Will America attack Iran?

[DQuaN]

Yup, when my town was bombed by the IRA, it must have been the Jews fault.

It's such a sweeping generalisation, and also sounds very racist to me. I'm sure there are quite a few Jewish people that post on this board, how do you think they would react to that statement?

When a palestinian blows himself up on a bus in Tel Aviv, do you say they had it coming? (however, lets not get into the Palestine vs Israel debate)

 

[Joey D]

You should really do a bit of research (and please, use some sources outside of the american media) instead of just 'thinking' about it. You may uncover some information you were not aware of before.

A lot of the stuff in South America appears to have been with the war on drugs, that's not being a bully, that's trying to get rid of drugs in our country...not a bad thing.

Yup, when my town was bombed by the IRA, it must have been the Jews fault.

Look up at a few posts and you'll see what I have to say about that.

It's such a sweeping generalisation, and also sounds very racist to me. I'm sure there are quite a few Jewish people that post on this board, how do you think they would react to that statement?

They can react however they will and I will listen. There was nothing wrong with what I said. Although I should have said American terrorism is caused by our support for Israel...why can't people just look where I live an assume I'm talking about my own country.

When a palestinian blows himself up on a bus in Tel Aviv, do you say they had it coming? (however, lets not get into the Palestine vs Israel debate)

Israel does the same thing to Palestin, they both need to figure out how to live together and they are both at fault. This is another reason the US should not support Isreal.

 

[TheCracker]

Muslims hate Jews, I mean it's a holy war as old as time itself. We support the Jews and Isreal therefore we are an enemy of the Muslim community because we protect their enemy, it's quite simple really. They don't have the proper means to fight us so they attack out civilians and civilian buildings, this is how we get terrorism.

The Muslims don't hate anyone, their religion teaches tolerance towards other religions. Muslim extreamists hate the Jews - along with everyone else who isn't a Muslim extreamist - they just about tolerate normal Muslims, but would prefere if they were a little more extreamist.

What we call 'terrorism' they call 'holy war' - If we aren't Muslim, whether we are military or civilian then we are fair-game in their eyes.

 

[Joey D]

Over the course of history, like thousands of years, Muslims and Jews do not get along. It's a long war between the two religions. Muslims don't like Jews, Muslim extremist act on their hate and blow people up, just like extremist Jews bomb the hell out of the Palensitians.

It's a stupid thing and both sides are at fault.

 

[Touring Mars]

Make no mistake, support for Israel or not, the US would face a terrorist threat from Islamic extremism/fundamentalism anyway... the US do indeed support Israel, but they also provide financial support to the Palestinians and support the concept of a Palestinian state.

Blaming the Jews in Israel for accepting US support is absurd. If you want to 'blame' anyone, blame the US government - but why shouldn't they support Israel? Would you rather they left the region completely? Not possible in this day and age, I'm afraid, whether it would be a good idea or not.

I don't think the US administration support Israel because they (the US) are would-be Zionist conquerors, or that they particularly like Judaism - the US are (like everyone else) looking after their own strategic interests in the area. But Islamic fundamentalists will only see the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, which in the opinion of the Iranian leader deserves to be wiped off the map, and then use this as a pretext against the US. The fact remains, however, that the pretext really doesn't matter. In any event, Islamic fundamentalists would be baying for American blood anyway, because they hate (or atleast they think they do) everything about the US way of life.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

A lot of the stuff in South America appears to have been with the war on drugs, that's not being a bully, that's trying to get rid of drugs in our country...not a bad thing.

You use phrases like 'appears' and 'I can't think of' which really is showing some ignorance there. The U.S. sponsored terrorism against Latin American countries is due to the U.S. wanting U.S. friendly dictators/governments in place so that the U.S. and it's companies have access to resources there. (hello Monroe Doctrine) If it looked like a country's populace was going to remove a U.S. friendly leader, bad things happened. God forbid that citizens of a country should have a share in its government and resources.

