137 replies to this topic

[thenelli01]

We recognize how the mystic principles of Christianity and other religions have directly influenced our policies of altruism and collectivism in the economic sense. However, altruism, willing to sacrifice ourselves for others, and collectivism, working for the group, have become fundamentals of governmental policies in foreign policy as well.

1) Foreign Aid: Think about the billions of dollars the government gives in aid to all these countries. They steal money from us and give it to the governments of other countries and it has historically back fired on us. We should be sending them the principles of capitialism that made our country great, wealthy, and freer.

2) Policemen of the World: There are three recent and ongoing situations that I would like to point out: Libya, Syria, and Iran. When Libya was trying to overthrow their government, we didn't hesitate to intervene and we ended up spending billions of dollars. In Syria, we are about to do the same.

The Iran/Isreal situation and our involvement in it is truly evil. Before I talk about this, I would like to point out that the source of information of Iran "coming close to a Nuclear bomb" was said similarly to get us to get into Iraq. The Media is distorting the whole situation... We should put it in the correct perspective: Iran never said they would wipe Isreal off the face of the map, Iran has a GDP the size of Massachusettes, and Iran doesn't have an airforce or military that is capable to attack us - nor have they stated they would attack us. Panetta said they are NOT trying to build a bomb, Iran is not violating the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, and they are not anywhere near the amount of enrichment needed for a nuclear bomb as stated by the IEAE.

So with that being stated, the idea that the United States is tied to Isreal and must protect them is evil as are the millions of americans endorsing the war. We have to put everything into perspective, Iran is not a threat to us. Iraq was not a threat to us. Libya was not a threat to us. Syria is not a threat to us. This whole idea that we are the policemen of the world and have a duty to other countries is the essence of altruism and collectivism. The government spent trillions of dollars on two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where we participated in nation building, lost thousands of soldiers, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

They stole that money from us and sacrificed the soldiers' lives in an act of alruism. Why do we have a duty to sacrifice ourselves for the greater good? And the world is calling on us to protect Isreal and for our money and our lives to save them from oppression.

We do not have a duty to sacrifice ourselves to these countries or any other country around the world.

3) Creating enemies: Our national defense is more in jeopardy by our actions because we kill innocent people and create nationalism, where oppressive regimes use our evil actions to unite the people. Think about the sanctions we put on Iraq in the 1990s. A UN Report estimated that we killed over 500,000 children under the age of 5 because they couldn't get the food and meds they needed. Think about the hundred thousand more innocents that were killed during the unnecessary war. There are so many examples that are not reported on nor dared to be put into US History books. All this does is give people a reason to be willing to die to kill Americans.

4) Deception: Putting aside altruism and collectivism for a moment, the US Foreign policy for the past 100 years has been horrendous. This is also tied into the military industrial complex and other special interests, where the government doesn't act in the best interest of the people but for those interests. There are so many examples of our immoral policies that are easy to look up: Overthrew democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and put in an oppressive dictator, Overthrew democratically elected government of Guatamala in 1954 because of the United Fruit Company (200,000 people died), instegated a war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s selling weapons and aid to both parties, etc.

Ron Paul actually has a rational foreign policy. He is the one that is closest to a capitalistic viewpoint on the world where we don't get involved unless our national security is threatened and respect other countries' sovereignty. As we move closer to socialism, our wealth is depreciating rapidly. This country's greatness, which has been on the decline for a while now, is threatened and unless people change the way that they think, it will not end well.

Edited by Matt Giannelli, 17 February 2012 - 05:04 AM.

[Dániel Boros]

Great summary

I would add that Israel's offical policies regarding their neighbours are similiar to Ron Paul's views.



I don't see how any war started by the state can be justified by objectivists if the people living in the country are not in any danger.
Even if the country being attacked had stolen goods from an inverstor, that act does not justifies making innocent people die (the soldiers) taking it back.
Someone's property is never valuable than someone else's life.
Also waging war on someone depends on a democratic choice even in a republic. Remember Socrates?
There are no protections in foreign affairs like the law involvign domestic affairs.

