in a nuclear weapon because it contains just 3.5% U-235, whereas a nuclear weapon typically requires highly-enriched uranium (HEU) that contains more than 90% U-235. Assuming Iran has perfect luck with the centrifuge, it would need to operate this cascade continually for more than five years to produce enough HEU (15-20 kg, roughly the size of a basketball) for a crude nuclear bomb.

This quote essentially seems to argue that it will take a really long time for Iran to produce weapons-grade uranium using centrifuges configured for low uranium enrichment. Of course. The source I have provided argues that there is significantly more work in being able to produce low-enriched uranium (LEU) from no uranium enrichment at all than it is to subsequently transition from LEU to HEU.

Consider this one:

To acquire a credible nuclear weapons capability, Iran’s next step is to use this successful experiment as the basis for building a 3,000 centrifuge cascade at Natanz, as Iran has frequently claimed it would do. In theory, such a facility would be capable of producing enough HEU for 2-3 bombs a year. Building such a facility, however, is far more difficult and demanding than operating the 164 centrifuge cascade.

According to President Ahmadinejad, Iran has already reached its goal of running 3,000 centrifuges. So according to ThinkProgress.org this was difficult and demanding but the Islamic Republic of Iran still has managed to pull through at least according to the claims of their President.

CNN.com elaborates:

As recently as Thursday, a report drawn up by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, put the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at closer to 2,000 at its vast underground hall at Natanz.

The 2,000 figure is an increase of a few hundred of the machines over May, when the IAEA last reported on Iran. Still the rate of expansion is much slower than a few months ago, when Tehran was assembling close to 200 centrifuges every two weeks.

This sensationalism and fear mongering ...

If you want to claim that Iran's aggressive military-run nuclear program is not a threat, you need to address the facts. Calling a list of well researched and appropriately stated facts "sensationalism and fear-mongering" is not a valid counterargument.

Edited by softwareNerd
Added posts-moved note.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link barely contains any information and offers no valid counterpoints.

i.e., "Blank Out"

Reality is knocking...

Anyone home?

Michael Scheuer is his name btw, if you'd like to look into it. He's just former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit. Clearly not an authority.

Syria and Iran: The Threats That Aren't

by Michael Scheuer

In reference to coercive British rule, Tom Paine once told Americans that there is something absurd about the idea that the entire continent of North America should be forever ruled by the little island of Great Britain. Paine, as always in his work, was trying to make Americans think for themselves and, in this case, to see that their own geographic size, rising wealth, and potential power made it ridiculous for them to forever acquiesce to rule from London.

Paine's lesson is apt today in regard to both Syria and Iran. Since I was a young man – now a fading memory – I have heard U.S. politicians warn of the threat presented to America by Syria. There is, of course, something superficially plausible about this. We know that Syria is another of the Muslim world's family-run dictatorships – most of the others are U.S. allies – and that the Assad boys are murderous autocrats and thugs. Likewise, our Israeli friends and their Israel-first American supporters have long harped on the idea – and thereby have misled Americans – that Syria is a military threat to the United States.

But look at the map. Syria is a tiny country, dirt poor except for weapons, and ruled by a dentist. It also is being slowly undermined by the Islamists who the Assads have foolishly tried to co-opt. It is an insignificant dot on the map that poses no threat whatsoever to the United States. If Damascus allows Islamist fighters into Iraq to attack coalition forces, America should take steps to end that situation. But as much as we talk about the issue, we do nothing about it, probably because the inflow from Syria is not as large as the inflow from our great and good ally Saudi Arabia. Besides, allowing the inflow from Syria to continue gives Senator Lieberman – the current poster boy of America's Israel-firsters – the ability to beat the war drum against the supposedly mighty Syrians. Surely, if Senator Lieberman truly believes the Syrians are a threat to America, the people of Connecticut have sent – hopefully unwittingly – someone akin to the agent of a foreign power to the U.S. Senate. Syria might be a threat to Israel, but the idea that it is a threat to the United States, that the armored Syrian horde may sweep across the Bronx, occupy Manhattan, and lasciviously ogle New Jersey, should be met with the most appropriate response possible – convulsive and derisive laughter.

And then there is Iran. How does one explain the U.S. governing elite's fear of Iran? Here we have a country that admittedly is led by one of the world's more histrionic politicians, but one that also is ringed by U.S. military bases and surrounded by an overwhelmingly more numerous Sunni world that hates Shi'ites far more than it hates Westerners. Iran‘s Islamic regime, moreover, is helplessly watching the final stages of the march of its energy resources toward oblivion, and preparing for the impoverishment and resulting internal political instability that event will usher in.

