Will America attack Iran?

[Swift]

Speedy Samurai, one question. While you're bashing America, did you think about Pearl Habor?

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Speedy Samurai, one question. While you're bashing America, did you think about Pearl Habor?

I often think about Pearl Harbour. Japan's actions during the the time were horrific. Japan, a small island nation with not much resources, wanted more and invaded east asia under the guise of the 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere'. When the US suggested they leave China or face sanctions, Japan, claiming that it was acting for the common good choose a third option and attacked Pearl Harbour.

Japan's attack against Pearl Harbour was, in their view, pre-emptive. Sound familiar?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Speedy Samurai, one question. While you're bashing America, did you think about Pearl Habor?

Why is a critique of US foreign policy "bashing"?

Since you're not "bashing" America, did you think about the numerous foreign government we overthrew in favor of repressive regimes?

Japan's attack against Pearl Harbour was, in their view, pre-emptive. Sound familiar?

Quite... and neither attack was justified.

 

[Kylehnat]

Japan's attack against Pearl Harbour was, in their view, pre-emptive. Sound familiar?

Pre-emptive against what? The United States wanted no part of WWII at that point.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

zOMG yall just ditched me! Now Ive got to scrap my reasearch on Israel and research Iran!

MTKAREwhatever1986-- nope neither was in most peoples view justified... but youve got to admit that ours was much worse than Japan's. Thats how the US is- screw with us, we blow up half of your country.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Pre-emptive against what? The United States wanted no part of WWII at that point.

Japan wanted control of the Pacific and was looking for a reason to attack. America's issue of the Hyde note telling Japan to leave its occupied territory in Manchukuo was all the excuse Japan needed.

America wanted control of the Middle East and was looking for a reason to attack. 9-11 was all the excuse America needed.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

@Speedy-Samurai: Japan was a small Island country with no resources? Japan was like all powerful at the time! they had taken over half the world! unless you are thinking about the process of them taking over half the world along with Pearl Harbor, that explains it then.

On the other hand, SS you have a point in that. Agh I love debating... its just like living with my mom, except not as loud or violent or backbreaking. :LOL:
oops I double posted SORRY!

 

[MrktMkr1986]

zOMG yall just ditched me! Now Ive got to scrap my reasearch on Israel and research Iran!

MTKAREwhatever1986-- nope neither was in most peoples view justified... but youve got to admit that ours was much worse than Japan's. Thats how the US is- screw with us, we blow up half of your country.

You can call me Brian, it's much easier.

And yes, I agree.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

ss, this is off topic but nice Photo caption contest thing.

 

[Kylehnat]

America wanted control of the Middle East and was looking for a reason to attack. 9-11 was all the excuse America needed.

You forgot that we Americans have an insatiable appetite for Iraqi babies. They are SOOOOO juicy and delicious, and we ran out in April 2003. What were we supposed to do? Though I've heard that Persian babies are even better...

 

[Rogue Ssv]

thanx brian that helps

 

[Rogue Ssv]

@Kylenhat--LOLOLOLOL

 

[Rogue Ssv]

How do you make new posts show without having to post yourself or leave and come back? Cause I keep double or triple posting! (I hope this isnt a tripel post)

EDIT--DAMN it was sooo sorry!

 

[Keef]

Speedy, what did you say about America and the middle east? We want to control them? No. We want them to control themselves. They, for the most part, want to control themselves. There were a few people that were stopping that, so we had to off them. We don't control anybody in the middle east. In fact, Iraq's government now does more for itself than we do.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Speedy, what did you say about America and the middle east? We want to control them? No. We want them to control themselves. They, for the most part, want to control themselves. There were a few people that were stopping that, so we had to off them. We don't control anybody in the middle east. In fact, Iraq's government now does more for itself than we do.

I know America doesn't want to control them (as in its people, install an american friendly government to do that), just the area that is rich in resources.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I know America doesn't want to control them (as in its people, install an american friendly government to do that), just the area that is rich in resources.

