Once a distant, mysterious land, the U.S. has become intensely embroiled in Middle Eastern politics. While simultaneously waging campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq, America has turned a wary eye to Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons. With the lives of potentially thousands of soldiers and citizens at stake in both countries, should the U.S. take direct military action against Iran?
The confusion of wmds from Iraq is not even a question. Iran even says it is not not even trying build anything except peaceful nuclear power . While we focus on there laboratories they are looking to import nuclear weapons.
They just announced "We are in the same trenches with North Korea" North Korea does posses nuclear weapons. They are trying to lobby oil for for weapons. This is going on behind the scenes while we are focused on the public debate.
While backing multiple terrorist groups in the region, they have surrounded Israel. However while being the most obvious front of agitation, they have also surrounded Saudi Arabia..
Iran hates the Saudis for supporting the U.S. and for being another sect of islam . The benifit for surrrounding the Saudis is that it can give the Wahabi militants, almost soley armed with Iranian weapons, the ability to cause unrest or even civil war.
If this begins to happen the Iranians will begin siezing key oil producing area along thier border. If they are ever to wage war against the west they will need to control all of this oil along with their own to feed the military macchines of their country, North Korea, sponsored terrorists, and possbly even venezuela to aread the U.S. military thin on many fronts.
Yes America should declare war not only on IRAN BUT ALSO ON SAUDI ARABIA.The reasons for this is this two countries are the pillars of islamic terror,by virtue of thier ideology.Saudi Arabia provides the moral backing,through money and mysticisim,while iran provides the logistics i.e Training.If this two pillars of radical islam were taken out the rest of the of the islamic radical movement would take notice and cease there attacks on the west.The only thing worse than the altruistic morality the west is now practicing,is not to attack these two countries and destroy the pillars of islamic terror.
Just as went the invasion of Iraq you suggest now we attack another two countries who have not harmed us. Hey how about we take the nuclear weapons away from the nation that attacked the USS Liberty??
they just want to have Nuclear energy not more .
We are now 5 1/2 yrs into Iraq and Afghanistan. We have not yet even secured the city of Baghdad!!!!! Are you joking in suggersting we send already stretched -out troops to another zone of conflict??? Lat's face it our current track record isn't that great. For those of you old enough to remember the Vietnam "conflict" remember that it was also a disaster!!! The U.S.Gov't then assd now, had NO CLUE what they were up against. namely unending support from China and the USSR!!! Jugears is just as clueless as the morons who got us into Vietnam!! If we fail to learn from the mistakes of history we are condemnded to repeat them .. especially if we keep re-electing the current morons who insist on keeping us where we are now.. facing a winless war!!
Can someone post facts/figures relevant to the situation, or will this simply be a war of words? It would be nice to receive some substantiated evidence on how dire the situation in Iran actually is.
On December 19, 2007, a U.S.-based law firm succeeded in freezing the funds of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) in France on behalf of American clients who, in the judgment of U.S. courts, were victims of terrorist attacks sponsored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Four CBI accounts at Natexis Banques Populaire totaling 90 million Euros, 52 million Swiss francs, and 25 million British pounds were included the freeze. CBI accounts at Bank Melli (the National Bank of Iran) in Paris that held 231 million Euros and $52 million were also frozen.
Iran's Central Bank also has had a role to play in terrorist financing. In September 2006, the U.S. Treasury disclosed that the Central Bank of Iran was sending money to Hizbullah through Bank Saderat, which was also providing financial services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hamas.2 U.S. Treasury officials also revealed that the Central Bank of Iran was in fact asking financial institutions around the world to hide any possible connection between their transactions and Iranian missile procurement, nuclear programs, and the financing of terrorism.3 The Central Bank of Iran had good reasons for exercising this caution. Bank Melli and Bank Saderat had transferred millions of dollars through their European branches to both Hizbullah and Hamas.4 All these Iranian banks are state-owned; they hence have no independence and serve the interests of the Iranian regime.
(see http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=380&PID=1865&IID=2033 for original webpage)
Does Iran sponsor terrorism?
In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.” U.S. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told CFR.org in June 2007 there is “overwhelming evidence” that Iran supports terrorists in Iraq and “compelling” evidence that it does the same in Afghanistan. For these reasons, news reports in August 2007 cited U.S. officials as saying that the United States would consider adding Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. Iran has repeatedly denied involvement in helping attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What terrorist activities have been linked with Iran?
