A Summary on the Iran Situation.

[Nuklear]

Unless it's part of the doctrine of the country, no we/they shouldn't have an act in another country. Of course, in America while shouldn't be aggresive we have no law saying that people can't go and help. I'm not against help, just govt meddling.

[XemnasXD]

If you US is going to involve itself fully in the affiars of the world then it should involve themselves in the ones that matter at the very least. You mentioned the genocide in Sudan, the Genocide in Rwanada, The civil wars in East Africa. These things claim lives of many many people everyday but where is the US support aside from some boxes of food so bad the US didn't want them. But Iraq has oil, Iraq has a leader who doesn't like the US, Iraq is in the center of the middle east.

Police don't pick and choose the bad guys they have to fight. They supposed to treat them all the same. I don't see why we're in Iraq "helping" people who very Clearly don't want our help when around the world there are people begging for it, dieing for it....What should be priority is lost in politics and i don't think corrupt politicians should be allowed to police the world with free rein and the support of an ignorant nation behind them...

[JacksColon]

If you US is going to involve itself fully in the affiars of the world then it should involve themselves in the ones that matter at the very least. You mentioned the genocide in Sudan, the Genocide in Rwanada, The civil wars in East Africa. These things claim lives of many many people everyday but where is the US support aside from some boxes of food so bad the US didn't want them. But Iraq has oil, Iraq has a leader who doesn't like the US, Iraq is in the center of the middle east.

Police don't pick and choose the bad guys they have to fight. They supposed to treat them all the same. I don't see why we're in Iraq "helping" people who very Clearly don't want our help when around the world there are people begging for it, dieing for it....What should be priority is lost in politics and i don't think corrupt politicians should be allowed to police the world with free rein and the support of an ignorant nation behind them...

also +1

I disagree with Nuklear in some respects and i agree in others.

I think that all countries of the world should do their part to help influence change around the world in countries that are harming their populations or are posing a threat to others. Thus, I have no problem with the U.S.'s position on the N. Korea or Iran situation. But, I disagree with military intervention usually, over something like this, unless provoked or attacked. When it comes to military intervention, I am okay with it when it comes to Rwanda, Sudan, East Timor, etc. There needs to be what Robert McNamara terms a "multilateral and moral imperative" - Check out the book "Wilson's Ghost" - it's a great read on these sorts of issues

[non ego man]

If you US is going to involve itself fully in the affiars of the world then it should involve themselves in the ones that matter at the very least.

Well, genocide is genocide, no? The Serbs slaughtering Muslims or Saddam slaughtering Kurds shouldn't be more or less important than Muslims slaughtering Christians in Sudan. Is there a genocide that "matters" and a genocide that doesn't? Should the US only act to prevent genocide altruistically? If there are secondary strategic gains that result from our actions, we should allow genocide to continue so as not to raise questions about our motives? Or maybe your saying that in order not to be hypocrites, we should have full scale military mobilization worldwide to prevent all genocide, whether altruistic or with secondary motives.

And yeah, I'll cut this short. Jack's got it right: read McNamara.

Also an insightful column from Podhoretz:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10882&page=all

[JacksColon]

http://www.amazon.com/Wilsons-Ghost-Red ... 207&sr=8-1

[Valkasdar]

My personal opinion * about this "help" from the side of USA... is this :

They dont help in any point of view ok ?
I mena... they never helped no one they just start wars here and theres... this "help" iso nly for the media and common ppl like us... and when they report 3 ppl dies 4 are heavy injured, they mean 300 ppl dies and 400 are injured

And all is for money and power... thi is true story.. they just wanna conquer the world just like hitler, but they are not racists

---

* Agree or not its mine opinion, dont get angry, if you dont like it ignore it. I dont wanna go in some offtopics here

[Jstar1]

America doesn't have to police countries unless they are a threat to the world.

America doesn't have to police countries at all.
Fixed.

NO we do need to police countries if they are a threat.

Whats gives Us the right to tell other countries how should should operate. The US is a major threat to world peace having one of the largest most expensive militaries in the world and an extremely short temper. Or have you forgotten so quickly our RUSH to Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction that don't exist.

People like you are why the US is such a dangerous place. An ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous populous built on the ideals of a democracy housing enough firepower and nuclear arms to probably make most of Europe uninhabitable for at least 2000 years.