Iran is not Germany... If Iran would drop a nuke on someone ther would be no Iran the next day it happened.

[Hairnet]

I don't believe in taxation first off. I agree that our current foreign policy is based in altruism and the low-minded interests of a few men who can benefit from it (good for them I guess).

The military does serve a function, and that function is war. War is what happens when justice does not exist. When our military can afford it, it should perpetuate wars in order to bring about justice, as this has an objective benefit on everybody. To say otherwise is to act as though there was no personal benefit to justice.

Justice is about respecting rights. Life, Liberty, Property, in that order. Justice brings about general prosperity. If this were not the case then we might as well all be apolitical egoists and drop the discussion. We all know that justice should exist, and that evil should be stopped when we see it.

To the degree that rights are not respected, justice does not exist. What people do where life, liberty, and property are not respected can only be called war. While people in eastern europe, the middle east, africa, and asia may pretend to themselves that they are not constantly at war, it is obvious through their exploitation by religous organizations, criminal organizations, "governments" and cartels.

No one should be drafted or be forced to pay for a conflict that they don't want to support. However the government does have the right to use what funds it can gain to invade a lawless nation with the intention or turning it into a lawful one. I would point to the very existence of modern Japan, Germany, and South Korea as examples of how a total war can turn a viscious enemy into a culture that produces great value for us.

[Dániel Boros]

I don't believe in taxation first off. I agree that our current foreign policy is based in altruism and the low-minded interests of a few men who can benefit from it (good for them I guess).

The military does serve a function, and that function is war. War is what happens when justice does not exist. When our military can afford it, it should perpetuate wars in order to bring about justice, as this has an objective benefit on everybody. To say otherwise is to act as though there was no personal benefit to justice.

Justice is about respecting rights. Life, Liberty, Property, in that order. Justice brings about general prosperity. If this were not the case then we might as well all be apolitical egoists and drop the discussion. We all know that justice should exist, and that evil should be stopped when we see it.

If you want to volunteer and go to war, than go ahead. You are free to do whatever you want. You can fight in Syria if that is your wish. I doubt they would say no to a helping had an to any cash you may offer.
Forcing soldiers who have volunteered to defend their own country on other hand should not be treated as if it is their choice, when they are sent to a foreign land to kill people.

No one should be drafted or be forced to pay for a conflict that they don't want to support. However the government does have the right to use what funds it can gain to invade a lawless nation with the intention or turning it into a lawful one. I would point to the very existence of modern Japan, Germany, and South Korea as examples of how a total war can turn a viscious enemy into a culture that produces great value for us.

So self proclaimed lawfull nations have the right to invide any lawless nation and kill people so that their rights can be respected. Dead people don't have rights...
So we should adopt a policy depending how benificial it would be to us who are not sent to the battlefield? Defending rights...right...

Japan and Germany I believe were quite advanced even before the US started dropping bombs on them.
I would point out that eastern europe was enslaved by Stalin thanks to the same total and was not that benifitial to them.

Edited by Dániel Boros, 17 February 2012 - 05:56 AM.

[Hairnet]

1) If you join the military expect to fight wars. Honeslty anyone who has the expectation that serving in the military is about anything other than armed conflict is completely deluding themselves.

2) If you live in a nation like Nazi Germany flee, do something about it, or accept the fact that you may be become a casualty of war. Clearly people who don't hide, fight, or flee don't care about their rights and are just resources to be exploited for evil people. If thats want they want to be than that how they shall be treated.

3) Do you prefer Nazi Germany or our current germany? Imperial japan or current japan? Two states that were barbarous to their neighbors, who the US could have ignored if it wanted to, but didn't.

Edited by Hairnet, 17 February 2012 - 06:15 AM.

[Dániel Boros]

1) If you join the military expect to fight wars. Honeslty anyone who has the expectation that serving in the military is about anything other than armed conflict is completely deluding themselves.