The U.S. government first listed Iran as a terrorist sponsor in 1984. Among its activities have been the following:
• U.S. officials say Iran supported the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen.
• Observers say Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks, such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a UN observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina.
Terrorist organizations linked to Iran:
A few months after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections in early 2006, Iran pledged $50 million to the near-bankrupt PA. The United States, among other nations, has cut off aid to the PA because of Hamas’ terrorist ties.
(see http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362 /#2 Council on Foreign Relations- webpage for original source)
Also, for info on Iranian funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), and Other Iran-financed attacks against Israeli civilians check out The Israel Project – an international non-profit organization. ( http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH /b.4486167/k.CECA/Iran_Training_and_Arming_Terrorist_Groups_that_Target_Israel.htm)
It's a lot of info. Have fun.
Hezbollah is the Lebanese resistance and not a terrorist organisation. - This is in spite of all the Zionist inspired lies.
Hezbollah was formed in 1982 to resist the Israeli invasion of lebanon.
Hezbollah is very successful in its job of being the resistance
1. They made the American hegemonists run away
2 They made the French run away
3 They drove the Israelis out of most of Lebanon in 2000
4 They gave Israel a good smacking in 2006 and thwarted the attempt by Israel to steal Lebanese water.
Hezbollah does not operate militarily outside their own country. Unlike Israel and America who continually murder people from other countries and on other people's land.
And a good reason would be:
1. To defend an ally, whom America is obliged, by treaty, to defend.
2. A direct attack on America.
It seems that the US only attacks those nations it knows cannot strike America. So Iraq, and Afghanistan. Where there is a possibility of retaliation (e.g. North Korea) words will suffice.
America, you look like a bully to the rest of the world.
Check out the info at The Israel Project, an international non-profit organization. There are detailed lists of Iranian financing of terrorist organizations.
http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH /b.4486167/k.CECA/Iran_Training_and_Arming_Terrorist_Groups_that_Target_Israel.htm
Also, check this out: Council on Foreign Relations, an independent think tank.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362 /#2
Here's one more source of info for you: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs - The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is an independent non-profit institute for policy research and education.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=380&PID=1865&IID=2033
Can you cite any non Israeli/none US sources ?
My argument still stands, the Palestinians in Gaza have no significant military capabilities.
If you look at the world from Iran's position, you would have seen (at least for the least 8 years) a steady flow of generally hostile rhetoric flowing from the US, increasing talk of military action from both the US & Israel. You have no chance of success in a, conventional, military conflict so you search for an equaliser, say Nuclear weapons.
If you want to understand the conflicts in the middle east you need to go back to the 1917 and the Balfour Declaration stating that the British government "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", then to 1945-48 with the creation of Israel.
I certainly side with the Ayn Rand Center on this one. A couple of thoughts here. Some of the comments have claimed that Iraq and Iran are "sovereign" nations. WHAT?! That term should only apply to freedom loving, rights respecting nations like America. Other comments have, rightly, shown that Iran has been at war with us since they took American's hostage in 1979. I would go further back and say we should have bombed them out of existence back in the 1950's when they nationalized [stole] the west's oil fields.
"Iraq and Iran are "sovereign" nations. WHAT?! That term should only apply to freedom loving, rights respecting nations like America."
Anyone who understands what freedom and the right to national sovereignty are about would never claim such an idea of telling others (individuals or countries) what they do and how they should do it.
If those oilfields were located within the national border of Iran, the idea of stealing is absurd.
If your post is any sign of your real thought process then you don't love freedom; you don't know how to respect others and you have complete disregard for history.
Thank you for your thoughts. I will try to clarify what I mean. It was the Western nations, meaning America and England [possibly others] that used their science, technology and capital to discover oil in the Middle East, and make its use possible. In 1951, Iran looted the private property of these oil fields and "nationalized" them. That means they stole what didn't belong to them. Other nations, seeing our cowardice in not defending our own property properly, jumped on the bandwagon and proceeded to nationalize the oil fields in their countries.
Thugs who rule by force, and the "nations" they rule, should not be considered sovereign, because they rule by "undemocratic" or "uncivilized" means. Please don't give me any gruff about Iranian's or others being able to "vote". That alone does not prove, nor signify right's respecting nations. I define freedom as the absence of force in human relationships. This disqualifies most, if not all the rogue countries in the ME. As for respecting others, I don't respect those who allow themselves to be trampled on by theocrat's or any other style of two-bit dictator.
