Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hitler was outnumbered by far as well. Did that stop him from starting WWII? Has Iran proven to be all that reasonable? Is the threat to the US the only consideration? What about US allies? Do they not matter? This all seems very simplistic. What do you propose, exactly? Ignore them and hope for the best? Not exactly a solid foreign policy strategy.
You seem intent on blaming the US for everything. Do these other nations and people have no responsibility for their own actions?
Hey Mr Tea Party, could you please answer both of my questions?
Hey Mr Tea Party, could you please answer both of my questions?
I answered the first. As to the 2nd, the US played a role in Iran's current regime, of course. However, I'm not sure what that has to do with the present day situation. If the US made the mistake of supporting that regime during a time they thought it would work out differently, do they then have no responsibility today when that regime becomes a threat? Is your logic that since the US was wrong, it shouldn't bother getting involved now? I'm not sure I get that.
And I would like an answer to my questions, and not just an insult.
1. Is getting justice for the murder of 3000 people not important? Is the rule of law not important because it involves international affairs? What positive would've come out of having OBL alive right now?
2. What are the benefits of a nuclear Iran? Do you think that the regime there has presented itself as reasonable and sane, no matter what the US did or didn't do in the past? What is your opinion of them right now, today?
I answered the first. As to the 2nd, the US played a role in Iran's current regime, of course. However, I'm not sure what that has to do with the present day situation.
LOL...well there's your first mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
If the US made the mistake of supporting that regime during a time they thought it would work out differently, do they then have no responsibility today when that regime becomes a threat? Is your logic that since the US was wrong, it shouldn't bother getting involved now? I'm not sure I get that.
And I would like an answer to my questions, and not just an insult.
I thought I answered your questions directly without insulting you. In fact, I restrained myself from insulting you. For instance, comparing Hitler Germany to a country with a developing economy and which hasn't invaded a country in over 200 years is preposterous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
1. Is getting justice for the murder of 3000 people not important? Is the rule of law not important because it involves international affairs? What positive would've come out of having OBL alive right now?
2. What are the benefits of a nuclear Iran? Do you think that the regime there has presented itself as reasonable and sane, no matter what the US did or didn't do in the past? What is your opinion of them right now, today?
In other words, the end justifies the means. Hm, never heard that before.
I thought I answered your questions directly without insulting you. In fact, I restrained myself from insulting you. For instance, comparing Hitler Germany to a country with a developing economy and which hasn't invaded a country in over 200 years is preposterous.
In other words, the end justifies the means. Hm, never heard that before.
So you have no interest in either answering the questions or serious debate but seemingly plenty in building strawmen to tear down. Good luck with that.
I'll just mark you down for: Nuclear Iran: Great! OBL Dead: Bad!
So you have no interest in either answering the questions or serious debate but seemingly plenty in building strawmen to tear down. Good luck with that.
Okay, prove to me this is a strawman. I'll answer your last set of loaded questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
1. Is getting justice for the murder of 3000 people not important?
Yes, it is. But if you think Bin Laden was worth the amount of money spent and the amount of lives lost waging these wars in the Middle East for the past decade, you're out of your damned mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
Is the rule of law not important because it involves international affairs?
Once again, of course it's important to bring justice. But at what price? We've been at war for years. Are you suggesting that if it took 100 years of sustained war in the Middle East to find Bin Laden, you would be for it? Do you see where this kind of waffling gets you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
What positive would've come out of having OBL alive right now?
None. So does that justify the past decade of war?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
2. What are the benefits of a nuclear Iran?
To whom?? Iran is fighting in it's own interests. Do you think it's the moral imperative of the US government to invade every country that our leaders deem potentially dangerous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
Do you think that the regime there has presented itself as reasonable and sane, no matter what the US did or didn't do in the past? What is your opinion of them right now, today?
My opinion is that they are trying to work against an American military-industrial complex that's trying to sustain Cold-War level expenditures and an Israeli lobby that is very effective and mobilizing American support for an issue that shouldn't matter to them as much as it does.
