Obama determined to pursue an 'aggressive diplomacy' with the Islamic Republic

U R A Crazy Breed

NCfan wrote:

LOL, where do you people get this shit from. Why would the United States bomb Iran anytime in the forseeable future? That makes absolutely no sense.

The only reason we would take military action against Iran is if if was immenent that they were going to obtain a nuclear weapon.

From all intelegence estimates, that is still SEVERAL years away.

Also, who the fuck are these "masters" you talk about. Give me a fucking break.....

read the fucking PNAC document (project for new American century written by Wolfowitz,Perle and non other than Chaney,as well as a few others) then see if you laugh out loud.

i didn't say it made sense,not for our country.but that's not why they want to do it.besides,what politicians do never makes sense unless you know what they are really trying to achieve.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Certain folks with certain ideologies assume the supreme right to conduct themselves as they please in other countries as they please, and justify it as they
see fit. When something begins to trouble them, they justify that as well by going back to step A and then repeat justification process until they feel ok.... Whether it's right or wrong to kill people and invade countries with lethal force, its still gets justified as the right thing to do for them regardless. My favorite justification is that we'll if we weren't attacking and using lethal force, someone else would so it's really all ok in the "big picture".

NCfan

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Really?
Because i would say it is painfully clear that the region is more irreparably unstable since our INVASION than it ever was before.

Case in point, Iran is getting hot about the Kurds and is allegedly arming insurgents. Turkey is getting hot about the Kurds. The Sunis and the Shites are going at it. Al Qaeda is allegedly all over Iraq, which it NEVER was before. Afghanistan is in turmoil and is a warlords dream in the north. Israel bombed Syria. Pakistan is falling down.

I mean i could go on and on. And if you are gonna say none of that is related, at least the Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan stuff is all DIRECTLY related to our invasion.

And now our presence and posturing is REALLY stirring up Iran, and that is causing massive tension with Israel which is armed to the teeth with nukes.

And yet you throw around this word "stability" and say that they (all arabs) should be grateful america is saving their land?

That is a highly dubious assertion.

And to boot, you yourself -- even worse than the administration which has atleast managed to never concede the truth about the entire war being over oil -- can't even hold a steady argument. One minute it is all "freedom and democracy", then its "Freedom and a little bit of oil", then its "oil, and okay but freedom too", and now you are back to "yeah it was all freedom. wtf are you talking about oil?"

Please.

Trying to have a meaningful discussion with somebody such as yourself is pointless, but what the hell.

I have been arguing the motives behind U.S. intervention in the Middle East. You want to judge the authenticity of those motives based on their degree of success to date. As if becuase we aren't succeeding means we aren't trying.

Again, how do you debate with somebody who uses such logic.. it's impossible.

I've laid out why the U.S. is in the Middle East very plainly in multiple post. There is no reason why anybody who wants to understand my points cannot. Now whether you agree or not is a different matter.

NCfan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Certain folks with certain ideologies assume the supreme right to conduct themselves as they please in other countries as they please, and justify it as they
see fit. When something begins to trouble them, they justify that as well by going back to step A and then repeat justification process until they feel ok.... Whether it's right or wrong to kill people and invade countries with lethal force, its still gets justified as the right thing to do for them regardless. My favorite justification is that we'll if we weren't attacking and using lethal force, someone else would so it's really all ok in the "big picture".

Finally you address one of my points... maybe we can expand on that.

Please explain why you disagree with the logic that if the U.S. were not in region, other nations would be exerting their influence too.

Case in point is Iran's sponsorship and support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who are both actively and violently seeking to over turn governements exactly like the U.S. did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Please explain why it is okay for them to persue their agenda, yet it is not okay for the United States to persue theirs.

NCfan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Certain folks with certain ideologies assume the supreme right to conduct themselves as they please in other countries as they please, and justify it as they
see fit. When something begins to trouble them, they justify that as well by going back to step A and then repeat justification process until they feel ok.... Whether it's right or wrong to kill people and invade countries with lethal force, its still gets justified as the right thing to do for them regardless. My favorite justification is that we'll if we weren't attacking and using lethal force, someone else would so it's really all ok in the "big picture".

Finally you address one of my points... maybe we can expand on that.

Please explain why you disagree with the logic that if the U.S. were not in the region, other nations would be exerting their influence too.

Case in point is Iran's sponsorship and support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who are both actively and violently seeking to over turn governements exactly like the U.S. did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Please explain why it is okay for them to persue their agenda, yet it is not okay for the United States to persue theirs.

This should not be too hard for you.

DriftingByTheStorm

NCfan wrote:

Please explain why it is okay for them to persue their agenda, yet it is not okay for the United States to persue theirs.

So this is a global game of "But, He Started It!"
?

America would do well to leave well alone until there is a REAL threat.
and by threat i mean, Iran comes out and says "you die!" or our intelligence comes out with CREDIBLE information to say there is a IMMINENT threat.

Otherwise, seeking war just to stop the spread of religion and ideas we dont agree with only serves to further the spread of such ideas ... which are principly based of the assertion that "the US is evil because it continues to interfer in the affairs of our region, and it does so for its own purposes" ...

And you are right, you have clearly argued the US motives for being in the middle east: You say its because we want oil, and we want to force our political will upon an unwilling region.