Again, thank you for your comment and thoughts. I do take them seriously.
doesn't allow us to define sovereign for our own personal use. When we do, we usually mess it up.
Obviously western private oil companies didn't learn from the Mexican revolution. It just takes some longer to learn longer than others. However, just because one has the technology doesn't mean one has rights to it. All nations have rights over their natural resources. This situation is only exasperated when one is talking about a former colony, where certainly the governing body was controlled by the colonizing country. Breaking that relation and claiming independence usually nullifies any deals made under a colonial government. Our revolution did the same to the British.
I won't give you gruff, but the right to vote in Iran is actually not much different than those in the United Kingdom. They can vote for their prime ministers but the Monarchy has final say in the matter.
Your definition of "right's respecting" nations would also exclude England and Israel.
My final question though, do you mean you disagree with those who let "themselves to be trampled on by theocrat's or any other style of two-bit dictator"? Don't forget our country was under colonial domination for something around 150 years before we as a country revolted. And parts of our nation had something similar to theocratic rule at least locally even after the revolution. It was a long process getting people to accept secular control here, and we still have religious groups trying to impose their beliefs on our public policy. When I think of the historical process our country went through to get to where we are today, I tend to be a little more understanding of the difficulties other countries have.
The right question really is; 'Should the US have used military force against Iran in 1979 after the Iranian government condoned storming the US embassy? The same people with the same attitude are still in control of Iran but some thirty years of abysmal US foreign policy has simple made they bolder and more obnoxious. To say the Iranian regime is dangerous is probably an understatement however while they kill Americans in the middle east I think they are still somewhat short of being deadly on continental north America. That said, what to do about them?
I'm confident that American forces could deal with the Iranians but could the political leaders finish the task? Squandered opportunities are truly an American legacy that the next administration aren't likely to change.
If you want war, don't order or wish the soldiers to Iran, GO THERE YOURSELVES!!! As a former soldier, I KNOW there are recruiting stations in every state and territory of the US. When it comes to war, we as a people must push aside pride and hate and explore EVERY OPTION besides war, unless we are clearly facing annihilation. I don't see that from Iran. It's no coincidence that when the bullets start flying, the most outspoken proponents of war are nowhere to be found. Be careful what you wish for..
As a soldier, currently serving in Iraq, for the second time, I would like the U.S. to finally put an end to the Iranian regime. By eliminating Iran, the benefits to American security would be enormous, both in the short-term and long-term. Iran would no longer have the ability to fund terrorist organizations that continue to plot and strike against the U.S., her troops, and her allies. Additionally, the people in Iran, and other peoples around the world who would do us harm, could then see that America is not “a paper tiger.”
Plus, on a note of sheer, overt, direct self-interest: I want to fight a real war in Iran. After all, that's what I signed up to do. I volunteered to fight a war to end certain threats to America, so that I could quickly return to a normal state of living. I did not volunteer to be a nation-building, street guarding, watchdog for another country.
I have served one tour in Iraq as an infantryman and I’m half-way through my second tour, this time as a support soldier- a truck driver. I know full well what an actual, full-fledged conflict with Iran would entail- and I'm ready. Let’s finish this once and for all.
We took out a democratically elected regime in the 1950s: in 1953 President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax which had Prime Minister Mossadegh arrested and removed from power. We threw our support behind the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was more popular with our government than that of the Iranian people who finally kicked him out in the late 1970's. Since the people kicked out our government's puppet Iran has had to face embargoes and a war. Remember when Saddam was our friend and ally and we supplied them with military support to fight the Iranians?
If anyone feels threatened it has been Iran. I'm pretty sure Iranian people don't you over their killing family and friends, destroying their national treasures, or "be[ing] a nation-building, street guarding, watchdog for another country."
I'm an OIF vet x 2 and I approve of the ARC's message. Insanity has completely taken over our foreign policy. Iran is killing US soldiers in Iraq, and the only reason they don't kill as many soldiers as they used to is that the military fielded the MRAP. They are still there, waiting. You can take it to the bank that the real trouble will start in 2011.
Like it or not, those people are crazy, they are committed, they think they can win, they are not going away, and they are going to continue to kill us, soldiers and civilians, until someone smashes their movement into the ground.