Besides (ridiculously) equating the Iranians with Hitler, give me one good reason why the Iranian government would risk self destruction by attacking this country? Not Israel, but this country?
Here's the deal: There is a large opposition movement in Iran. Every time the American government puts sanctions on Iran or flies a drone into their country, the support for the current Iranian regime increases and the opposition movement is ignored. The Iranian people are not a bunch of Afghani tribesmen. They are a sophisticated, well educated populace. One of the only things that keeps them from revolting against the current regime is their solidarity in opposition to the U.S and Israel.
Rather than responding to all the questions above, I'll make it simple for you: Is any form of military action off the table when it comes to Iran? Should we invade to prevent them from obtaining potential nuclear weapon? Let's be realistic here: if the Iranians wanted a nuclear bomb, no amount of diplomacy could prevent them from doing so. So if this is such a threat, should we, or should we not invade Iran?
Does anyone really believe the Ohio newspapers poll that shows the race as a dead heat? Obama has had the consistent lead in virtually every single poll conducted by any group not named Faux News and he is well ahead in early voting. Throw in Obama's strong leads in Nevada and Wisconsin and it's looking good for the president. Not sure how the Eastern megastorm will effect things, but Virginia is the only swing state that should be greatly impacted. Ohio will surely be impacted over the next couple of days with high winds (those are already starting), rain and snow, but nothing to the extent of the coastal states.
Okay, prove to me this is a strawman. I'll answer your last set of loaded questions.
Yes, it is. But if you think Bin Laden was worth the amount of money spent and the amount of lives lost waging these wars in the Middle East for the past decade, you're out of your damned mind.
First of all, Iraq had nothing to do with OBL. That was Bush's war of choice and I never agreed with it. The links you kindly provided earlier show that it's drawing to a close under Obama. You should be happy about that. Second, Afghanistan was more than just OBL. It was about the entire terrorist organization finding refuge there. Had they been left alone, how many more attacks worldwide would've occurred? You make it seem like if nothing had been done, there would've been no consequences and everyone would've happily skipped away. The US didn't start that war. I sort of remember we were attacked. Whether or not you think US policy is partially responsible is certainly up for discussion, but the bottom line is the US would not have gone into Afghanistan had 9/11 not happened. In any event, it is also drawing to a conclusion.
Once again, of course it's important to bring justice. But at what price? We've been at war for years. Are you suggesting that if it took 100 years of sustained war in the Middle East to find Bin Laden, you would be for it? Do you see where this kind of waffling gets you?
I didn't say we should wage war at any cost. That's your strawman. The fact is that if there had been any kind of real plan put forth from the beginning and Bush not screwed up on both fronts, it never would've lasted as long as it has. You keep trying to assert that I'm all hawk and I think all this is well worth it. I really don't. But they were started, they had to be finished.
None. So does that justify the past decade of war?
So what are you arguing then? If not that it's a net positive that OBL be alive, then what? I don't think the US had a lot of good choices. Either go after those responsible or ignore them and hope it doesn't happen again. You can probably get away with ignoring a lot of things on the foreign front. After all, when was the last time the US got involved in preventing African genocide? Out of sight, out of mind. But you can't ignore planes flying into your buildings. War is a nasty thing.
To whom?? Iran is fighting in it's own interests. Do you think it's the moral imperative of the US government to invade every country that our leaders deem potentially dangerous?
The US hasn't invaded Iran and doesn't seem to have any plans to do so. I don't think the US should be the world's police force, but at the same time, history says that ignored threats, whether on the homefront or abroad to allies, tends to end up worse in the long run. Like it or not, the world is a very interconnected place, and that's only becoming more true every year. You don't always get to pick the battles.
My opinion is that they are trying to work against an American military-industrial complex that's trying to sustain Cold-War level expenditures and an Israeli lobby that is very effective and mobilizing American support for an issue that shouldn't matter to them as much as it does.
Besides (ridiculously) equating the Iranians with Hitler, give me one good reason why the Iranian government would risk self destruction by attacking this country? Not Israel, but this country?