Don't forget about the proposed Iranian oil exchange. (this is where I put on the tin-foil hat...)

Good night, all.

 

[Keef]

You just had to have that "r" word, didn't you, Speedy? If the area, the middle east, is in a more calm state there would definitely be less worrying about the future of our oil supply, but we don't want to personally control the industry. But since We get most of our oil from Cananda... We not only want the region to control itself, we want them to control the entire system of everything. We want everything over there to work, and we don't want to have to mess with it anymore. If we could get the region to a state of equilibrium--where everyone is somewhat happy and they aren't killing everybody and blowing stuff up--we can sit back and worry about other crap, like the Brokeback sequel. The people of the region just need lots of time to see how this whole democracy thing works and why it's better than the kill-or-be-killed system and then they'll start to calm down. We've been at it for 230 years and we are still working on it. The middle east could learn faster then us, since we can answer their questions--we had nobody to answer ours--they just have to pay attention.
The terrorists and extremists will never pay attention, however, so we just have to teach them a little differently than everyone else.

 

[Diego440]

It all goes back to this neoconservative ideology of the US: if you have a military force, and you need something from a weaker country, then you need to deploy that force and take what you need because your country’s needs are paramount. What are these needs? Well, natural gas primarily, and oil.

The fact that there is this sort of emerging global competition between the US and China, and there’s the ongoing economic rivalry between the US and Europe, makes southwest Asia become geo-politically a linchpin. And that's what the US is trying to take over.

 

[Joey D]

People keep saying we want control of the Mid East, but my answer is why? It's not like we are getting oil any cheaper, OPEC controls that, the land their is bad so we can't do anything with it, their is no logical reason since the Cold War ended why we need land in the Mid East.

Only liberal wackos that think we have "king Bush" think we are trying to take over the Mid East, and on that note America can never have a king, hence the checks and balances, our forfathers did a good job in insurening that would never happen.

 

[Swift]

I often think about Pearl Harbour. Japan's actions during the the time were horrific. Japan, a small island nation with not much resources, wanted more and invaded east asia under the guise of the 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere'. When the US suggested they leave China or face sanctions, Japan, claiming that it was acting for the common good choose a third option and attacked Pearl Harbour.

Japan's attack against Pearl Harbour was, in their view, pre-emptive. Sound familiar?

So, economic sanctions are now justification for war? Interesting...

Why is a critique of US foreign policy "bashing"?

Since you're not "bashing" America, did you think about the numerous foreign government we overthrew in favor of repressive regimes?

It's not a critique, it's a "look how America has messed up everything else" type of view point. Sorry, that's just how it comes off to me. I've seen many people critique America without sounding condecnding, SpeedySamurai is not one of them.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

Yeah BlazerX is right about the king thingy. But then why is Bush appointing people to the Supreme Court without getting it approved or whatever? hmm....
Alito seems okay tho....
On the other hand, I dont think we will attack Iran, not if we know whats good for us.

And hes got a really good point on the land and oil.... but, are you sure the oil wont be cheaper if we take over the Middle East and steal it all? Something makes me think it would.
Anyways if we know whats good for us we wont attack, I say we've done enough damage there anyways. Hmm, I just realized that its not really us doing all the damage, its the terrorists we're trying to kill with their roadside suicide bombs. But, are we really affecting it that much? I mean, wouldn't they all end up killing each other without us there? But our new 'government' in Iraq doesnt seem to be holding up too well...... or is it? I havent seen much in the news.... I guess Ill go do some reasearch and come back later, that had good results on the 'Israel, who does it really belong to?' thread.
My opinion, we wont attack Iran. There really seems to be no point in it. But maybe we'll go in trying to look for terrorists....... or will we??

@Swift, economic sanctions should NOT, by any means be justification for war. But sadly sometimes it seems like it is.

 

[Swift]

Rogue, you're killing me with the double posting. But I fixed it for you.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

Its Rogue not Rouge
And thanks and sorry I just have to get used to it.
And now I know of the powerful Edit button

I wanna be a mod, how do you become one?

