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.
What you don’t realize is that what you are saying pushes Iran further and further into developing a nuclear arsenal. The US is leaving them no better options. If you were Iran, what would you do? You would go ahead and develop nuclear weapons because a nation 50x your strength that has invaded your neighbors has branded you an enemy. They have to develop them at this point and if they can continue to sell oil to China or Russia and whomever, they will complete the job if they have not done it already. I would like to see the US find more creative ways to diffuse this hostility. The US, unfortunately, doesn’t have any credibility in the world today, hence they are pushing forward with sanctioning the heck out of Iran because that’s the only card they got. They especially have no trust with the Mullahs given the US’ historical involvement in their internal affairs. All the US can do is starve Iran the best they could so that it becomes weaker and weaker like North Korea, knowing full well that it will not use the arsenal because they will get hit with 10x worse in return. I think we have to assume at this point that they either do or will have nuclear capabilities but are weaker due to trade isolation, but not as weak as North Korea…Then what? The US is trapped in a North Korea-type situation in another part of the world. The US keeps digging itself deeper in these international quagmires to serve its own self interests. Yes, the US has successfully managed to diversity its energy supplies away from the middle east so they are not totally reliant by any means. But they aren’t there because they have interest in human rights and all that nonsense that no one with an ounce of original thought really believes, I think the US is getting involved because Iran is a resource supply of the world and China would love to have the relationship with Iran that the US has with Saudi but not if the US can help it since the US can’t have that relationship with Iran. Unfortunately, the US has got itself in this mess due to imperialistic interests starting a long time ago and it keeps getting worse and worse and it’s coming to a tipping point. I really don’t think the US can afford another war, nor do I think the world or even the citizens of the US will support it at this point. While some may say it is stimulus, it will be temporary as the US cannot fund the war with debt otherwise they risk turning into the next Japan or Europe, which are stagnant, debt-ladden, no growth, un-innovative, mature economies stuck in a debt spiral for at least a decade, while Asia continues its ups and downs but nevertheless continues its upward trajectory. There could be social unrest within the US as well in this scenario. I don’t know what the solution is but the US has to really change the way it deals with Iran and other countries because these games aren’t working and can’t go on. I was hoping Obama could be different in this regard but he hasn’t been, Romney would provide zero hope. Besides, there are likely so many powerful behind the scenes interests influencing politicians that it won’t really matter than much who is at the helm. Change needs to be come from the President, the voices of the people, corporate and media interests, military complex, other countries in the world speaking up, etc. I just hope we don’t have to wait around for something tragic to happen before everyone’s attitude changes, which is usually the case in life. Wonder how proud the Founding Fathers of the USA would be if they were alive to see.
You've made a pretty good analysis, but it's lacking one important point: WE didn't start our confrontation with Iran. They did, back in the 70's. It's not very well known now, but that was a period in which the new regime in Iran supported terrorists all over the world. Hijacking airliners, killing Israeli athletes, hijacking cruise ships, supporting Yassir Arafat back when he was a terrorist (long before he became a respected "statesman.") Iran was involved in it all, directly or indirectly. They started our era of new relations with a deliberate and coldly calculated assault on our embassy in Tehran, holding our embassy staff hostage for nearly a year. They didn't even try to meet us half way, which Jimmie Carter was willing to do.
But, that's all history now. Missed opportunities are the hallmark of all foreign relations and we and Iran are no different from anyone else. Be that as it may, at this point, we really don't have very many options than to do what we're doing and neither do they.
You've made a pretty good analysis, but it's lacking one important point: WE didn't start our confrontation with Iran. They did, back in the 70's. It's not very well known now, but that was a period in which the new regime in Iran supported terrorists all over the world. Hijacking airliners, killing Israeli athletes, hijacking cruise ships, supporting Yassir Arafat back when he was a terrorist (long before he became a respected "statesman.") Iran was involved in it all, directly or indirectly. They started our era of new relations with a deliberate and coldly calculated assault on our embassy in Tehran, holding our embassy staff hostage for nearly a year. They didn't even try to meet us half way, which Jimmie Carter was willing to do.
But, that's all history now. Missed opportunities are the hallmark of all foreign relations and we and Iran are no different from anyone else. Be that as it may, at this point, we really don't have very many options than to do what we're doing and neither do they.
try again, 1953 it started. I thought good ole usa loved democracy, LMAO
Other nuggets: According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on 19 August. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[15] Between 300 and 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict.
Ofc the good ole boys in CIA are up to their same stuff throughtout the middle east currently. Syria, Libya, Egypt among others almost certainly.
What you say about the history of Iran is pretty much correct, though you didn't include the interesting fact that it was Herbert Schwarzkopf, the father of General "Stormin' Norman," who created what would become SAVAK.
But, regurgitating Iranian propaganda about how good the Jews have it in Iran adds nothing.
Let me be clear about something: I'm among those who do not want Iran to get nuclear weapons. Period. It would be destabilizing on a number of levels and lead to no good, even if they were not used.
On the other hand, I'm not among those who favor war over the issue unless it absolutely cannot be avoided, and I think it can IF the President's campaign of increasingly bitter sanctions is given time to work. My greatest fear is that either Romney will be elected and give Israel the green light to kick off what could conceivably be WWIII or, more likely, that Netanyahu will act unilaterally and drag us into his fight before the sanctions have time to work.
The field has been planted, the harvest is near. Media and Persia will join forces with Russia and the Israeli's will receive the first pains of chemical and nuclear weapons destroying their towns and cities.
The US will but it's nose in, per usual, and the earth will move off it's axis. Game over for nearly 1/2 of all humanity, and the creatures that live on this planet.
So! were American and Israeli interests worth it?