So anyone who signs up to the military gives up his right to life and becomes the slave of the state...sweet
Anyone who thinks that offense to defend the states economic interests is the same as defending the life of its people is deluding itself.

2) If you live in a nation like Nazi Germany flee, do something about it, or accept the fact that you may be become a casualty of war. Clearly people who don't hide, fight, or flee don't care about their rights and are just resources to be exploited for evil people. If thats want they want to be than that how they shall be treated.

3) Do you prefer Nazi Germany or our current germany? Imperial japan or current japan? Two states that were barbarous to their neighbors, who the US could have ignored if it wanted to, but didn't.

What good did the US do for Germany? The Soviets defeated them not the US. Germany was split into two even though the US could have bargained for all of Europe since they had the nuke.
How could we know what would have happened to Japan if the US did not win? We don't. Also did the US attack Japan to spread democracy or because of Pearl Harbour?

So because there's a single war from hundreds that sarficed thousands but achieved something good that could have not been achieved peacfully we should start attacking any country that does not behave as we like it?

[FeatherFall]

Matt, I like that you framed this issue in terms of US interests and tried to focus on the role of rights in foreign policy. Ron Paul often looks better to most people after a fair hearing. I don’t think a Ron Paul administration would spell disaster for the US. I like much of what he says, especially when he demands that we fight only declared wars. However, I don’t agree with everything you said.

First of all, people who believe the US has an interest in military alliances with nations such as Israel (a country that largely protects individual rights), are not evil. You can disagree with such people about the best course of action, but calling them evil is way over the top and will get challenged every time on this forum. You denounced the standard that lead the US into war against Germany in WWII, instead of just against Japan. It’s a standard much like the inclination to protect your neighbors when you see them getting mugged. You don’t do it simply because you have a duty to your neighbors, but because your neighborhood is safer for you when muggers think assault is too dangerous a prospect.

Whether or not Iran is trying to get a bomb is an interesting question, because it requires you to weigh your standard of certainty against the risk involved with the potential outcome. What Panetta said was that the intelligence does not show that Iran has made a decision on whether or not to build one. I can only assume this comes from a strict standard of certainty regarding what we know about their actions, because what I otherwise infer about their behavior is that they are building nuclear plants so they have a source of weapons-grade uranium. I recognize that this inference is less certain, but the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran presents a great enough danger that I am willing to consider action based on lower levels of certainty. Please note that the strict moral benchmark for attacking another country is not, “are we certain they are trying to get nukes.” The strict moral benchmark is, “are they a threat,” and in this case threats against US allies can be construed as threats against the US. Because of their proxy wars, Iran is already an awful threat. Granting them the time necessary to get a nuclear shield for their proxy wars is a possibility we would do well not to dismiss as unimportant.

I don’t think a Ron Paul administration would be perfect, but we need to weigh him against the other candidates. Paul offers a military strategy that is less aggressive than I’d like, but he also offers the US time to recover from economic woes and adheres to a strict constitutional standard when declaring wars. When compared to the other candidates, all who seem to want to continue or expand a failing strategy, Paul comes out on top.

[Dániel Boros]

First of all, people who believe the US has an interest in military alliances with nations such as Israel (a country that largely protects individual rights), are not evil. You can disagree with such people about the best course of action, but calling them evil is way over the top and will get challenged every time on this forum.

The U.S. violoates Israel's sovergnity when they dictate how Israel shoud make peace, or wage war on others. Is that what we call an allience? Maybe evil is a harsh word, but I also think what the U.S. does to Israel is wrong.
Isn't meddling in the foreing affairs of other countries generraly a bad thing?
So what if people here like Israel that much? Is that a good cause to wage war on any country?
Israel is more than capable of defending itself and has done so many times in the past without any help of the US.

If you are worried about Iran sending their first nuke to the US maybe you should ask:
Why would their primary target be the U.S.?
Because of the interventionist foreign policy ? Naaah... that can't be it.... That thing with the Shah was to spread democracy like in Japan and Germany...