 

[TheCracker]

I wanna be a mod, how do you become one?

Just ask Jordan - he'll post you an application form.

 

[Diego440]

People keep saying we want control of the Mid East, but my answer is why? It's not like we are getting oil any cheaper, OPEC controls that, the land their is bad so we can't do anything with it, their is no logical reason since the Cold War ended why we need land in the Mid East.

Why? I'll tell you why: oil and natural gas.

I suggest you read further about the Trans-Afghan Pipeline, proposed in 1997.

I'm ging to go a bit off-topic here, but it all comes back to the same subject. The whole point of the Iraqi war was to have an Iraq that is friendly to the US, not a liberated Iraq. The US never intended to liberate the Iraqi people, they intended to liberate Iraq from Saddam, and thus, have a military footprint there. That's been achieved already.

The US has Kuwait, a fifth fleet in Bahrain, a nice base in Qatar, and what else? Four bases in Iraq (Irbil, Af Rutbah, Baghdad and Basra). With those bases you can hit Syria, you can hit Iran and you can keep tabs on Afghanistan.

And the idea is, if you want to have real leverage, or control in the future global economy; if you can sit back and control the tap for natural gas mostly, and oil secondly, but very importantly, that will give you enormous strategic power in the world.

The war in Iraq was very, very clearly about oil as was the invasion of Afghanistan also. The oil pipeline [Trans-Afghan Pipeline, proposed in 1997] that was planned, the best security for that was an occupation of Afghanistan.

If you map the proposed pipeline route across Afghanistan and you look at the US bases [Mazar-E Sharif, Bagram, Khowst], it matches perfectly. Those bases are there to solve a problem that Taliban could not solve. Taliban couldn’t provide security in that part of Afghanistan, well now that’s where the US bases are. So does that have to do with Osama bin Laden? It has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. It has everything to do with a longer plan and in this case, a strategy, which I wouldn’t necessarily call “neoconservative”, however it fits perfectly in with the neoconservative ideology, which says, if you have a military force, and you need something from a weaker country, then you need to deploy that force and take what you need because your country’s needs are paramount. It’s the whole idea of unilateralism, of about using force to achieve your aims.

 

[Danoff]

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?

You should listen to the person you're talking to.

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

Really? Debate 1+1=2. Your claim was far more debatable than most, you're just trying to be difficult at this point becase you don't feel like actually addressing what I wrote .

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.

You mean invade Kuwait? Yes. We left Iraq it's sovereignty until it attacked another sovereign nation. What's your point?

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.

How pathetic. I'm glad Americans didn't make a similar excuse during our revolution from english monarchy.

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.

Democracy is not the end-all-be-all of morality (see my signature). The majority can be very immoral (Hitler had a 90+ % approval rating). The majority can decide that slavery (another big US mistake) is moral. Individuals have rights, just like individual nations have rights. Justice between nations exists, one way it exists is in the form of contractual (treaty) agreements. When one is broken, and the impotent police (UN) are unwilling to enforce justice, it is still possible for an individual nation to be in the moral right when bringing about justice.

I guess you just didn't feel like addressing my points about the cease fire treaty or anything else for that matter. You're more interested in posting propaganda than having a discussion.

My 'attacks' are against a nation that wishes to subjugate others and rule by power at the expense of innocent civilians.

Explain exactly where we are doing that.

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

That's idiotic. You should think about quotes before you post them.

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.

Don't you see? That's exactly what you're doing.

Edit: By the way, I'm still waiting on that research.

Edit #2: Did you do what I suggested? Did you stop and think about the kinds people you're defending? 9/11 Terrorists, Saddam, Palestinian Terrorists, idiots like this guy:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/04/iran.villepin.ap/index.html

You're an apologist for every brutal mudering dictator and murderous religious zealot, and a critic of the loudest voice in the world for human rights. How does that sit with you?

 

[Danoff]

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...

Brian, what the hell are you talking about? This doesn't even come close to relating to what I wrote.

