Iran and America

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah right...

As my dad did in a way I served and so did my family. Moving around all the time just because of the military, never keeping the same friends or people contacts the few I did have. You have really no clue... Calling me an anti-American shows your desperation in your losing argument against American, so discuss it.

Acknowledge what? Anything or most I say you disagree with, its just comparative propagandas and your unwillingness to have a simple conversation fact by fact.

So what is your problem with the country that indeed stabilizes the world and makes it safer for even some smart butt like you?

No country or person on this planet is perfect, I’m no fan of Bush.. Take it out on Bush if you’re that slap happy.

US intervention is NOT primarily driven by a desire to keep the world 'stable', but to support big business. In fact, the world is in fact a great deal less safe.

Comparative propagandas? fact by fact?

I have linked to concrete examples, providing a base for objective analysis. You simply repeatedly trot out a vague and cliched 'party line', which to these ears sounds increibly naive and close-minded.

You are of course free to dismiss my examples of interventions as a relative propaganda, but to do so credibly demands you provide some relativity- if you think my sources are misleading - why? give reasons. Are they spun? - so unspin them.

Very well,
I presume that when you discuss americanism in a positive context, your envisaganing something other than gunboat-diplomacy & thats absolutely fine.
But in choosing to let thoses points go unchallenged, it appears you are wilfully dismissing that aspect of your nations legacy. And in doing so youve creating in the listener the impression of a different version of americansim, which i think most american patriots of a non-imperialistic mindset would consider to be firmly anti-american.

Imagine a German abroad, loudly proclaiming the rich wondrous heritage of the fatherland. Its quite likely that someone would introduce the subject of WW2. Assuming the German isnt a neo-nazi, they have the option of saying 'yes, that was truly terrible. a dark stain on out otherwise proud history' He could then continue expounding the virtues of teutonic culture, and noone would be likely to take offense.
IF, however he chose to a) dismiss the subject and b) start loudly proclaiming the exact opposite, well... i dont need to tell you that could generate a certain amount of tension! The pro-germanic speech would then be interpreted as something quite different and in the eyes of Most modern germans, 'anti-germanic'.

Feel free to invoke Godwins law

btw accusing someone of 'antiamericanism' can be a bit like calling someone a racist - frequently overused as a diversionary tactic, flung into the debate at a critical moment to obscure the fact that the accusers original stated position is growing increasingly untenable.

Your an anti-American.. It's clear..

Take it anyway you want, even in the buttox if you choose.

Idiots like this are as good a reason as any for the reinstatment of the ignore button.

Well the EU comment is true to an extent. They are unlikely to go rushing into war to show their dominance (lately that is, Europe used to be colonist warmongers and during the two world wars it was the US who where the Johhny-come-latelys) as unlike the US and their Middle-eastern counterparts most of us arent religious warmongers or extremists. I really cant see the US doing much unless they have UN or at least EU backing this time as they havent found the occupation of Iraq as easy as they would have liked. Iran have stated their nuclear program is one of fuel-making and modernising, not one of weapons. They also state they have no plans to attack Israel so the situation isnt as black-and-white as your making out.

I dont think Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear of any kind as Russia have offered to supply their nuclear needs so i would back UN intervention in the region though the international communities attitude towards countries that have acquired nuclear weopons, such as Pakistan, Nort Korea and India,(who have become nations that have gained more respect and power since this) have shown Iran that nuclear is the way to go if they want to gain respect as an international player and they way they will see it is why should they be treated any differently.

The difference is, of course, that the US and her allies didnt have the appitite to go to war with countries with armies and populations the size of India and Pakistan and certainly werent up for invading a chinese ally in North Korea. The message seems to be, as ever "might is right".

I'd also like to point out the fact that another reason why the EU wouldn't be too keen on invading Iran is for the same reason why the Big EU Players weren't keen on invading Iraq.

--They built most of the infrastructure, and would be at risk for a heavy financial loss if an invasion were to occur.

The US was instrumental in the rise of the Ba'th party in Iraq and their rise to power and also played a big part in keeping Saddam in power so they can hardly play the high-ground on EU dealings with Iran and Iraq and most sensible/nuetral people see the Iraq war as a mistake. It was the EU who reffered Iran to the UN security council though i agree that along with the US, the EU has some very questionable dealings with some very questionable governments.

Time will tell on the Iran issue but if the US are the only ones willing to stand up to the Iranians on the nuclear issue (and any speculation that this is the case is just that, speculation) then i will certainly agree with the US decision (while not ignoring the hypocrisy, but hypocrasy that will leave me sleeping easier than the alternative) and will also agree that the EU will have proven to be weak at the knees and/or corrupt in their failure to act.

As someone who, like the majority, thinks the Iraq war was wrong and corrupt, i think the EU was at least corrupt while promoting peaceful resolution in regards to Iraq which is better imo, than the corrupt hypocrisy and war-mongering shown by the US and Britain in the second Gulf war.

Not only that, but the US was also responsible for creating the Iran situation back in 1953 or 1954 when the CIA overthrew a democratically elected left leaning government there, and reinstalled the Shah, purportedly to quell the spread of Communism.