People are a bit too willing to send other people into their death these days.
Ron Paul gets more donations from the military than all the other republican candidates combined and more than Obama.
Maybe they don't like the heat? Or the sand...

Edited by Dániel Boros, 17 February 2012 - 07:59 AM.

[FeatherFall]

Daniel, the US offers Israel rewards for acting a certain way. This is a tool of diplomacy, and using it is not a violation of sovereignty. I don't believe Iran will detonate a nuclear device. I believe they will use it as a shield while stepping up their proxy wars, which are already being waged across the region. The amount of money Ron Paul gets from the military has nothing to do with this fact.

[Dániel Boros]

I thought you call that a bribe

I was trying to suggest that trivialiseing the life of soldiers is not a good thing.

[FeatherFall]

I haven't trivialized anything in this thread.

[Grames]

No one thought Pakistan could make or afford a nuclear weapon until they exploded one. Ditto India, who exploded one shortly afterward just to keep parity. Even North Korea has nuclear weapons.

I disbelieve these facile assertions that Iran is not trying to get a bomb when it clearly would be in their interest to have a bomb. They are assiduously piecing together the prerequisite elements of a nuclear weapon manufacturing capability via a completely unneeded and expensive nuclear power program when they are an oil exporting country, indicating an ulterior non-economic motive.

You (edit: OP and supporters) are a sucker for believing this. The only reasonable question to ask is "when will they have the bomb?".

Edited by Grames, 17 February 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[FeatherFall]

Maybe they are building the nuke plant for power generation because they thought oil refineries were too expensive/too difficult? (Now I've trivialized something in this thread).

Edited by FeatherFall, 17 February 2012 - 12:42 PM.

[Dániel Boros]

I thought you call that a bribe

I was trying to suggest that trivialiseing the life of soldiers is not a good thing.

I haven't trivialized anything in this thread.

I agree you didn't.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Daniel, the US offers Israel rewards for acting a certain way. This is a tool of diplomacy, and using it is not a violation of sovereignty. I don't believe Iran will detonate a nuclear device. I believe they will use it as a shield while stepping up their proxy wars, which are already being waged across the region. The amount of money Ron Paul gets from the military has nothing to do with this fact.

Given that they are prone to doing proxy wars, and would, judging by their rhetoric, be more than happy to engage in one against the US... I can only believe that a nuke in their hands would lead to American deaths even if they have no intention of detonating it other than as a test or demonstration. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they DID detonate it.

[FeatherFall]

That's about how I see it, Steve.

[Hairnet]

1) If one doens't want to be a soldier no one in the united states is making them, however if you do decide that you would like the benefits and life style of being in the military you need to actually perform your side of the contrac. This isn't slavery at all. It is the same as a man being expected to make good on his debts or to perform the services for which he was paid. In this instance involving one's self in armed conflict.

2) The side that russian gained control over and the side that the west gained control over (East and West Germany) had very different histories after that point. It is obvious that the united states and other western allies helped rebuild West Germany into a modern society with somewhat liberal values, where as east germany became a really crappy place to live do to soviet management.

I don't know why the US didn't bargain for the soviet union, maybe it wasn't the US who made the deal, but one of theri allies. I do know that what the US did gain management over did benefit, and more importantly, we all benefit from it now.

As for Japan all I have to point out is there goal to conquer asian and use to create a vast empire and empower their current culture. They perpetuated attrocities (not bombings or casualties of war, but mass rapes, tortues, and such) all over east asia. It doesn't really matter what they wanted, only that Japan today is vastly superior to what is was before they were shown the futility of their way of life.

3) "Behave as we like it" - The Nazis weren't just quirky or weird, they were a dangerously self destrutctive who draggef a lot of others down with them before they were bombed to nothingness with the rest of berlin. Th

[thenelli01]

I agree, the question is: "When will they get a nuclear bomb?", but also "is a nuclear bomb a threat to us?" And I only think somewhat (putting aside that any nuclear bomb should grab our attention) because of our flawed foreign policy from the gecko.