So where in this portrait is the threat to the United States? While Iran is a threat to Israel, there is surely no threat to America in Iran's less-than-impressive military forces, nuclear development program, or unattractive public diplomacy. No, the threat to the United States comes from two sources. First, the relentless "Iran is the new Nazi Germany" propaganda pushed by Israel and the American citizen Israel-firsters, and, second, the multi-decade failure of the U.S. Congress to seriously address the national-security issues of energy, borders, and immigration.

As in the case of Syria – although for fewer years because Iran's previous tyrant was on America's side until the Mullahs seized power in 1979 – most American adults have grown up with the idea that Iran is a dire threat to U.S. national security. Sparked mainly by memories of the U.S. embassy hostages held for 400-plus days while President Carter diddled, Americans have been ripe for the delusions induced by the periodic visits of Binyamin Netanyahu and other Israeli politicians, and their well-staged rants that equate the creaky, mostly foreign-purchased, and slightly more than tin-pot military machine of the Ayatollahs with Hitler's Wehrmacht, the product of an extremely modern industrial economy, a united populace ready for revenge against its conquerors, and the Germans' apparently genetic talent and taste for war. To say that Netanyahu, other Israeli politicians, and their American Israel-first supporters are being disingenuous in pushing the Iranian threat would be incorrect. They are consistently and blatantly lying.

No, the threat to the United States from Iran is not military, it is rather from America‘s most dangerous home-grown terrorists – the U.S. Congress. Iran threatens America economically because it has the capability to disrupt oil production in Saudi Arabia's Eastern province. Such an Iranian effort would be a casus belli for the United States only because the U.S. Congress has done nothing more substantial than advance Daylight Savings Time by three weeks since the Saudi-led embargoes of the 1970s. Thirty-five years of the Congress' utter failure to address energy security as a top priority national interest has made Iran a threat to America that it otherwise could not be.

Likewise, the terrorist threat from Iran – which is genuine – must be labeled by the U.S. Congress. Neither Iran's government or its Revolutionary Guard Corps, or their Lebanese semi-surrogate Hezbollah are going to launch a terrorist first strike in the United States. All of these entities are rational actors and they know a first-strike from their side would earn them a catastrophic response. But the rub comes for America from the fact that each of the just-mentioned entities have a terrorism infrastructure established in North America – in the United States, Canada, and Mexico – that could and would be used in response to a U.S. or Israeli first strike on Iran. And that response would be effective inside America because – thanks to the Congress' knowing failure to control borders and immigration – no level of U.S. law enforcement has anything near a complete handle on the size, intentions, capabilities, and targets of our potential Iranian attackers.

So perhaps its time for Americans to reread Mr. Paine, begin thinking for themselves, and recognize the expensive and potentially war-causing absurdities that have been foisted on them regarding the "threat" from Syria and Iran by their bipartisan governing elite and its deserving-to-be-indicted co-conspirators, Israel's government and its American Israel-first acolytes. If viewed with a realistic eye rather than one clouded by propaganda, the claims that two decaying blotches on the map named Syria and Iran constitute severe national-security threats to the United States would earn the dismissive scorn they so richly merit.

Source

Edited by Spaghettim0nst3r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Scheuer is his name btw, if you'd like to look into it. He's just former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit. Clearly not an authority.

Source

This article does not address any of the points I make.

i.e., "Blank Out"

Reality is knocking...

Anyone home?

You are nothing but a troll who is more interested in aggravating people than engaging in honest discourse. I am done responding to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article does not address any of the points I make.
While the article does not address the question of nuclear weapons, it does address the question of whether Iran is a threat. Funnily enough, while the author's commentary is that it is not a threat, the facts he presents: Iran's ability to disrupt oil-supplies, the growing Islamization of Syria (with Iran as the non-secular fountainhead), and Iran's ability to strike inside the U.S., show that Iran should be taken out.

Personally, I am not sure how far along Iran might be in the nuclear race, because such countries often are given to bluster. Also, sometimes these countries fool themselves -- for instance there were some reports that Saddam himself might have thought his scientists were further along on weapon's programs than they really were. However, I do not think that's critically important.

The regime in Iran should be taken out anyway. No regime should be allowed to assume the position of threatening the U.S. to the extent it does. This regime should be made an example of. Countries should quiver at the thought that the U.S. may view them as a threat. Countries should be trying hard to explain that they mean no harm to the U.S., just want to be friends and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article does not address any of the points I make.

You're not making any points... you're just quoting sensationalist propoganda because it provides your neo-con candidate with some respectability, if you accept the premise that Iran's intention IS to develope weapons.