 

[Joey D]

Make no mistake, support for Israel or not, the US would face a terrorist threat from Islamic extremism/fundamentalism anyway... the US do indeed support Israel, but they also provide financial support to the Palestinians and support the concept of a Palestinian state.

But we give military help and weapons to Israel, we are helping them greater, plus we have an alliance with them...something other Muslim countries do not like. Would we still have terrorism if we no longer supported Israel? We will never know, but my guess is that we wouldn't have it nearly as bad.

Blaming the Jews in Israel for accepting US support is absurd. If you want to 'blame' anyone, blame the US government - but why shouldn't they support Israel? Would you rather they left the region completely? Not possible in this day and age, I'm afraid, whether it would be a good idea or not.

Yes it's the government's fault for supporting them, I agree with that, we shouldn't support them, but we do and we have to accept the backlash from supporting them...which is terrorism.

I personally think we should stop supporting them until Israel and Palestien quit trying to kill one another.

I don't think the US administration support Israel because they (the US) are would-be Zionist conquerors, or that they particularly like Judaism - the US are (like everyone else) looking after their own strategic interests in the area. But Islamic fundamentalists will only see the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, which in the opinion of the Iranian leader deserves to be wiped off the map, and then use this as a pretext against the US. The fact remains, however, that the pretext really doesn't matter. In any event, Islamic fundamentalists would be baying for American blood anyway, because they hate (or atleast they think they do) everything about the US way of life.

There are several reason why we support Israel, one being that we have a lot of wealthy Jewish people in America that control money and power, it makes sense not to piss them off. But when was the last time you heard of a wealthy Iranian in America? Or Jordanian? Or Saud? You don't hear about them, but you do hear about wealthy Jewish people.

You use phrases like 'appears' and 'I can't think of' which really is showing some ignorance there. The U.S. sponsored terrorism against Latin American countries is due to the U.S. wanting U.S. friendly dictators/governments in place so that the U.S. and it's companies have access to resources there. (hello Monroe Doctrine) If it looked like a country's populace was going to remove a U.S. friendly leader, bad things happened. God forbid that citizens of a country should have a share in its government and resources.

I ran a search on the net and couldn't find much, I'll be happy to read something if you post them.

 

[James2097]

I have to worry at Blazin's understanding of what America has done to many nations, many extremely dodgy things that have been majorly swept under the carpet (I am not actually blaming him for not knowing, but blaming the American media for WHY he doesn't know). America has a dodgy history, that not many Americans really know about (or want to know about).

Obviously, don't automatically assume I'm saying other countries haven't done anything dodgy either. The issue is that many American's knowledge of their history is very biased and overly patriotic. History classes omit the dodgy deals and bad decisions made and focus on the good - easier to teach kids, but also giving these kids a flawed notion that America can do no wrong and is akin to a saint on the world stage... such is the power of patriotism. These kids then can't understand why some people may not love America the same way. America is similar to many other countries, motivated in part by a moral ideal (freedom, justice et all), but ALSO motivated by economics, securing trade deals, power games etc. Just like any country with power on the world stage. No country can be a saint (well momentarily, but never forever), it just doesn't work like that.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

I ran a search on the net and couldn't find much, I'll be happy to read something if you post them.

Bemis, Samuel Flagg. John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy. 1949.

Dozer, Donald. The Monroe Doctrine: Its Modern Significance. New York: Knopf, 1965.

Black, George. The Good Neighbor. Pantheon Books, New York: 1988.

Burns, E. Bradford. Latin America: A concise interpretive history. 4th ed.Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1986.

Chomsky, Noam. Year 501: The Conquest Continues. South End Press, Boston: 1993.

Gleijeses, Piero. Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944-1954. Princeton, Princeton NJ: 1991.

Kwitny, Jonathan. Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World. Congdon & Weed, New York: 1984.


You can start there.