I point to 1953, the 1980s, and now. We overthrew their government in 1953 and put in an oppressive shah, the 1980s millions of Iranians were killed in that war that we antagonized, and now we are putting sanctions that are making it hard for people to live: Food shortages, medical shortages, and higher prices.

I am confident that with Ron Paul, we are looking at a more reasonable, rational, and moral foreign policy. The Iranians don't forget what we did to them and the Iranians are joining together right now against the US because of our sanctions. So that is why I consider it more of a threat than it would have been if we had followed a capitalistic approach to world affairs from the beginning.

So, yes I agree that we should be attentive to what is going on, but you also have to put it into perspective. Isreal has much more of a stake in this than we do and if they decided that they wanted to attack Iran's nuclear power plants as they did with Iraq, then that is their right... but they also have to deal with the consequences and not expect us to jump in immediately and sacrifice our money and lives for them.

First of all, people who believe the US has an interest in military alliances with nations such as Israel (a country that largely protects individual rights), are not evil. You can disagree with such people about the best course of action, but calling them evil is way over the top and will get challenged every time on this forum.

People who believe that the US should protect Isreal and take responsibility for their actions for emotional and religious reasons are indeed evil. I agree that those who believe that the US has a stake in Isreal's existance and a nuclear Iran will threaten that are not evil.

You denounced the standard that lead the US into war against Germany in WWII, instead of just against Japan. It’s a standard much like the inclination to protect your neighbors when you see them getting mugged. You don’t do it simply because you have a duty to your neighbors, but because your neighborhood is safer for you when muggers think assault is too dangerous a prospect.

I do not denounce the standard, I denounce the comparison. Those are two different situations and logically, you should to separate the two. Germany had taken over most of Europe at that time and we actually stayed out of it until the very end of the war. Iran has the GDP the size of Mass., spends only 2.5% of it on the military, and isn't even threatening to attack anyone. Isreal is a much greater power than them and could retaliate on their own. Iran doesn't have the ability to overtake the middle east or attack the US so I am arguing that Iran isn't a great threat to us. And many of the military leaders in Isreal are getting mad that the US is declaring a nuclear Iran as a existential threat to Isreal, because even they know that isn't true. It wouldn't be in Iran's interest to attack Isreal because Isreal has enough nuclear bombs to destroy them.

Please note that the strict moral benchmark for attacking another country is not, “are we certain they are trying to get nukes.” The strict moral benchmark is, “are they a threat,” and in this case threats against US allies can be construed as threats against the US. Because of their proxy wars, Iran is already an awful threat. Granting them the time necessary to get a nuclear shield for their proxy wars is a possibility we would do well not to dismiss as unimportant.

Pakistan has nuclear bombs and they have been involved in proxy wars against the US for years now. Saudi Arabi has done the same and is reportedly trying to become a nuclear power. But we don't go to war with them because it wouldn't make any sense to.

What the US should be doing right now is quit nation building, quit intervening unnecessesarily, and quit occupying the middle east and beyond. If we hadn't been involved in these countries, I do not believe we would have so many people that hate us. Look at the reasons why Al Queida attacked us on 9/11 as reported by our own DOD, CIA, and 9/11 commission - They attacked us because we had bases on their holy land in Saudi Arabia, were not treating Palestinians fairly, and were occupying their lands. I am a strong believer in blowback.

BTW: I am curious if you supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghan., which cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on the same principle?

Edited by Matt Giannelli, 17 February 2012 - 06:24 PM.