America is not the Savior.

America does not know whats best for everyone.

America does not have the right to pass judgement.



If people around the world don't like the way their gov't is run then eventually they'll stand up, thats why they have legs of their own. Its happened in India its happened in Cuba its happened in Africa its happened All over the world in fact our nation was built on such an uprising.

The invisible hand will guide all tyrannical gov't to there knees. The US wants to play God and trying to shape the world themselves.

I never agreed with the iraq invasion in the first place >_>

For the guys who hate the united states, your just generalizing that we rush into other countries and screw them, or that we're arrogant and violent. Thats wrong. Our country is based on democratic ideals and many of our international actions are done with good intentions. I never said that the iraq invasion is good, its bad, and its one of the bad things america has done.

america is the only superpower and with that status, its trying to be a responsible country by making sure everything is ok, save bush and his antics about WMDs.
Any country makes mistakes and you can't just judge america simply because of one flawed invasion. Yes yes I know I know, bush is a turd and we're wasting our money.

If america was so tyrannical and violent, then we already would have screwed europe long ago. Sadly, WE ARE the savior of the world. We saved europe twice in WWI and WWII. WWII is especially sad since europe should have known the doom coming to them. Did you know, France had the biggest tank division in 1938 and the most powerful tanks too at the time. Too bad they didn't see hitler coming and get owned. You should be thankful that america saved europe. I doubt you could have defeated hitler without america.

we still need to police the world, but what my point is that america needs to think a little more before doing something because many countries are becoming developed and can think a bit on their own. We still need to make sure the world is ok, just not as boldly as before, or running into other countries.

I don't get how america is a threat to world peace. If it was, we already would be in a WW3 right now and people would be dying. Its because of america, most of the world can exist freely. If you hate america, imagine what you would have without it. perhaps the american economy crashes like it did back in the 1930s. You know, the entire WORLD suffered because of the Great Depression in america. Another like that would screw europe and asia since there are so many investments and assets people stake in the US.

[Reise]

If america was so tyrannical and violent, then we already would have screwed europe long ago. Sadly, WE ARE the savior of the world. We saved europe twice in WWI and WWII. WWII is especially sad since europe should have known the doom coming to them. Did you know, France had the biggest tank division in 1938 and the most powerful tanks too at the time. Too bad they didn't see hitler coming and get owned. You should be thankful that america saved europe. I doubt you could have defeated hitler without america.

Oh jeez don't say that you'll piss off the Brits.

[Jstar1]

If america was so tyrannical and violent, then we already would have screwed europe long ago. Sadly, WE ARE the savior of the world. We saved europe twice in WWI and WWII. WWII is especially sad since europe should have known the doom coming to them. Did you know, France had the biggest tank division in 1938 and the most powerful tanks too at the time. Too bad they didn't see hitler coming and get owned. You should be thankful that america saved europe. I doubt you could have defeated hitler without america.

Oh jeez don't say that you'll piss off the Brits.

is that a bad idea or something

[Nuklear]

...your just generalizing that we rush into other countries and screw them...

ha
haha
HAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Someone needs to learn some history. It's not a generalization.

[Jstar1]

...your just generalizing that we rush into other countries and screw them...

ha
haha
HAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Someone needs to learn some history. It's not a generalization.

so your telling me that we rushed into europe during WWII and screwed france or britain? I'm sure we beat down the nazis not the allies. Or maybe korea? I'm sure the united states went into Korea just to mess up the place, right?

or how about afghanistan? osama is a fake person, and we're just in afganistan to mess up the place too. Yeah, sure.

[Nuklear]

Like I suggested, learn some history. You're making a case for your misguided point of view from a couple instances.

[Reise]

Well I would've said Vietnam. And Desert Storm.

What I find funny is that other countries that have been around a lot longer have plenty of things in their past that easily shadow the few things we've done. It's just that now people are paying more attention, eating up everything the media shoves into their face, and jumping on the bandwagon.