Your assumption in the issue is that Iran necessarily will use their "crude weapons grade uranium" to build nuclear weapons... and will necessarily attack us with them, when it's been expressed very clearly that Iran (A third world country) is interested in uranium enrichment to provide itself with efficient energy. Nuclear energy is insanely efficient, we should be doing the same here in the united states instead of increasing defense spending by billions annually (link. (Defense spending really means offensive spending btw).

While this is a valid (yet remote) possibility that Iran's intention is aggression, our CIA friend here tells us this is far from the case. The conflict thusfar has been fueled by our middle east occupation. As of 2005, the United States occupies over 700 military bases in over 36 countries worldwide. link

Since 2001, the cumulative expenditure by the U.S. government on Operation Enduring Freedom has exceeded $150 Billion.

For 2007, the budget was raised to a total of US$532.8 Billion

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US $956,000,000,000.

I supposed thats ok to some of you, because after all they are just printing the money. =\

I guess you would have everyone believe thats not provokation.

You are nothing but a troll who is more interested in aggravating people than engaging in honest discourse. I am done responding to you.

Typical excommunication.

Instead of addressing the CIA authority I presented, you throw a tantrum.

Have some integrity and defend your position, or change it. The CIA tells us, blowback played a major factor in contributing the 9/11 (if you buy that terrorists can be that coordinated). Blowback from what? Blowback from U.S. Military Occupation/provokation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the article does not address the question of nuclear weapons, it does address the question of whether Iran is a threat. Funnily enough, while the author's commentary is that it is not a threat, the facts he presents: Iran's ability to disrupt oil-supplies, the growing Islamization of Syria (with Iran as the non-secular fountainhead), and Iran's ability to strike inside the U.S., show that Iran should be taken out.

No, it shows that we should stop giving them reasons to want to attack, because you'll never stop them from "being able" to attack U.S. short of turning the world into an already unmanagable police state. You cannot bully the world into giving up the luxuries we enjoy.

Personally, I am not sure how far along Iran might be in the nuclear race, because such countries often are given to bluster.

So your lack of knowledge is justificatoin for war, in your opinion? Thats incredibly unprincipled.

Also, sometimes these countries fool themselves -- for instance there were some reports that Saddam himself might have thought his scientists were further along on weapon's programs than they really were. However, I do not think that's critically important.

You're right, what is important is that it was fed to us as though it were a certain fact, even though it was propoganda to further the Neo Con agenda (as we later learned).

The regime in Iran should be taken out anyway. No regime should be allowed to assume the position of threatening the U.S. to the extent it does.

If you assume it is their position. Your fears and concerns do not automatically become credible because you can feel afraid and concerned about their uranium enrichment, and that kind of emotional wreckage should not guide foreign policy.

My equation of feeling threatened is not, 'having military bases in the middle east and them being mad about it.' They ought to be mad about it, and we should get out, come home... and actually engage in self-defense... instead of offensively establishing a police state overseas.

This regime should be made an example of. Countries should quiver at the thought that the U.S. may view them as a threat.

They already do, hence the reason we did not mutually annihilate ourselves (us and the soviets) in the cold war.

Iran is an example equivalent to Japan in WWII.

We provoked Japan by freezing their assets, halting trade, and helping their enemies after declaring a neutral non-interventionist policy. The administration wanted into the conflict, although unecessary and needed an event to act as a catalyst for prompting our involvement.

http://members.tripod.com/rationalrevoluti...nese_attack.htm

9. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.

B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.

C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.

D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.

E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.

F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.

G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.

H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.

- H. McCollum

Our government is working hard toward a new Pearl Harbor, to prompt us into conflict with Iran.

You've been Neo-Conned.

Countries should be trying hard to explain that they mean no harm to the U.S., just want to be friends and so on.

Iran has explained it's enrichment program. We persist because of suspicion, not because of evidence. Countries do not need to be constantly engaged in apologetics to the United States, they only need to grasp that military aggression and conflict ensures their own annihilation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot bully the world into giving up the luxuries we enjoy.
Spoken like a true Ron Paul fan: the U.S. is to blame for evil people wanting to harm the U.S.

So your lack of knowledge is justificatoin for war, in your opinion?
Stop your polemic and try to understand what I said. Here is a simpler version: what we know about Iran is sufficient grounds to take out that regime; there may be some more that we do not know, that might make it even more imperative.