[Mikee]

not to mention giving those nuclear weapons to their proxy groups

[Reason_Being]

Clearly the manner in which wars are funded is improper. But for the time being, wars are funded through mandatory taxation and that's just the reality we live in. To use this as a reason to not fight a war is irrational. By the same logic, the US should not have entered WWII and we'd all be speaking German right now. Iran is a threat that must be dealt with. I simply cannot accept your claim that Iran is no threat to the United States when they openly speak about wiping the US and Israel off the earth. And to say that it is "evil" to aid Israel in war against Iran is, and I mean this most sincerely, completely outrageous. Evil would be to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Evil would be for the US president to be friendly and publicly embrace the Iranian State, which Ron Paul would do if he were elected.

[FeatherFall]

Matt, you are completely wrong to say that Iran isn't threatening anyone. Statements like this by Ron Paul supporters are the reason why some people think he is crazy. Iran threatens the following states in part or in whole (the list is not exhaustive): Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and even many in Iran. They threaten them with support of dictators officially in power, through proxy terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, or through direct governmental action (Morality police rounding up apostates for execution or immodest women for rape-by-prison-guard). Iran is constantly trying to marshal international support for their proxies in Palestine to eradicate Israel. I'll grant that a reasonable person can think it imprudent to attack Iran at this time, but to say they aren't threatening anyone is to take a hard left away from reality. I won't have it.

This brings us to the comparison between Germany and Iran, which I maintain differs only in the particulars, not the principles. Germany was a clear threat before the Polish invasion, after which nobody in their right mind could say they were a peaceful, unaggressive state. Just days later, Britain declared war (it was the right thing to do). Iran or their Syrian allies have had de-facto occupations in Lebanon and Palestine for years. In my opinion, the declaration of war is long overdue... Which brings us to Iraq.

Yes, initially I supported the removal of Saddam. At the time, Iraq and the US had been trading live-fire near the no-fly zones for over a decade (since the first Gulf War). That Saddam had attempted assassination of state officials and successfully gave the intelligence community the impression that he had a WMD program was the final straw for me. Besides, I believed at the time (and still do) that military action is needed to remove any regime that employs Jihadist proxy forces in the Middle East and Africa. Leaving Saddam's Ba'athist regime in a destabilized region would have been a mistake. So, I had hoped that the Iraq war was to be the second step in a swift region-wide regime reset. Recall that Iraq and Afghanistan rest on either side of Iran. I had guessed that the next step was to use these territories as staging grounds for the removal of the Iranian regime. After such a show of force, diplomacy with the Saudis and Syrians would have been meaningful.

Anyway, what actually happened was a decade-long blood ritual that would see the sacrifice of US ground forces to try rebuild Iraq into a vaguely Western democratic theocracy. Mainstream Republicans and Democrats have proved that they will only take half-measures. Well, non-measures are better than half-measures in this case. That's why I think Paul is better than the rest.

Edited by FeatherFall, 17 February 2012 - 07:18 PM.
clarity

[thenelli01]

Clearly the manner in which wars are funded is improper. But for the time being, wars are funded through mandatory taxation and that's just the reality we live in. To use this as a reason to not fight a war is irrational. By the same logic, the US should not have entered WWII and we'd all be speaking German right now. Iran is a threat that must be dealt with.

I am not reasoning that the fact that taxation is the way we fund the wars is a reason to not fight a war. You misunderstood me. I am opposed to using our money to fight wars that are not in interests of our national security and are undeclared. Because when they are not declared we have these 20-year wars where we nation build and use our money unjustly. Think about all the money used to build bridges and roads down in middle eastern country. In Iraq, we spent $1 billion on an embassy, $10 million on an elmo DVD program, and are currently spending millions on contractors to live there. This is the essence of altruism and collectivism as if we have a duty to sacrifice ourselves in order to civilize these people.

To say that we would all be talking German right now is a fallacy because you have no idea what would have happened.

Iran is not the same situation as WWII. WWII there were two groups going against each other - Allies and Axis powers. The Axis attacked us and I think it was appropriate for us to get involved because there was legitimacy to the idea that our sovereignty and security was threatened.

Iran is a threat that must be dealt with. I simply cannot accept your claim that Iran is no threat to the United States when they openly speak about wiping the US and Israel off the earth.