You act like history is full of reasonable leaders who would never consider doing something stupid or wrong. I didn't bring up Hitler to make a direct comparison. Clearly they're not the same situation. But we're not dealing with rational leadership in Iran, and when you do have allies nearby, you take it seriously.
Here's the deal: There is a large opposition movement in Iran. Every time the American government puts sanctions on Iran or flies a drone into their country, the support for the current Iranian regime increases and the opposition movement is ignored. The Iranian people are not a bunch of Afghani tribesmen. They are a sophisticated, well educated populace. One of the only things that keeps them from revolting against the current regime is their solidarity in opposition to the U.S and Israel.
There's many people in the US, educated people, who reject evolution. That also doesn't make them right. And it's not like the media in Iran doesn't help along the image. Again, you seem to have this very simplistic worldview where everyone would get along and there would never be war if the US just became isolationist and ignored everything. It's naive.
Rather than responding to all the questions above, I'll make it simple for you: Is any form of military action off the table when it comes to Iran? Should we invade to prevent them from obtaining potential nuclear weapon? Let's be realistic here: if the Iranians wanted a nuclear bomb, no amount of diplomacy could prevent them from doing so. So if this is such a threat, should we, or should we not invade Iran?
An invasion would be a bad idea, imo. So would a nuclear Iran. And this is why I'm glad I am not in charge of foreign policy. You hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Had they been left alone, how many more attacks worldwide would've occurred?
You've already (correctly) acknowledged why they attacked us in the first place, so perhaps you can answer that question.
Quote:
So what are you arguing then? If not that it's a net positive that OBL be alive, then what?
I'm arguing that the end does not justify the means. Even if Osama's death were as big of a deal as you pretend it is, there is no possible way it could justify the amount of death and destruction that this "War on Terror" has brought about. Up until Obama's election, most leftists would have agreed with me.
Quote:
But they were started, they had to be finished.
And what exactly is the criteria for "finished"? Until there is no opposition left? When Obama says so? Can I get some specifics?
Quote:
You act like history is full of reasonable leaders who would never consider doing something stupid or wrong.
Take a look in the mirror, hoss. Examine American foreign policy over the past few decades. You'll notice I'm actually suggesting the complete opposite.
Quote:
There's many people in the US, educated people, who reject evolution. That also doesn't make them right.
You're not making a distinction between the people and their government. As a result, you've entirely missed my point.
Quote:
An invasion would be a bad idea, imo. So would a nuclear Iran. And this is why I'm glad I am not in charge of foreign policy. You hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
This way of looking at things is very dangerous, and I'm afraid it's part of the reason the left has followed Obama lockstep despite his rather hawkish foreign policy. If Mitt Romney is elected and immediately goes to war with Iran, you can say something like "how typical of those warmongering republicans" but if Obama does the same thing you're response would be something like "well he knows better than I do."
There's no point in even debating you. If you can't decide for yourself what you think is best, you're just going to rely on an appeal to authority to justify whatever Obama does. Your views on foreign policy are a pragmatic black hole confused by partisan allegiance.
Does anyone really believe the Ohio newspapers poll that shows the race as a dead heat?
Yes, and R will be up by 1 or 2 with likely voters by the end of the week. We had a union mail carrier canvassing our neighborhood yesterday for Issue 2 and Sherrod Brown and he admitted to me privately he is going to pull the lever for Romney. Things are shifting.
Me and my immediate family living in Florida will be voting Obama again . Maybe Obama hasn't turned out to be the greatest president, but I honestly don't feel Romney will do everything he's promised , including create 12 million new jobs in a short amount of time .
I'm told If Obama gets re-elected and taxes the rich a little more , this money will go into the economy to help our situation by creating jobs and for the little people like myself to have more money to spend . Many people will disagree , including a man that goes by the screen name " World Traveler Man on youtube .
I subscribe to his videos and he speaks about this topic in a video that taxing the rich is nonsense, it makes no sense because it has no foundation .
Consumption is not the foundation , production is what holds up the foundation . More and more detail was provided in the video to explain why this will not work to get the economy back on track but this is just a small part to explain why it may not work .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