The Heritage Foundation is not living in reality. Play with sanctions and international jaw-jawing all you want, but in the end, if you can’t back up your measures with force, you’ve got nothing. Our leaders think force is always optional whenever they want it to be.
The liberals are right about one thing, but not in the way they mean it: The rest of the world doesn't respect the United States anymore.
Including the one where we do nothing until a nuclear bomb explodes in downtown New York? I see no reason to wait for that. They've declared their intentions toward us, and they are working on a means of carrying it out. We need to stop them NOW.
We could use this logic in so many places:
Spank the kids when they go into the kitchen because you know they are going to get a cookie before dinner.
Jail people with guns because we know they will cause harm to someone eventually.
Hit the boyfriend of your teenage daughter because you he's thinking about having sex with her. Then just lock her in her room because she was probably considering saying yes.
Picking random people entering banks and giving them some jail time because everyone has said or thought about robbing a bank at some point.
Send the leaders of countries who have used, in any fashion, WMDs against other nations to jail - Doh! we can't preempt that one cause the US did that some 60+ years ago.
Well, it's not a perfect logic but it could save us a lot of trouble in so many ways.
If you want to parody my logic, you should try to understand it first. My conclusion was based on the fact that they have already declared their intention toward us, and that they are working on a means to carry it out. If you had used that same assumption in your weak attempt at refutation, then you would have to say, for example, that the child has declared his intention to get a cookie before dinner, that the gun owner has declared an intention to harm someone, that the daughter has declared an intention to have sex, etc, etc. If you include those assumptions, then it's plain that some action would be called for (though not necessarily the ones you seem to think appropriate in the case of the child and daughter). The police can arrest someone for conspiracy to rob a bank, if they can establish that the person had the intent and was working toward that goal.
All your examples involve making an assumption of intent based on zero evidence. We are not in that position with Iran. All we have to do is listen to what they have been saying for the past thirty years, and look at what they are doing. That they have been chanting "Death to America" while building a nuclear bomb would give any sane person cause for concern. They have employed terrorist attacks against us on numerous occasions. We do not have to wait for them to fire the first shot. To do so would be suicide.
The USA is the country attacking others all the time and doesn't like even a mild pay-back.
Cuba - the siting of Russian missiles on Cuba made all the scaredy cat Americans wet their knickers. This was only a small pay-back for the USA surrounding the Soviet Union with US missiles.
9/11 - This was only a small pay-back for the enormous criminality of the USA in the Middle East. CIA coup in Iran in 1953 which lead to 25 years of oppression and murder of many thousands of Iranians. Decades of support for Israel to murder people in Palestine and lebanon to steal their land. American sponsored UN sanctions in Iraq causing the deaths of 1.6 million people including 600,000 children. Madeleine Albright said these deaths were a price worth paying. This was all before 9/11 so the world knows who the real bad people are!
Odious America is pathetic! There were no Iraqis nor Iranians nor Afghans taking part in 9/11. The yanks should all go home before they get another arse kicking like the one they received in Vietnam.
I should have said threatened Iran with nuclear strikes from our navy. The way I wrote it makes it seem, wrongly, that we did fire nuclear missles at the country.
I almost wrote the comment asking you to back that one up with some facts. I'm glad I scrolled down a bit to see this comment before I did.
It was a parody and not all that good of a one either. But neither are the arguments for military action against Iran. Every one is being so selective about history in this debate. Iranian Politicians' anti west rhetoric is as common as anyone else' rhetoric on a number of political issues. However, our country tries to bank the role of potential victim when in reality we have been the aggressor against Iran. We teamed up with Britain and arrested thei democratically elected prime minister towards the end of the 1950's, we then installed a leader (the Shah) more favorable to our countries' interests. When the Iranians had their political revolution against a tyrant we supported in 1979 we escalated military threats to the country, including nuclear strikes from our navy ships that were in the area at the time.
Then we supported Saddam's military while Iraq launched a war against Iran.
I would imagine the Iranian political rhetoric against our country gets a hearing because so many people in that country have suffered directly because of actions we have already taken over the past 50+ years.
Our government should admits its wrong doings and approach the Iranian government peacefully and work on things that the two countries can agree upon as way of building mutual trust between our nations. This seems to be more viable and will produce better results in the future than any military action could ever hop to accomplish.
Why is the “if you want a war, you need to go” a valid argument? Does that necessitate all Congressmen become soldiers if they vote yes on a war resolution? On a more ludicrous level, using the same “logic,” I can argue that:
1)You must have an abortion if you advocate abortion as an option.