 

[Joey D]

Most of those are old books, most were written before I was even born, so it's no wonder I'm not overly aware of this stuff. They don't teach it in history and I wasn't around when it happened. The only Latin American thing we ever learned about was Noriega and the war on drugs.

I'm not doubting there is stuff most American's don't know about, but I'm sure the same can be said about a lot of countries.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

I'm not doubting there is stuff most American's don't know about, but I'm sure the same can be said about a lot of countries.

I agree with you. However, the question now is: Do you read those books and many others to gain knowledge of the subject, or do you pretend you never saw them and carry on with your head in the sand. Head in the sand is easier.

 

[Swift]

All of you that are arguing with BX are right, but the thing is we know he was talking about Muslim-extremist terrorisim.

It would've been just as easy to say, "You mean Islamic-extremist terrorism, right?" and he would've said, "Yep" And that would've been the end of it. Instead of over a page of trying to define what terrorisim is and how America is supposedly tied to it in back door deals.

I agree with you. However, the question now is: Do you read those books and many others to gain knowledge of the subject, or do you pretend you never saw them and carry on with your head in the sand. Head in the sand is easier.

Just to make sure, have you read all the books you listed?

 

[Joey D]

I'm always looking to expand my knowledge on something, I probably won't read the books all the way through, but I will at least check them out when I'm at the library next time I'm there to see about their subject matter. If they are to slanted I will not read them because I don't like slanted books...which eliminated anything about Moore or Anne Colter (sp?). But if they seem right I will check them out.

All of you that are arguing with BX are right, but the thing is we know he was talking about Muslim-extremist terrorisim.

It would've been just as easy to say, "You mean Islamic-extremist terrorism, right?" and he would've said, "Yep" And that would've been the end of it. Instead of over a page of trying to define what terrorisim is and how America is supposedly tied to it in back door deals.

Once again Swift is right

 

[Danoff]

When superpowers such as the United States, scoff at the UN, and other institutions such as the World Court, there's not much the UN can do. The UN is just a sockpuppet now.

When organizations such as the UN are impotent, countries as enlightened as the US will scoff.

Perhaps Iran is after nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It seems nothing deters the mighty superpower like the threat of Nuclear retaliation (well, in most cases).

Iran is after power over the US, absolutely. But they'll do that by holding Israel hostage. Iran isn't anywhere close to being able to deliver a nuclear missile to the US. They're much closer to being able to deliver one to Israel. They think, for some reason, that we care deeply about Israel and would do anything to save it. So they'll try to use that to their advantage. They've said as much. What they don't understand is that they could hold any innocent nation hostage in this little feud and we'd do exactly the same thing. Respond with a precision strike against their capabilities.

The biggest danger Iran poses to the US is handing off their nuclear weapons to terrorists and smuggling them into our boarders. But I don't think that's what they're interested in doing.

What do you think about a nation that takes hostages, makes threats, and demands power?

If I were Iranian, I would be scared to death that the big bully that is the U.S. wants something I have.

Then you should do some research.




The US needs nuclear energy (now more than ever). We consume a great deal more power than anyone else, and so we need the ability to generate that power efficiently. Iran doesn't have anywhere near the power needs that we do, and they have more abundant energy resources than we do per capita. That being said, we developed nuclear weapons as a deterrant during the cold war - which was abosultely necessary for our protection. Iran, on the otherhand, has lived for decades under the shadow of US nuclear capability and we've done nothing against them. We haven't moved in on their territory, they have no reason to feel threatened. Iran is not Iraq, they shouldn't assume that we'll attack them like Iraq. Iraq broke a treaty, a major treaty, with us and refused to back down. We did what was necessary to enforce the terms of our agreement with Iraq. Iran (and North Korea for that matter) are not in a similar situation.


Edit:

Most of those are old books, most were written before I was even born, so it's no wonder I'm not overly aware of this stuff. They don't teach it in history and I wasn't around when it happened.

They may not teach Chomsky in grade school, but I'll bet he's taught. And that's an issue too, because the guy is off-target.