 

[Keef]

I would also like to see Speedy's research. I would also like to know why Diego chose to quote who he did.
As for the first quote, that is the idea, but it's not the ideal we as a country are following. I'd like to see the whole article please--this seems like a fragment where he was addressing a different "idea".
And who the hell is this physicist? And what makes you think a physicist knows squat about politics? I would like to see this person's reasons for their position. I would also like to know how exactly the oil from this pipleline is getting to the U.S. Did they drill a big hole through the earth to get it to us? I don't know when our military bases were set up or when the pipeline was actually built, but it makes sense to put a base right next to a pipline. Engines need oil, right? Are there refineries nearby? Because Abrams tanks can't run without kerosene. Oh, and bases can't have any electricity unless they have something to burn, namely oil. I doubt there's much coal in Afganiraq.

 

[Diego440]

I would also like to know why Diego chose to quote who he did.

As for the first quote, that is the idea, but it's not the ideal we as a country are following. I'd like to see the whole article please--this seems like a fragment where he was addressing a different "idea".

It's part of a documentary. It's called 9/11: Things related and not.

And who the hell is this physicist? And what makes you think a physicist knows squat about politics?

What makes you think you know squat about politics? Yet you ramble on and on about what the US should and shouldn't do.

I would also like to know how exactly the oil from this pipleline is getting to the U.S. Did they drill a big hole through the earth to get it to us? I don't know when our military bases were set up or when the pipeline was actually built, but it makes sense to put a base right next to a pipline.

Did you search for the Trans-Afghan Pipeline? I bet you didn't. The pipeline had been designed to link a vast gas field in eastern Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghan territory - one of the most ambitious schemes to unlock central Asia's energy reserves for the Asian and Western markets.

Once the US is in charge of building it and therefore, administering it, who do you think benefits most directly from it? Wikipedia has a short article about it, here

Building the pipeline was cited by some critics of the Bush administration as a motivation for the invasion.

Saddam killed more Iraqis than we have. I'd say they're quite a bit better off without him.

I don't think anyone is saying Saddam was a good person. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, a thug, a butcher. It’s all true. It was as true in 2003 as it was in 1983-84 when Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq and met with Saddam Hussein and other top officials as an emissary of the Reagan administration to improve ties to Iraq. It was true in 1988 when Saddam gassed the Kurdish people in the north of Iraq with the implicit support of the United States. The United States was unconcerned with the fate of the Shi’a people in the south of Iraq in 1991 when after the Gulf War had ended, the U.S. allowed Saddam Hussein to very brutally put down the uprising that the United States had encouraged.

In other words, the United States has consistently supported Saddam Hussein throughout the worst of his crimes, when his policy was consistent with the U.S. interests in the area. The minute that those interests changed, then Saddam Hussein became the center of evil in the world.

This is the way propaganda is used. To motivate a public to support a war that is really not about liberating anyone, but about extending and deepening American control.

 

[Joey D]

Why? I'll tell you why: oil and natural gas.

I suggest you read further about the Trans-Afghan Pipeline, proposed in 1997.

I'm ging to go a bit off-topic here, but it all comes back to the same subject. The whole point of the Iraqi war was to have an Iraq that is friendly to the US, not a liberated Iraq. The US never intended to liberate the Iraqi people, they intended to liberate Iraq from Saddam, and thus, have a military footprint there. That's been achieved already.

The US has Kuwait, a fifth fleet in Bahrain, a nice base in Qatar, and what else? Four bases in Iraq (Irbil, Af Rutbah, Baghdad and Basra). With those bases you can hit Syria, you can hit Iran and you can keep tabs on Afghanistan.

OPEC controls oil, even if we did 'invade' them for their oil, we would have to go through OPEC. We can't just steal oil.

It's part of a documentary. It's called 9/11: Things related and not.

It's more then likely full of a bunch of crap, just like Michael Moore documentary's.

What makes you think you know squat about politics?

And you do? You don't even live in the US.