thenelli01

You are correct. However, I disagree with your classification of it being "the US/British decision" because they supported the shah for different reasons. Actually the US was sympathetic with the Iranians until Eisenhower took office. But it was Eisenhower who fell victim to propaganda, from my understanding, and was convinced by the British to help intervene in Iran by being warned of a (barely existent) threat that the Soviets might influence and take over. We also recieved some of the oil profits. So I would call this a misuse of the military and an example of our unnecessary intervention that was precipitated by the propaganda of special interest groups. This was Britain's problem, not ours. And then we ended up propping up the shah, gave aid to the SAVAK, which was the secret police force, and the blowback came in 1979 when the people took over with the Iranian revolution and an anti-western leader took over. And the ongoing campaign against the US has been happening ever since. So we really have to have someone as president who understands the history if we want to handle the situation correctly.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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?

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.