I think that is where some of us take offense.
Some of us feel that we should not be where we are not wanted doing things they dont want us doing.

Regardless of what the US wants.

You think maybe we could have just been friendly with Iran since 1950 and tried to get on their good side?
Instead we get the CIA to overthrow ole Mossadegh, their first elected president ever, and then we install an evil opressive dictator.

So, you don't think maybe we should have, and still should just leave them the fuck alone?

???
And again, you know WHY we overthrew Mossadegh?
I give you one guess.
Uh.
Yeah.
OIL.

He wanted to nationalize their oil fields.

Hmm.
:rolleyes:

RolandTD20Kdrummer

NCfan wrote:

Finally you address one of my points... maybe we can expand on that.

Please explain why you disagree with the logic that if the U.S. were not in the region, other nations would be exerting their influence too.

Case in point is Iran's sponsorship and support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who are both actively and violently seeking to over turn governements exactly like the U.S. did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Please explain why it is okay for them to persue their agenda, yet it is not okay for the United States to persue theirs.

This should not be too hard for you.

That simple... the concept of intra or inter would sum it up. So you're now saying the only reason there aren't hundreds of hezbollah (and etc etc terrorist) bases all around the world shooting and blowing everyone up is because of the US is pre-invading everyone around the world to keep it all under wraps?

That's a stretch to put it lightly...

NCfan

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

So this is a global game of "But, He Started It!"
?

America would do well to leave well alone until there is a REAL threat.
and by threat i mean, Iran comes out and says "you die!" or our intelligence comes out with CREDIBLE information to say there is a IMMINENT threat.

Otherwise, seeking war just to stop the spread of religion and ideas we dont agree with only serves to further the spread of such ideas ... which are principly based of the assertion that "the US is evil because it continues to interfer in the affairs of our region, and it does so for its own purposes" ...

And you are right, you have clearly argued the US motives for being in the middle east: You say its because we want oil, and we want to force our political will upon an unwilling region.

I think that is where some of us take offense.
Some of us feel that we should not be where we are not wanted doing things they dont want us doing.

Regardless of what the US wants.

You think maybe we could have just been friendly with Iran since 1950 and tried to get on their good side?
Instead we get the CIA to overthrow ole Mossadegh, their first elected president ever, and then we install an evil opressive dictator.

So, you don't think maybe we should have, and still should just leave them the fuck alone?

???
And again, you know WHY we overthrew Mossadegh?
I give you one guess.
Uh.
Yeah.
OIL.

He wanted to nationalize their oil fields.

Hmm.
:rolleyes:

Thanks for a pretty good post. You bring up a fundamental difference between our two points of view that is worth talking about.

You say that we are forcing our political will on an unwilling region. This is where things get murky, and I think we there is a legitimate debate to be had with two very strong points of view.

I respect that you think the region doesn't want us there. Afterall there are plenty of signs that point to that, and I would be dumb not to acknowledge them.

However, I'm not so sure the "region" doesn't want us there. It may be immpossible to know, but first off, who is it that really doesn't want us there. Is it governments such as Iran or Syria that want us out? If so, that matters little as those regimes are considered illegitimate to start with.

Is it the people? And if so, what are their motives? For instance, let's take Iraq. The vast majority of people there have known nothing in their lives except for war. Iran and Iraq went at it for 8 years during the 80's. Then Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the US went in a pretty much destroyed their country six months later. Ever since they lived under tight embargoes and sanctions while Saddam increased his ruthlessness to keep his power during this tought time. Then in 2003, we invaded again and you know the story of the past 5 years.

So my point is, Iraqi's are a battered and worn people. They might not have the strength, will power or vision to pick themselves up and strive for something better than a Saddam strongman for a leader or a Taliban style regime - which is what would happen should the US leave. I guess I'm saying that the jury is still out, because if start to make real gains and real progress in Iraq. If we start to stablize the country and make lives better, then attitudes can change drastically. Not becuase we are brainwashing people or buying them off, but becuase they may start to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

So for now, I do not think we can say for sure, either way, if the Iraqi's or others in the region really want us to leave. I think we will not be able to say with certainty for some time.

You know there are many countries, such as the newly formed Kosovo and Georgia, where the U.S. intervened militarily and now the people absolutely LOVE us.

Trust me, this isn't just a lot of hope on my part. If the writing was on the wall for me, I would be the first to say we need to get the hell out of there. I just can't see it yet. But trust me, I'm looking.

NCfan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That simple... the concept of intra or inter would sum it up. So you're now saying the only reason there aren't hundreds of hezbollah (and etc etc terrorist) bases all around the world shooting and blowing everyone up is because of the US is pre-invading everyone around the world to keep it all under wraps?

That's a stretch to put it lightly...

Dude, no I'm not saying that and you know it. Quit trying to distort my position. I know how you feel and I'm offering a rebutle. You know how I feel as well, but instead of addressing my points directly or answering questions to offer your opinion - instead you try to distort my position.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me by any means. I know you do not, and I'm fine with that. But stop saying stupid ass shit like "Some people fool themsevles into thinking its okay to kill other people, etc & when they feel bad about it, they just continue the process of lying to themselves so they can keep justifying it..."

That is just lame dude.... it's pretty obvious I have sound reasons why I beleive what I do. It's sad though that people such as yourself can't man up and disucss those differences without all the bullshit.