[JacksColon]

Okay, I don't think the U.S. is the savior of the world. I don't think that the U.S. does things - even when it argues it does - for noble intentions all the time; or often for that matter. Thing is, money/economic security is a major factor in most foreign policy decisions. That is a major reason why the U.S. - and let's not fool ourselves here, most powerful countries for that matter - don't get involved in places like Sudan. There is no perceived market potential in most of Africa, so why bother spending money and risking lives to secure peace in a country or region if there is no return on that "investment" ? I don't agree with this thinking - see my reference to Wilson't Ghost. But, I just think that's the way it is.

However, I do think the U.S. and other countries should rally against countries trying to acquire nuclear weapons that have the potential to hand that technology/weaponry over to people that might use them for other purposes (terrorist groups).

[Reise]

Okay, I don't think the U.S. is the savior of the world. I don't think that the U.S. does things - even when it argues it does - for noble intentions all the time; or often for that matter. Thing is, money/economic security is a major factor in most foreign policy decisions. That is a major reason why the U.S. - and let's not fool ourselves here, most powerful countries for that matter - don't get involved in places like Sudan. There is no perceived market potential in most of Africa, so why bother spending money and risking lives to secure peace in a country or region if there is no return on that "investment" ? I don't agree with this thinking - see my reference to Wilson't Ghost. But, I just think that's the way it is.

Indeed. What good nation would waste resources on things which offer no gain? It's been that way since forever, and everyone seems to believe America is the only country to have ever done this.

[Jstar1]

Like I suggested, learn some history. You're making a case for your misguided point of view from a couple instances.

a couple instances? tell me one invasion that was outright an intention for gaining more wealth or power? And please don't mention iraq and bush.

You have a misguided point of view from ONE instance that america is a violent country that just barges into other countries. I doubt any other instance was the same. America isn't some shady country that tries to manipulate other countries. Do you know how much money america pours into africa or southeast asia. Do you know that the united states often leads the UN into crisis zones like yugoslavia?

[JacksColon]

Like I suggested, learn some history. You're making a case for your misguided point of view from a couple instances.

a couple instances? tell me one invasion that was outright an intention for gaining more wealth or power? And please don't mention iraq and bush.

You have a misguided point of view from ONE instance that america is a violent country that just barges into other countries. I doubt any other instance was the same. America isn't some shady country that tries to manipulate other countries. Do you know how much money america pours into africa or southeast asia. Do you know that the united states often leads the UN into crisis zones like yugoslavia?[/quote]

yes, I know this. But the soldiers are often from places like Pakistan, India, Kenya, etc. Because those countries are poor and these soldiers get paid better in the UN forces than in their own.

Also, pooring money into a situation doesn't do much good when no one tracks where that money goes (hello? govt corruption in most developing regions is rampant).

[Nuklear]

However, I do think the U.S. and other countries should rally against countries trying to acquire nuclear weapons that have the potential to hand that technology/weaponry over to people that might use them for other purposes (terrorist groups).

All nations 'have the potential' to give weapons to other people if they want. They don't because they want to keep themselves safe and political reasons. Just because Iran is the big bad nation we have to sanction them? LUDICROUS.
Probable cause can suck my dick.

[Reise]

Think of our relation to Israel, and their relation to Iran. Technically they're already the "bad guy" and Iran probably wouldn't have any peaceful reasons to have those weapons. And we can't leave our good friends in Israel alone with an armed bad guy can we?

[Nuklear]

You seem to be overstating Iran's power. They don't have a military capable or a 'weapon.' I think Israel can handle themselves if need be. We need to stop treating them like a kid.

[JacksColon]

However, I do think the U.S. and other countries should rally against countries trying to acquire nuclear weapons that have the potential to hand that technology/weaponry over to people that might use them for other purposes (terrorist groups).

All nations 'have the potential' to give weapons to other people if they want. They don't because they want to keep themselves safe and political reasons. Just because Iran is the big bad nation we have to sanction them? LUDICROUS.
Probable cause can suck my dick.

In theory your rationale is correct, however, there is an expressed desire on the part of certain people in Iran to do harm (wipe Israel off the map). Do I htink they'd be stupid enough to try that? No. But I think it's something that needs to be addressed. And I never said sanctions are the only options. There is such thing as the carrot, but you only focus on the stick in your analysis.