All because of greed, pride and the lust to control people and resources.
You've made a pretty good analysis, but it's lacking one important point: WE didn't start our confrontation with Iran. They did, back in the 70's.
That's a lie. We started it all in 1953. Because we cannot mind our own business.
Our arrogance is destroying the country. Our unwillingness to realize we cannot rule the world like we want to is killing this country. We are BROKE, over 46 million Americans on Food Stamps alone, molesters with a badge gropping people at the airport, thousands of troops dead, open borders, over 20 million illegal aliens in this country..indefinite detention, police abuse, spying in citizens and people are worried that IRAN will take away our freedoms???
I hope some of you do wake up. For the sake of your fellow countrymen and women. For the sake of your children.
Last edited by KickAssArmyChick; 07-25-2012 at 06:25 PM..
Presently no, but in the past yes. nowadays there is trade embargo in place. There is a deep interest to change the government in Iran which gives oil to american companies on favourable terms. I suggest you read this:-
Why do Americans have a problem admitting that a war crime helped win a war? I always find the A-bomb debates to be somewhat amusing in that a lot of American posters try to say it wasn't a war crime. A lot of people have a problem with America when they go around committing war crimes and then act like they are just and good and doing the right thing. The Japanese may have surrendered due to the atomic bombs but it doesn't change the fact that it was an atrocity. Why are Americans allowed to commit war crimes while other countries aren't? Considering that the A-bombs won the war in the Pacific, why shouldn't other countries be allowed to commit war crimes to win a war?
It was a terrible thing, but it wasn't a war crime any more than the fire bombing of London. It's not even in the realm of the concentration camps, the rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March. War is hell, plain and simple. And, after 4 years of hell, what it came down to was more of them or more of us. It's easy for arm-chair critics like yourself to make feeble comments 65+ years later. They were warned, leaflets were dropped, they were warned again, they continued to press for more war (which they started). Boom. After 4 years and 400,000 of our boys dead, did they think Truman was joking?
Quote:
BTW, I don't consider the A-bombs to be anything compared to the carpet bombing of North Korea or the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. The carpeting bombings killed 2 million Koreans (out of a population of 9 million) in North Korea while Agent Orange has completely devastated the environment of Vietnam. Considering that the Korean War and Vietnam War were internal conflicts, can you tell me why it was necessary to carpet bomb North Korea and use Agent Orange in Vietnam?
Can you remind me again as to who started the Korean conflict? It doesn't appear that you know.
I have no defense for the use of Agent Orange other than I'm pretty sure the full effects of it were under-realized at the time. However, neither of these examples cite the deliberate targeting of civilians.
The field has been planted, the harvest is near. Media and Persia will join forces with Russia and the Israeli's will receive the first pains of chemical and nuclear weapons destroying their towns and cities.
If that happens Israel will retaliate with their nuclear weapons (which they have a lot more of) and we will be rid of the religious fanatics once and for all.
Quote:
The US will but it's nose in, per usual, and the earth will move off it's axis. Game over for nearly 1/2 of all humanity, and the creatures that live on this planet.
And what makes you think America will use it's nuclear weapons? By the time Israel gets done retaliating there will be nothing more than glass where the middle east used to be...
Quote:
So! were American and Israeli interests worth it?
Please go study geopolitics, you will find out China and Russia have a lot more to loose in a middle east war.
Quote:
All because of greed, pride and the lust to control people and resources.
Don't you people ever stop with the same old mantra decade after decade?
It was a terrible thing, but it wasn't a war crime any more than the fire bombing of London. It's not even in the realm of the concentration camps, the rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March. War is hell, plain and simple. And, after 4 years of hell, what it came down to was more of them or more of us. It's easy for arm-chair critics like yourself to make feeble comments 65+ years later. They were warned, leaflets were dropped, they were warned again, they continued to press for more war (which they started). Boom. After 4 years and 400,000 of our boys dead, did they think Truman was joking?
Can you remind me again as to who started the Korean conflict? It doesn't appear that you know.
I have no defense for the use of Agent Orange other than I'm pretty sure the full effects of it were under-realized at the time. However, neither of these examples cite the deliberate targeting of civilians.
they could of dropped the bomb on an uninhabited area to get the point across. Nope, but do you think the elite really care about people they consider useless feeders? They would probably be happy to get rid of 90% of us if they could without putting themselves at risk.
It was a terrible thing, but it wasn't a war crime any more than the fire bombing of London. It's not even in the realm of the concentration camps, the rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March. War is hell, plain and simple. And, after 4 years of hell, what it came down to was more of them or more of us. It's easy for arm-chair critics like yourself to make feeble comments 65+ years later. They were warned, leaflets were dropped, they were warned again, they continued to press for more war (which they started). Boom. After 4 years and 400,000 of our boys dead, did they think Truman was joking?
Can you remind me again as to who started the Korean conflict? It doesn't appear that you know.
I have no defense for the use of Agent Orange other than I'm pretty sure the full effects of it were under-realized at the time. However, neither of these examples cite the deliberate targeting of civilians.
I think I stated that the A-bomb won the war. I didn't even question its use. I just said it was a war crime and that committing atrocities against civilians can help win wars. I was just wondering why Americans are doing the right thing when they commit war crimes while others aren't.
Even if North Korea started the Korean War what right did the US have to interfere in a civil war? Should the US interfere in all civil wars and if yes why didn't the US interfere in the Congo back in the 90s? Do you not think that the firebombing was disproportionate? 2 million died btw in a country of 9 million people. If you are wondering only 1 million Japanese civilians died during WWII in a country of 70 million people. It's funny but the USA killed more Koreans in 3 years of war than the Japanese ever did in its 35 year occupation.
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.