The Shah was so spineless that on the eve of the Coup, CIA Operatives had to prod him in laying claim to the leadership of Iran.

Flash forward 25 or so years later, when people were so desparate for an end to the Shah's police state they welcomed an Islamic Police State that was every bit as bad as the Shah's.

In turn, when Iraq went to war with Iran, we buddied up with Saddam Hussein and built him up as a buffer against Iran, only to go to war with him 10 years later, and spend another 12 years blockading and sporadically bombing Iraq before taking him out out of power.

I can't say that I support Iran at all, but after looking at past 50 some years of US Foreign Policy involving Iran, however I can understand why people in the mideast, particularly Iran and Iraq don't particularly like the US, and are scared of us to the point that they feel the need to develop Nuclear weapons.

Anything that we do against Iran would only reenforce Mid Eastern, and especially Iranian popular opinion that the US is the greatest "Rogue Nation" of all. -- they would certainly not welcome yet another round of US led Liberation and good will. Any Government that would come to power there after an US led invasion would be viewed as being little more than a US Puppet government to be overthrown.--We killed democracy there already back in the 50's to install a puppet government.

This is essentially the long term continuation of a situation that we created during the Cold War to stop Communism. --It's really been worth it, hasn't it?

It is not anti-American to understand that the US foreign policy over the past 50 years has been flawed and created more problems than it has resolved. I am as pro-American as anyone, but I am not pro-American Government to the point that I endorse any activities they engage in. You can be patriotic and love your country without loving everything its government does.

We don't seem to mind too much that India, Israel, and Pakistan have nuclear devices/technology. Let's take a consistent position across the board or we lose credibility.

Touche! Any more insightful even-handedness and i might drop my guard and that would definately be a bad thing on this forum.

Foreign policy often does create all sorts of little demons. Many of the problems now actually go all the way back to imperialism and such, many of our modern middle eastern countries are unstable partially because they are made of these groups of people lumped together through political expedience and a desire for oil. The mangled policies of yesteryear lead to the mangled policies of today which lead to the mangled policies of tomorrow. The US is guilty of it as is probably any other country that has ever had any amount of power.

Iran is a situation that needs to be dealt with though. Iran is not a big fan of America for known reasons but that is no reason for the US to allow Iran to blow a city sized crater out of us. The big reason for the intervention is that Iran really really does not like us and we cannot allow enemies or potential enemies to have powerful weapons. Israel is not our enemy and is no threat to western nations, I don't know about our reason for allowing India or Pakistan to have weapons, especially not the reason for Pakistan, maybe we assumed that they would blow up each other before they would touch us.

Politics is guided by self-interest not by ideals or even laws necessarily. Might makes right and currently the US has the might, it might not always be so but it is now and that is why the US decides everything. I don't know of a time when the great world superpower has ever been completely fair or even cared for the world outside of its self-interest. Rome conquered everything it touched, so did the Mongols, the Spanish conquered the Americas and are known today for their cruelties in that region to some extent. I don't think there ever has been a completely virtuous superpower but without a superpower then there would be a power vacuum most likely, it is hard to say how much of international politics is affected by presence of a superpower.

The Reason is China.

We won't disarm Pakistan because then China would use that as an excuse to go to war with the US. We certainly won't invade India due to the fact that when India tested their first nuke back in 1975, Mao Zedong was Cold War Enemy #2, and we needed a Spoiler against his country. --Russia, at the time was also on freindly terms with India, and they also needed a Spoiler against China as well, so therefore no real issue was raised from that sector either.

If India and Pakistan have a Nuclear Exchange, China will most likely get involved as well, and it will take much more than considerable effort for the USA to not get drawn into it.

This is the primary reason that, once we are no longer the top economic dog (China will likely be, helped by the executives of many top American corporations too, go figure), we won't have as much pull as we used to. As we become a minor player in the world, the payback for the way we have treated the rest of the world will end up being pretty harsh. At some point, we have to stop creating problems for future generations to deal with.

The reputation the United States has over there has been earned by the US government. People in America often have a very biased opinion of our government. We think it is wonderful because we believe what it tells us. Most of the media/journalists are controlled by big business, which for obvious reasons is not going to rock the boat too much. Not many in the masses bother to read/watch/listen to international media, or just refuse to believe it whenever it contradicts what is being said here.

I doubt that there will be payback. Any attempt to go to war with us would probably start WW3. Besides if anyone was going to get revenge they would probably try to hurt our economy which would probably still be very important in the world market even after our fall and would probably hurt the global economy to some extent and not be too tolerable.

What was the payback for any other powerful group? Most of the other powerful groups collapsed on their own more than they ever experience attacks when they were down. The hatred of the US comes more from its power than from its past. If the US lacked the power then we could easily forget the past, all of Europe had its own imperialistic history that was marked by actually controlling other regions of the world but Europe never had payback.

Well, how about Korea for a start? I imagine the South Koreans are pretty pleased the Americans didn't let the commies overrun the south given that North Korea is currently probably the worst country on earth to live in.