Also, I know this thread is about iran, but it is necessary to discuss this in context, which to me, also includes Pakistan. And as I've stated, I feel Pakistan (or certain folks within it) are more of a threat than Iran. Also, are you quite okay with the U.S. government propping up dictatorial regimes because they align with certain foreign policy goals that we have? Remember, we sold Iraq many of its weapons in the 1970s and 1980s. Is that okay by your judgement? To me, hell no it wasn't. Nor was the support in the overthrow of regimes in Iran (the 1950s and the Shah), Latin America (Chile anyone? Nicaragua..many more examples). I would assume you wouldn't support this because you think we shouldn't meddle in other countries at all. However, I find it quite ironic that we end up having to deal with many of the dictators that we helped get into power. It is often because of what we've done in the past that we must take action today. It doesn't matter that it was right or wrong in the past, fact is, we've farked up a lot of shit around the world, and to stay out of other countries' business is not only unrealistic, I submit that often, it's immoral.

[XemnasXD]

jstar you really need to look up your history b4 you start mouthing off like that.

If you really look at the US in terms of politics, ethics, and the economy you'll find that this country is still pretty much a British colony. An extension of European history, ideals, culture but most importantly....money. America has great economic and political interest to protect in Europe, thats why went over there and saved them. The corporations were getting restless and saw great value in entering the war so they put pressure on the Gov't and the Gov't put pressure on Japan then Japan pulled Pearl Harbor and thats why we entered the Second World War.

Heres a very VERY brief list of what your saviors have done to help the world

1. 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator.
2. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.
3. 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.
4. 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia.
5. September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.
6. 1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.
7. 1980s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.
8. 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras." 30,000 Nicaraguans die.
9. 1982: U.S. provides billions of dollars in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.
10. 1983: The White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.
11. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties.
12. 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.
13. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.
14. 1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.
15. 1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.
16. 2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."
17. Sept. 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.

Yeah I got that list from the micheal moore movie, i used to have a bigger one that my Dads church handed out but i lost it. And b4 you all start bashing micheal moore getting way off topic go look up each of those incidents because everyone of them is true.


If you look at that list you can see we're responsible for most of the problems that we label "Threats to America" today. We helped create the terrorist...so who are we saving....

[JacksColon]

You seem to be overstating Iran's power. They don't have a military capable or a 'weapon.' I think Israel can handle themselves if need be. We need to stop treating them like a kid.

Well, they should stop acting like a kid also. Not saying you're wrong, I agree. But, c'mon. It's a two way street.

[Reise]

I'm sure Israel can, but I think we have some kind of obligation to play the stronger big brother for them. I'm not saying we should, I also think we should stop babying Israel and let them handle their own shit. Plus in the international scene it would sound hypocritical of the US to let Iran do what it pleases after taking down the whole system in Iraq because of almost the same situation. At least Iran's leader isn't as defiant, he probably understands the mess things would be if he didn't cooperate on some level.

[XemnasXD]

Israel was the worst idea since canned bread.

I don't see where the UN gets balls to tell a group of people the country they've been living in for the past 100+ years is no longer theres and is going to be turned over to the Jewish People as what, an apology for the holocaust....The US literally tried to hunt down the Native Americans to extinction at one point and all they got out of it was casinos.

So not only did they make a new nation but they gave it enough firepower to hold off half the middle-east. When was the last time you heard of the US giving oppressed people weapons and the results being A-Ok. The whole situation is f*cked up if you ask me.

[JacksColon]

jstar you really need to look up your history b4 you start mouthing off like that.

If you really look at the US in terms of politics, ethics, and the economy you'll find that this country is still pretty much a British colony. An extension of European history, ideals, culture but most importantly....money. America has great economic and political interest to protect in Europe, thats why went over there and saved them. The corporations were getting restless and saw great value in entering the war so they put pressure on the Gov't and the Gov't put pressure on Japan then Japan pulled Pearl Harbor and thats why we entered the Second World War.

Heres a very VERY brief list of what your saviors have done to help the world

1. 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator.
2. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.
3. 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.
4. 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia.
5. September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.
6. 1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.
7. 1980s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.
8. 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras." 30,000 Nicaraguans die.
9. 1982: U.S. provides billions of dollars in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.
10. 1983: The White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.
11. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties.
12. 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.
13. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.
14. 1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.
15. 1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.
16. 2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."
17. Sept. 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.