This is the problem: Media manipulation. Iran never said that they would wipe US or Isreal off the earth. As one with many objectivist beliefs, I am always skeptical and refuse to accept the US Media's propaganda - Remember the US Media has just as much as a stake in these wars as well. CBS, for example, is owned by the largest military contractor in the country. The media loves these wars because it gives them ratings so they always use sensational wording like Iran vs. Isreal and ridiculous propaganda as if this is a game. I heard Fox News the other day say "Breaking news: Iran has ships in the Strait of Hormus that can be used as suicide attacks on the US military" as if Iran is now a terrorist organization. Not to mention they said the same exact thing about Iraq, and we all know how that turned out.

But yes, I would advise you to look up the real quote on that whole wiping Isreal off the earth because they misquoted and took it out of context so extremely.

And to say that it is "evil" to aid Israel in war against Iran is, and I mean this most sincerely, completely outrageous. Evil would be to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Evil would be for the US president to be friendly and publicly embrace the Iranian State, which Ron Paul would do if he were elected.

My argument is that US policies are driving Iran to want nuclear weapons and are the opposite of what we should be doing. The US has been destabalizing the middle east for the past 50 years. The attacks on Iran have been on the books since the we lost the puppet shah in 70s/80s. We actually were helping the shah start up the nuclear program in the 70s so the hypocracy is rampant. We are putting sanctions on them just as we did Iraq so don't you think it would be in their interest to get a nuclear bomb to protect themselves? I don't see Iran as acting illogically at all, they saw what happened to their neighbors and they are doing anything to try to avoid being attacked and invaded.

If Isreal wants to attack Iran as they did Iraq in the 1980s, then they need to take responsibility for it and not expect us to provide money and lives for them.

[thenelli01]

You are correct. However, My statement: "are not threatening anyone" was a misstatement on my part. I should clarify, I was referring to the common quote that the media and politicians are saying "Iran has threatened to wipe Isreal and the US of the face of the earth."

Consider, however, we also pose a threat to Iran in that sense as well and this is my point of blowback. We supported the coup that overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mossadegh, in 1953 and installed the oppressive shah, we supported and gave Sadaam power in the 1980s.. he invaded Iran and millions died. We impose sanctions on the country, we support dictators. You do know that the US supports terrorist organizations and networks as well, correct? We have been giving millions in aid and weapons to the opposition in Iran to try to get them to overthrow the government and destabalize the country. And I am sure we have been doing more mischeif that is just unknown. We don't know what exactly is going on in the Middle east because much is kept away from the public.

So yes, this whole thing is a mess, but it is clear that we started it in 1953 and it has been ongoing since. This is why I support Ron Paul because all this ends up back firing on us. The shah was overthrown and a oppressive theocracy was put in place, we ended up invading Iraq to get rid of the regime that we supported, Bin Laden ends up using our CIA training, weapons, money and influence to attack us and recruit terrorists, and a majority of the region hates us.

I also support RP because he understands that our foreign policy and economic state are intertwined. We don't have the money to be doing this anymore. All this borrowing is a tax.. however, because we are borrowing the money, and not paying for it upfront, we don't feel the full effect of it but we are starting to. Prices are rising, our dollar is losing purchasing power, and our national security is more threatened because of our flawed policies.

Edited by FeatherFall, 17 February 2012 - 09:06 PM.
Quoted entirety of previous post

[FeatherFall]

Matt, I respect your refusal to take mainstream sentiment as gospel and your attempt to weigh the history of US foreign policy fairly. But you make it sound as if there wasn't a Shah in Iran before '53. From what I understand, the Shah was involved in an internal power struggle with populist elements in Iran. Those populist elements nationalized (read: expropriated) Western oil fields prior to the US/British decision to back the Shah. With this in mind, can we really say that the US "started it?"

[Mikee]

If the Iranian government had not moved to nationalize oil, the CIA would not have staged a coup