2)You must convert to a religion in order to recommend that others convert.
3)You must have children in order to advise others to have children.
4)You must eat tofu in order to advise others to eat tofu.
5)You must watch a movie in order to recommend it to others.
While it certainly helps credibility to have experienced something in order to recommend it, it is not a prerequisite. I am someone that wants to explore EVERY option before choosing armed conflict, but I am also one that would recommend strongly that when war is all that is left, those with sound logic are the ones making sure the war (and all of the options before-hand) are prosecuted effectively.
As a current soldier, I am ready to go there myself. I have to side with the "chicken-hawks" on this one; I'd rather fight hard now, than harder later.
Current soldier, I respect your opinion, and if you end up deploying, I hope you make it back safely. That said, Are you a veteran of OIF, Enduring Freedom, or any combat op? During Vietnam, the idea of "fighting now in order to not fight later" was trumpeted frequently. I believe it was related to the domino theory. I found that for the most part, when we went to detain or interrogate suspected EC's, most of them would say "let me get my shoes" when we asked them to accompany us. That said, I was a 37F, and we are trained to use words, not weapons, when possible. I'm guessing you're 11B?
I don't intend to argue with you about the conduct of the war in Vietnam; I wasn't there. However, our justifications for going in there were significantly different from what our reasons for invading Iran would be. Iran has threatened us and our allies directly, and shown a willingness to act on those threats.
I'm guessing you're 11B? I'm actually in the Air Force. I called myself a soldier for rhetorical purpose and because we Airmen have a tendency to play fast and loose with terms like that(I've had commanders refer to us collectively as 'soldiers', so I figured the term was generally permissible). My unit doesn't deploy, and though I've volunteered a few times, I was never chosen to go.
The Ayn Rand Center (ARC) lists the ample provocations by Iran against the United States to justify a military response by us. In fact, with the Iranian threat continuing to grow and Iranian ambitions, as Dr. Bukay makes clear, quite extensive, the response has to be more than just a pin-prick attack to take out a potential nuclear capability.
A definite end has to be put to the Iranian regime and thus at the heart of Islamist ambitions in the Middle East. As ARC points out, the only moral, practical and principled path is to fight a total war against Iran similar to the wars fought against Germany and Japan during WWII. Dr. Bukay names the specifics needed: "a surprise military air-naval attack on most of the political and military sites, camps and political institutions and structures." I applaud Dr. Bukay and the Ayn Rand Center for recognizing the severity of the threat and recommending the only right path.
There is not one shred of evidence that Iran ever diverted nuclear fuel for the purpose of making nuclear weapons and that is from the IAEA. Iran always keeps the NPT and America and Israel do not. The continual accusations of liars like Clinton and Biden are not any form of evidence but just more malevolent American lies.
Israel has not signed the NPT and manufactures nuclear weapons. USA does not keep the NPT and proliferates nuclear weapons to India, Pakistan and Israel. America also upgrades nuclear weapons which is contrary to the NPT. America is not disarming anything like as fast as is necessary to keep the terms of the NPT.
The IAEA has become just an American catspaw to support American exceptionalism, but even this organisation cannot say that Iran has broken the terms of the NPT. Iran is monitored by the IAEA constantly. Nobody monitors the odious Americans and Israelis who are the biggest war criminals on earth.
Iran is right to refuse to sign up to extra American sponsored clauses to the treaty.
I would support a war against Iran if they've committed overt acts of war against us.
For instance, if they've violated our sovereign territory (such as a US embassy), held Americans hostage, given state sponsorship to terrorists trying to kill Americans, and openly plotted the nuclear destruction of one of our most valuable allies in the Middle East such as Israel.
Wait, you mean they've already done all that?
Then why is it even a question?
Iranians are dangerous.Iranians killed 40 millions in WW2.Iranians killed 3 millions in Vietnam.they killed 2 millions in Iraq for OIL.Iranians killed hundreds of? thousands in Afghanistan.they supported the terrorist state of Israel.they supported the civil war in Sudan.Iranians created and supported Bin laden in 1979 to fight the USSR. Iranians supported Saddam Hussain against Iran. they bombed Heroshema and Nakazake in Japan.Iranians burned 6 millions Jews in Germany (If Holocaust be true!)
Iran has many atom bombs, but Iran doesn't allow other countries like America or Israel to have nuclear reactor just for creating electricity power.