My equation of feeling threatened is not, 'having military bases in the middle east and them being mad about it.' They ought to be mad about it, and we should get out, come home... and actually engage in self-defense... instead of offensively establishing a police state overseas.
Again, you take the position that the U.S. is the instigator in this long-running story. On this issue, this difference of opinion is far more fundamental than the current details, and it is this fundamental political view that differentiates many libertarians from Objectivists.

We provoked Japan by freezing their assets, halting trade, and helping their enemies after declaring a neutral non-interventionist policy.
Interesting, does Ron Paul also blame the U.S. for provoking poor, innocent Japan in WW-II?

Iran has explained it's enrichment program. We persist because of suspicion, not because of evidence.
What explanation? Do you think that the regime in Iran has a right to exist, let alone the right to any type of nuclear program? The fact is that the regime in Iran has no right to exist, even if it did not have a nuclear program. That does not mean that one must attack them. There are many regimes around the world that have no right to exist, but do not justify an attack. Iran is different, because it poses somewhat of a threat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoken like a true Ron Paul fan: the U.S. is to blame for evil people wanting to harm the U.S.

Do not misrepresent my position by attempting to alienate cause from effect.

There are MORE reasons for this conflict other than "they terrorists hate our freedom." A more SIGNIFICANT factor is our foreign policy.

Stop your polemic and try to understand what I said. Here is a simpler version: what we know about Iran is sufficient grounds to take out that regime; there may be some more that we do not know, that might make it even more imperative.

Heh, and what exactly do you know about Iran? ...aside from the speculative?

Rudy Giuliani isn't going to lead this country down a path for properly fighting the war. It will be as indecisive, elongated, and costly as both Iraq and Vietnam, strangely enough because Neo-Cons were behind both of those (undeclared) wars. The only justifiable War (in the real world, and not in your Objectivist One World Police State) is a defensive and decisive war based on actual evidence instead of speculation and propaganda. I'm not completely blaming the U.S., and I'm not completely going to blame Iran, because in truth both parties have contributed to the conflict (not equally), and continue to do so.

Again, you take the position that the U.S. is the instigator in this long-running story. On this issue, this difference of opinion is far more fundamental than the current details, and it is this fundamental political view that differentiates many libertarians from Objectivists.

Wrong again, I take the position that the U.S. has largely contributed to the state of it's foreign relations through bad foreign policy. No instigator needed to exist between the two countries, our ideologies are virtually the exact opposite and were in conflict before there were people between the two communicating about it.

Interesting, does Ron Paul also blame the U.S. for provoking poor, innocent Japan in WW-II?

Don't know what Ron Paul thinks about that. I know it was a directly provoked attack, but I don't think Japan was "innocent" or "poor" either.

I think I've heard Ron Paul mention the Lusitania (WWI), which was also a staged event to sway public opinion about entering the war.

What explanation?

Do you think that the regime in Iran has a right to exist, let alone the right to any type of nuclear program?

No, I don't think it does. The issue is more complex than that I'm afraid, because it's not a question whether or not Iran has a right to exist... the question is whether or not our government and military is strategically/philosophically capable of dealing with the problem in an effective way that will not produce extended conflict. Using the examples of it's behavior in the middle east thusfar, and it's illustrious history of unresolved conflict, and the ever popular mismanagement in the Vietnam War one can only conclude that War with Iran is going to further inflame the situation in the middle east. This government (if you can even call it American) is not interested in defending Americans or it's own self-interest, if it were the middle east would be DUST right now, and its surrounding countries waiting for radioactive decay to wear off so that it can become habitable again. This Neo-Con government is INVESTED in the perpetuation of military conflict, as evidenced by it's own ridiculously restrictive Rules of Engagement. These things aren't happening in a vacuum, there is a REASON these rules are so restrictive, just like they were in Vietnam.

The only way to effectively deal with the middle east situation is to get out of it and posture as much as we did against the soviets to stave off conflicts... (it's been strongly suggested by our own agencies FBI,CIA that one major step toward alleviating conflicts is to stop occupations) while we break apart the governments involvement in our economy, so that this military-industrial (fascist) complex doesn't exist any longer... and the government can really actually serve it's intended purpose.

The fact is that the regime in Iran has no right to exist, even if it did not have a nuclear program. That does not mean that one must attack them. There are many regimes around the world that have no right to exist, but do not justify an attack. Iran is different, because it poses somewhat of a threat.

I agree, but I do not believe that threat is entirely because of our Philosophical differences.

It's a very difficult balancing act when trying to figure out what exactly contributes to conflicts between the United States and the middle east. I don't think it's a debatable point to suggest our occupations play no role, I happen to think (because of what the CIA/FBI are telling everyone) the role this plays is significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...