 

[TurboSmoke]

surprise, surprise...(not)

the average american would learn a lot from reading Chomsky....not all the way through obviously, just what you can manage.

They may not teach Chomsky in grade school, but I'll bet he's taught. And that's an issue too, because the guy is off-target.

 

[Danoff]

the average american would learn a lot from reading Chomsky....not all the way through obviously, just what you can manage.

The average human (American and otherwise) would learn a lot from reading Rand. All the way through, obviously.

I'm familiar with Chomsky.

 

[Zrow]

surprise, surprise...(not)

the average american would learn a lot from reading Chomsky....not all the way through obviously, just what you can manage.

Hey, don't call Americans arrogant.

 

[Danoff]

yes it did..

Then why is the US not currently bankrupt? (keep in mind that you must distinguish your response to suggest that the US was not bankrupt prior to the war with Iraq)

blind as ever...

That's not a response. I asked a simple question, perhaps you'd like to actually attempt a conversation here rather than brushing me off as some sort of moron.

we shall see if you let the UN di its job this time, i doubt it.

We shall see if the UN does it job this time. It didn't last time. We gave it every opportunity last time, and the UN proved itself incapable of action.

that 'excuse' didnt wash last time and it wont wash this time...

That wasn't the 'excuse' last time, and it isn't an 'excuse' this time. I'm starting to think you're completely ignorant of all things foreign policy.

if you want to protect your country, try perventing terrorists entering your unmanned borders. That would have saved two countries from devastation.

I'm guessing (just a wild stab) that you're referring to the US and Iraq. The US was hardly "devastated" by 9/11. Yes they killed people, and they did damage. But I wouldn't say we were "devastated". I agree that our boarders are too open, I guess it's our fault for being inviting right? It's our fault that innocent people are killed because we're too nice right? She was asking for it! Well, I happen to be one of those crazy people who places the blame with those responsible, and the US was in no way responsible for 9/11.

As for Iraq. Iraq was not in response to 9/11, though 9/11 may have contributed to our desire to take action against agressors. The fault of the Iraq invasion lies directly with Saddam and his refusual to live up to the terms of the cease fire treaty of Gulf War I. That , not 9/11, justified our attack.

As for the "devestation" in Iraq. Saddam killed more Iraqis than we have. I'd say they're quite a bit better off without him. Not to mention the whole "freedom" and "democracy" thing.

 

[Kylehnat]

that 'excuse' didnt wash last time and it wont wash this time...if you want to protect your country, try perventing terrorists entering your unmanned borders. That would have saved two countries from devastation.

You try protecting every inch of a 3,000 mile border to the north, a 1,500 mile border to the south, and 4,500 miles of coastline. Not so easy, now is it? Even so, we've caught numerous terrorists at our borders and other points of entry.

 

[Swift]

that 'excuse' didnt wash last time and it wont wash this time...if you want to protect your country, try perventing terrorists entering your unmanned borders. That would have saved two countries from devastation.

Uh, this is a very strange statement. It's our fault that we try to be nice to people that want to be part of our country and help them out, but after they took advantage of us and we go to get the people that claimed responsibility(Afganastan terrorists) it's our fault the country is devastated.

Yeah, ok, that makes total sense.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

When organizations such as the UN are impotent, countries as enlightened as the US will scoff.

Ah yes, 'enlightened'. So big brother knows what's best... Despite the hundreds of thousands of deaths its foreign policy has caused. The UN is impotent because countries with more power than it has (guess which one) disregard it, veto its resolutions, and act against its conventions.

What do you think about a nation that takes hostages, makes threats, and demands power?

Are you talking about America

Then you should do some research.

Indeed I am.

 

[Danoff]

Ah yes, 'enlightened'. So big brother knows what's best...

Who said anything about government?

Despite the hundreds of thousands of deaths its foreign policy has caused.