Iran is the only country in the Middle East which has Nuclear weapon, but Israel doesn't have any!
So they are terrorist.
We didn't kill forty million in WWII. That was a global conflagration. We had nothing to do with the Holocaust - that was Germany and yes it was real.
Vietnam was a civil war that started under French occupation that we allowed to get ourselves sucked into. It can be argued that we shouldn't have been there.
We provided support to the people of Afghanistan after their government was removed by the USSR and supported Sadam against Iran because of the invasion of Embassy and the holding of our citizens as hostage.
We entered Afghanistan because of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the threat posed by Alqeda.
The Iraq situation was started in 1987 when Iraq launched a missile at the USS Stark. When we did not react forcefully it was assumed that we lacked the will and the groundwork was set for the first Gulf War. After the war Sadam proceeded to slaughter lage numbers of Shia and Kurds, attempted the assasination of George H. W. Bush when he was speaking in Qatar and stared paying families a reward if their loved ones turned themselves into human bombs. The current administration handeled it poorly but the invasion of Iraq served a purpose and to date we have received no oil profits from Iraq. They need the money to rebuild.
The current Iranian administration openly supports Hezbollah and Hamas and stated that Israel should not exist. Yes we worry about them getting nuclear weapons. They support terrorist and we don't know what lengths they will go to.
The war in Vietnam was a US attempt to stop an election that was part of the internationally agreed Geneva Accords which was a peace treaty worked out between the French and the Viet Minh.
It was merely American arrogance and an attempt at hegemony. The election was scheduled to be held in South Vietnam. America hates democracy in the third world as it exhibits on every continent and prefers fascist dictators controlled by the CIA.
In the case of Vietnam America appointed one tin pot dictator after another and would not countenance any kind of election as the people might not like to be ruled by a bunch of yankee bullies.
The same was true of Afghanistan. The Russians were in Afghanistan to support the government and in fact Takai, the president of Afghanistan wanted more help than he received. Takai was overthrown by the CIA agent Amin who had Takai murdered.
America went to Vietnam to throw its weight around. It resulted in the deaths of 5.6 million people in S E Asia. Agent Orange still causes damage to the new born. It was all begun using a false flag operation and a CIA coup.
Nothing of any note comes from America except huge numbers of civilian deaths all wrapped up by lies told by an evil nation that likes to pretend it is good and exceptional.
None of the yankee propaganda can ever stand up to a proper examination of the facts. All the civilians that America wants to murder come fro countries that America lies about. America lied about WMDs in Iraq and now lies about WMDs in Iran.
"We had nothing to do with the Holocaust - that was Germany and yes it was real."
We sent back Jewish families on the same boats they used when they tried to escape the Nazis. We didn't do much to help, that for sure.
"We provided support to the people of Afghanistan after their government was removed by the USSR and supported Sadam against Iran because of the invasion of Embassy and the holding of our citizens as hostage."
This was that beautiful time period when our government, Saddam and Osama were all friends. You forgot the first cause of the Iranian take over of the embassy: we took out their democratically elected leader when they took out the US puppet dictator.
"After the war Sadam proceeded to slaughter lage numbers of Shia and Kurds,"
It's disrespectful to rewrite the history of the Kurds this way. Saddam didn't start killing Kurds after the first Gulf invasion. As a matter of fact the Kurds are an oppressed nationality in almost every country they live in, even by our allies in the region.
Hamas has already said they would accept Israel if Israel would just go back to the 1967 borders. Why has Israel made no move to take them up on this? Does the Israeli government really want peace for their citizens or not?
You titled your comment quite fittingly, giving everyone a head's up that your facts were selective. Thank you.
We may have made some mistakes in our handling of the Holocaust, but we had no way of knowing what the extent of this was. If we had gone into Germany on suspicion that there may have been death camps, and it had turned out that they were much less than we had suspected, it would have been the same situation as Iraq, except that we had attacked a major world power instead of Iraq. Hindsight is always 20/20. The United States did the best it could with the information it had during WWII. Who could have imagined that people were capable of such evil without seeing it with their own eyes. Even today people deny that it happened, even though they can see the pictures and see the facts, because it is too horrible for them to contemplate. The fact is, if not for the United States, the Nazis probably would have won the war, and the Holocaust would have gotten a whole lot worse than it did.