Yeah I got that list from the micheal moore movie, i used to have a bigger one that my Dads church handed out but i lost it. And b4 you all start bashing micheal moore getting way off topic go look up each of those incidents because everyone of them is true.


If you look at that list you can see we're responsible for most of the problems that we label "Threats to America" today. We helped create the terrorist...so who are we saving....

I've written quite a bit on these topics, specifically the Latin American incidents. All quite true. And, more so than anything, I feel it is the obligation of the U.S. in the years that follow to help correct these past mistakes. Most of these incidents were done in the name of fighting communism and the soviet union. it was justifiable (the claim goes) to take these actions because socialist forces were at work in these countries and it was a perceived threat. Now, I'm not saying that ANY of these same sort of tactics should be done. But I think international pressure is a legitimate way of resolving disputes. But, Placing a dictator in place of a deomcractically elected leader (as was often done) is a terrible idea. I hate real politik

[Nuklear]

...there is an expressed desire on the part of certain people in Iran to do harm (wipe Israel off the map). Do I htink they'd be stupid enough to try that? No. But I think it's something that needs to be addressed.

Yes, be addressed by that nation, and should they consent to it, other nations in the immediate proximity that would be most concerned.

[Reise]

Israel was the worst idea since canned bread.

I don't see where the UN gets balls to tell a group of people the country they've been living in for the past 100+ years is no longer theres and is going to be turned over to the Jewish People as what, an apology for the holocaust....The US literally tried to hunt down the Native Americans to extinction at one point and all they got out of it was casinos.

So not only did they make a new nation but they gave it enough firepower to hold off half the middle-east. When was the last time you heard of the US giving oppressed people weapons and the results being A-Ok. The whole situation is f*cked up if you ask me.

It is farked up.

But since when are the conquerers supposed to give the people they're conquering anything? Sure conquerers is a strong word, probably not exactly the same either, but you get the idea.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you totally there's just a whole other side to this that people are missing. It's not that we're doing things and "getting away" with them, it's that people aren't doing anything but bitching and whining about it. It's really all they can do. That's what happens when countries get as powerful as they are.

...there is an expressed desire on the part of certain people in Iran to do harm (wipe Israel off the map). Do I htink they'd be stupid enough to try that? No. But I think it's something that needs to be addressed.

Yes, be addressed by that nation, and should they consent to it, other nations in the immediate proximity that would be most concerned.

But will they? When has that ever happened? Have there ever even been instances where these kinds of problems are solved internally like that?

IMO the US+UN is doing exactly what they should be, policing the world. It's a national community. If someone won't, who will? Etc. etc.

[JacksColon]

...there is an expressed desire on the part of certain people in Iran to do harm (wipe Israel off the map). Do I htink they'd be stupid enough to try that? No. But I think it's something that needs to be addressed.

Yes, be addressed by that nation, and should they consent to it, other nations in the immediate proximity that would be most concerned.

But your view is to simplistic (no offense, seriously). Be addressed by that nation and consent etc?

First, dictatorial regimes do not allow for those within a nation to "address" this sort of thing. Also, polling data done in Iran shows that most believe that the U.S. doesn't want Iran to have a peaceful nuclear program. But no seriously analyst thinks that the long-term goals of a nuclear program are "peaceful" in nature for Iran.

And consent, well, yes to a degree I agree with this. But you have to be realistic. Iran is THE strongest country in the region, by far. Why would they listen to what Turkmenistan or Afghanistan says? There is no pressure from those countries on Iran. The ones that would be most immediately concerned are Israel, but you argue that they shoudln't do anything either, right? Saudi Arabia should be more involved, I'll give you that, but it takes a global effort to solve most regional disputes (and this one is only semi-regional in nature, as weapons can be proliferated and traded globally).

[XemnasXD]

let the UN police the world, even though they only care about european interest anyway. Its better than the US trying to police the world when they only care about American interest.

The tighter you squeeze the more you let slip through your fingers.

If you want to interfere in affairs for the better help to guide them through diplomacy. Don't force the hand by creating enough conflict till you get the desired reaction....

If you let the US police the world unchecked eventually the World will work completely in favor of the US. that not how things should be....