So if deaths are a measure of failure, then the country that has not engaged in any military action is the perfect country? That's absurd, and so is your statement.

The UN is impotent because countries with more power than it has (guess which one) disregard it, veto its resolutions, and act against its conventions.

Oh I see, so every country besides America can use it's veto power right? The UN is only disregarded when it is shown to be impotent, not the other way around.

Are you talking about America

You're going to need to back that up. Show me where we've taken a nation hostage, or made agressive threats against a country without cause, or amassed power against a non-agressive country.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

We shall see if the UN does it job this time. It didn't last time. We gave it every opportunity last time, and the UN proved itself incapable of action.

Actually, I think the UN did do its job last time. It made Iraq accept inspectors, the inspectors found nothing, group discussion about what action should be taken, if any. BUT, America didn't like (or listen?) to what the UN (and world opinion) had to say, and did what they wanted. The UN was expected to get on board, or get left behind.

The fault of the Iraq invasion lies directly with Saddam and his refusual to live up to the terms of the cease fire treaty of Gulf War I. That , not 9/11, justified our attack.

I thought is was his links to terrorism. No wait, it was because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. No wait, it was about regime change.

As for the "devestation" in Iraq. Saddam killed more Iraqis than we have. I'd say they're quite a bit better off without him. Not to mention the whole "freedom" and "democracy" thing.

Actually, US/UK sanctions led to more Iraqi deaths than Saddam is credited with. Ten years of sanctions devastated the country, basically eradicated the middle class, and strengthened Saddam's regime as the populace became dependant on it for survival.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

So if deaths are a measure of failure, then the country that has not engaged in any military action is the perfect country? That's absurd, and so is your statement.

So the number of deaths (including innocents) should be disregarded? And countries that have no engagd in any military action, don't sound so bad do they? Shame that they live in peace. How dare they!

Oh I see, so every country besides America can use it's veto power right? The UN is only disregarded when it is shown to be impotent, not the other way around.

Actually, I find the right of veto to be disgusting. How do you make sure that no resolution based on group decision will be reached? Answer: Give someone (anyone) veto power.

You're going to need to back that up. Show me where we've taken a nation hostage, or made agressive threats against a country without cause, or amassed power against a non-agressive country.

Let me get back to you on that. Rather than just name names, I want to provide references that everyone can look into.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, I think the UN did do its job last time. It made Iraq accept inspectors, the inspectors found nothing, group discussion about what action should be taken, if any. BUT, America didn't like (or listen?) to what the UN (and world opinion) had to say, and did what they wanted. The UN was expected to get on board, or get left behind.

The UN inspectors were not allowed the access they required. And Iraq violated treaty terms, and new UN terms left and right. There is no possible way to claim that Iraq was in full compliance with the treaties to which it had bound itself - and to suggest otherwise is pure nonsense.

I thought is was his links to terrorism. No wait, it was because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. No wait, it was about regime change.

No, it was exactly what I said earlier. Don't argue against some fictitious person in your head, you're talking to me right now, and listen careful to what I'm claiming.

It was the cease fire treaty of Gulf War I that justified our invasion.

Actually, US/UK sanctions led to more Iraqi deaths than Saddam is credited with.

Well that's an increadibly debatable claim. Surely you recognize that. One could just as easily credit Saddam with all of those deaths for incurring sanctions as penalties for his actions. Or one could credit him for those deaths by running a brutal dictatorship that forced individuals to bear the burden of the sanctions he incurred.

Ten years of sanctions devastated the country,basically eradicated the middle class, and strengthened Saddam's regime as the populace became dependant on it for survival.

I see, so the US and UK are responsible for devastating the country's economy, and weakening the people forcing them to follow Saddam. Read what I wrote above.

You're completely impossible to satisfy in terms of foreign policy. If some country (like Iran or North Korea or Iraq) starts violating treaties and sabre rattling, we're not to sanction them. Not to go to war. Not to launch a precision strike on offending facilities. And especially not to do anything without the complete consensus of every other country on the planet. Thank god people with your mentality didn't control things during WWII or we'd all be speaking German.