Saddam did massacre the Kurds with a vengeance after we pulled out of the Gulf. They were mistreated and often massacred before, but after the U.S. withdrawal it started again with fresh malice. Though Al-Anfal occured before the Gulf War, the massacre continued after U.S. departure.
Hamas has proven itself liars over and over again. Israel does not move to take them up on anything because that would be negotiating with terrorists, rewarding them for terrorism, giving up some of its current advantage, and encouraging them to continue. The Israeli government wants peace for its citizens, but listening to Hamas is not the way to do it. They will not be happy until Israel is wiped from the face of the Earth. On second thought, probably not even then. They'll find someone else that doesn't agree with them and start killing them. Radical Islam will not be happy until the world is bound by strict Sharia law and their particular brand of Islam.
"You titled your comment quite fittingly, giving everyone a head's up that your facts were selective. Thank you."
Snarkiness will only get you a pat on the back from your friends. And even that doesn't mean they actually agree with you, it just means they thought you provided more humor than the other person.
"We may have made some mistakes in our handling of the Holocaust, but we had no way of knowing what the extent of this was. .. The fact is, if not for the United States, the Nazis probably would have won the war , and the Holocaust would have gotten a whole lot worse than it did."
I was joking when I talked about selecting facts. You on the other hand seem to be mistaking propaganda for facts. "we made some mistakes", really? is that the best you can come up with. "the Nazis probably would have won the war" really (i know, it's terrible to repeat)?
Seriously though, The US played a significant role but then so did the Russian and the British. It is no accident that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt planned their operations together. Besides, there is always a weakness to any argument in history that tries to use "would have (verb).." as a defense for anything other than what actually did happen. We will never "know" what "would have happened" if something else actually happened.
"Saddam did massacre the Kurds with a vengeance after we pulled out of the Gulf. They were mistreated and often massacred before, but after the U.S. withdrawal it started again with fresh malice. Though Al-Anfal occured before the Gulf War, the massacre continued after U.S. departure."
Is being massacred with "a vengeance " worse than just being massacred? You basically restate what I said: The Kurds were killed and discriminated against before and after the Gulf War. That was never the reason we went to war. It has always been a side bar of support for our actions. You also don't take up the fact that every country with a significant Kurd population treats them like sub humans, including all of our Arab allies.
I can only go by what each side says. Honestly, I generally think both sides are always lying in the case of Isreal and whoever. Hamas (or the armed part) still through bombs randomly into Israel. Israel continues to occupy land they know they have no right to occupy.
The easiest way through this argument is the polarized view. But I hardly think that the Palestinians and Jewish families suffering the losses and instability of the region find much value in the polarized view.
I guess that was the reason I presented the facts I presented about Iran. Sometimes we need to step back from the polarized political arguments of each side and see what is really being done. Are we really helping ourselves by trying to play the innocent victim? Is it possible to rectify past grievances in a productive way for both sides without resorting to war?
If that possibility exists, I think we should pursue it. We shouldn't blind ourselves with a false sense of innocence in a complicated world.
My "snarkiness" has nothing to do with my friends since none of them use this website. I'm not in this for pats on the back, I'm in it for my own amusement.
The fact of WWII is that the U.S. did everything it could. You can hardly criticize her for not entering into all-out war with a superpower over the rumor of a Holocaust. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to criticize someone else for not being perfect when you haven't had the opportunity to make the same mistake with the information that they had at the time. That the U.S. changed the course of the war is not propaganda, it's fact. The Nazis were winning, and then the U.S. came in. We may not know for certain what would have happened, but we can make a damn good guess about what probably would have happened. Notice that's the wording I used "probably," not "know." I've had enough of your constant appeals to ridicule.
The Kurds were discriminated against both before and after the Gulf War, but during? Coalition forces severely cut down on this, and pretty much stopped the killing. After they left, it started up again with increased fervor, which is what "with a vengeance" means.
When I called Hamas liars, I didn't mean they were lying to you. I frankly don't give a shit if they lie to you, that's part of war. You don't just give out information. What I meant was, Hamas has demonstrated in the past it's willingness to make treaties if only Israel will do this one little thing, jump through this one little hoop, or cede this one little territory. The treaty is signed, and a few weeks later, more rockets are landing in Israel, usually from the area ceded. Hamas doesn't want peace, they want Israel to be wiped from the Earth. Israel is reluctant to make treaties with Hamas because Hamas doesn't honor them. They are liars.
I'm a little hesitant about letting the US off the hook on the sending Jews back during WWII. It's not about hindsight, but I will say that I am inferring that the US at that time did know something about what was happening to the Jewish population there. If Hitler had a meeting (meetings,?) with a radical Islamic leader from the British controlled Jerusalem area then I would bet money the British and American governments had a clue. (I will find the name of the Islamic leader that met with Hitler - it's in a book I have somewhere around the house.)
My point about the Kurds was less about the qualifier you used but how a historic question of discrimination has been turned into part of the apology and defense for the Iraq war on the part of the British and American governments. On this, they absolutely have long known about the treatment of the Kurds and while they have given half-hearted support in the country they occupied, they don't say one word about what kurds go through in the countries of allies.
Yeah, I don't lose any sleep about the lies either, the only thing is both sides always lie. Hamas does ask for one more loop to be jumped through, so does Israel. That's why I brought up the fact that just defending one of the polarized views on this issue does no good.
It should be obvious to those of us outside the region that neither side appears to take any of the negotiations serious. Israel hasn't given back any of the land they said they would because they claim that the terrorists haven't stopped the violence. And the terrorists say they throw bombs because Israel never gives back any of the land they said they would.
Any way, how this relates to Iran is that Iran is not going to help the Palestinians. All the stuff about destroying Israel is pure political rhetoric. Not one of the Muslim nations has ever done anything to help Palestine (Syria, made a temporary exception to this fact but it proves the rule).
What we hear about the "danger" of Iran is also pure political rhetoric. The US government has tried to isolate Iran ever since they kicked out the US backed dictator in 1979 and back then the geopolitics of a country that shares a border with our old nemesis, the Soviet Union, not doing what our government wanted was a big no, no.
This is a problem our government created for us. And I think the best solution is to tell our government to stop putting its nose in Iran's business and start thinking about non-military solutions so that neither of our countries has to continue living in fear of each other.
By those standards, how many countries are justified in declaring war upon the US?
Plotting nuclear destruction of an ally? Japan, Germany, and Italy(wait, we already won that war). We did apologize, though.
Sponsoring terrorism? Do you have an example?
Held their citizens hostage? Well, half the Middle East, but I think it would solve a lot of problems for us if they did declare war on us. I almost hope they do.
Violated sovereign territory? Iraq and Afghanistan.. (wait, we won those wars, too)
WW2 was won by the Soviet Union. America arrived many years late. In the war against Germany USA did virtually nothing until 1943. The Soviet Union also brought Japan to the point of surrender by destroying the Japanese Kwantung army. The A bomb was just a first example of US threats against the rest of the world to establish US hegemony. USA is still the only country malevolent enough to use A bombs on civilians and now they threaten Iran with the same treatment.
A pox on their vile, murderous arrogance. The "exceptional" nation is only made exceptional by its arrogance.
>>Sponsoring terrorism? Do you have an example?
Blackwater. Iran-Contra. Central American Death Squads.
>>Held their citizens hostage?
Abu-Gharib
>>Violated sovereign territory? Iraq and Afghanistan(wait, we won those wars, too)
Why do you use the past-tense for the Afghanistan War (more properly the Al-Qaeda War) and the Iraq Invasion & Occupation? I must have missed the withdrawal of the majority of our troops. Please point me to the stories of such an action. Despite the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq, we're still there more than five years later. I bet the families of the dead are relieved that their loved ones died in insignificant combat.
Neither government will be in a position to threaten us for a long time, which should have been our only aim in invading them. Whether they freely and democratically choose a repressive government should be none of our concern. I was (and still am) a little confused about why we chose Iraq to invade, though.
Are you talking about El Salvador? I couldn't find any conclusive evidence that our government was aware of the extent of their atrocities (though there would have to have been some willful blindness at some level). Can you point me to a good source of information?
I'm not convinced the Contras were any worse than the Sandinistas (though they were certainly no better), and they at least had a better cause. As far as selling arms directly to Iran (do you now accept that they are a terrorist state?), that was done without authorization, and Oliver North was tried and convicted for his crimes. In any case, does the fact that we created a problem mean we shouldn't try to solve it?
This is from Mirriam-Webster:
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
I don't think Blackwater fulfills this definition. Granted, some of them get drunk on duty, and some of them shoot first too quickly (and are wrong), but what armed force in history hasn't struggled with that problem? A mercenary is intrinsically no less moral than a soldier.