You need to step back for a second and think about who you're defending and why. You're defending a brutal dictator responsible for torturing and murdering countless numbers of his own people . You're defending an agressive regime in Iran that wants nothing more that to aquire nuclear power in order to wipe another nation off the map (in other words, not for defense). You're defending terrorists who believe strongly that their god commands them to kill innocent people so that they'll be given 70 virgin sex slaves that they can rape in the afterlife.

...and you're attacking one of the few nations on this Earth that stands for freedom and wants to extend and preserve that freedom for all mankind.

How do you live with yourself? Seriously?

 

[Danoff]

So the number of deaths (including innocents) should be disregarded? And countries that have no engagd in any military action, don't sound so bad do they? Shame that they live in peace. How dare they!

Believe it or not, sometimes force is necessary. In the face of human attrocity and in the name of preserving sovereignty, force is sometimes not only justified, but paramount. Any adult should know this.

Let me get back to you on that. Rather than just name names, I want to provide references that everyone can look into.

Good luck.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

No, it was exactly what I said earlier. Don't argue against some fictitious person in your head, you're talking to me right now, and listen careful to what I'm claiming.

It was the cease fire treaty of Gulf War I that justified our invasion.

So I should listen to you and not all the quotes from your Commander and Chief, his top officials, and media. Hmmm. You may be on to something. It definitely would be easier. Do you have a website or newsletter?

Well that's an increadibly debatable claim.

Every claim by anyone at any time is debateable. Hence why we are having these great discussion.

Or one could credit him for those deaths by running a brutal dictatorship that forced individuals to bear the burden of the sanctions he incurred.

The brutal dictatorship that the US and co. aided, as well as turning a blind eye to his actions until he finally did something that was not liked.

I see, so the US and UK are responsible for devastating the country's economy, and weakening the people forcing them to follow Saddam.

Any chance at a regime change from within Iraq was taken away when the average citizen had to worry more about how to feed his child than what to do about his government. We will never know.

And especially not to do anything without the complete consensus of every other country on the planet.

Complete consensus? Impossible. Majority of opinion, isn't that what democracy is? (or shouldn't it be). Institutions such as the UN and World Court were put in place so that majority decision could be made about actions with horrible consequences such as war. The idea is that the majority knows what's best for the majority. Now the majority is being overlooked by the powerful minorities.

...and you're attacking one of the few nations on this Earth that stands for freedom and wants to extend and preserve that freedom for all mankind.

My 'attacks' are against a nation that wishes to subjugate others and rule by power at the expense of innocent civilians. Doesn't everyone want peace? Hegemony for the U.S. does not equal peace for everyone.

"Large nations do what they wish while small nations accept what they must." -Thucydides

How do you live with yourself? Seriously?

It's not always easy. Often I am angry. I guess I could turn a blind eye to injustice and accept what is spoon-fed to me so long as I have a job, and food, and a roof over my head. Ignorance might actually be bliss.

 

[Keef]

Ignorance is bliss. That's why we should all stop. But that won't happen, because one of few things that highly intelligent people find nearly impossible to do is be ignorant. Ignorance is far more logical than intelligence.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

...and you're attacking one of the few nations on this Earth that stands for freedom and wants to extend and preserve that freedom for all mankind.

That's a joke, right? Because if it's not then you are sadly mistaken, my friend.

Lest we forget what happened in this very same country in 1953...

and Chile... Greece... Indonesia...

...the list goes on...

My 'attacks' are against a nation that wishes to subjugate others and rule by power at the expense of innocent civilians. Doesn't everyone want peace? Hegemony for the U.S. does not equal peace for everyone.

"Large nations do what they wish while small nations accept what they must." -Thucydides

This pretty much sums up how I feel about US foreign policy. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[livemusic]

Good read. 👍