War with Iran

[huevonkiller]

You obviously have no clue who I am, so let's stop with the childish name calling. So far you've exhausted charlatan, xenophone and neocon--those words obviously don't mean what you think they mean if you're applying them to me.

What's a xenophone? Is that like some sort of xenophobic xylophone hybrid? Nice.

I edited out the charlatan/idiot thing, but the rest looks like fair trash talk to me. Stop trying to convince me of your flawed foreign policy and don't respond to my post in the first place. Share your opinion with other like-minded neoconservatives.

I do consider you intelligent, we just disagree on foreign policy.

I get the benefit of knowing a bit about the world that you don't get to read, so I'm not offended...but you have literally zero idea what you're talking about. Let's just leave it at that, huh bruh?

Sorry but I just wrote 49 pages on Middle Eastern Foreign policy for an elective I had. So I do read a lil, bruh.

Stay out of Iran's way, we don't have a good reputation with them and propped up a dictator.

Getting back to the thread that you've been all over the map on...Iran's VP and senior navy leadership have declared that if "the West" imposes sanctions b/c they're illegally building a nuclear weapons program, they will commit international terrorism and/or piracy by not allowing the free flow of trade through the straight of Hormuz (which isn't theirs anyway). That's indisputable. What do you have to add to the dialogue, bruh, besides "fuck neocon sanctions?"

Sanctions are what murderers support, so no your reasoning is flawed.

Israel can handle their defense just fine, let them wage war or promote peace instead.

 

[huevonkiller]

I'm 100% pro-Israel, I trust that they can manage their country well enough on their own.

They also shouldn't need to ask the US for permission to defend themselves.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i ask you this one simple question. if we took our greedy little pig noses out of their business, what reason would they have to hate us?


The same reason they will inflict their own people with terror and death for one, sectarian zealotry. Seconed, they view anyone who would support the Jewish state as an enemy. Third, if they can hold grudges that last thousands of years, why do you believe that all will be well if we were to do as you believe we should?

ahh the ol' "they hate us for our freedom!" argument, classic

without our continued provocation their fundamentalists are no more dangerous to us, than our christian fundamentalists are to them.

 

[BrianFromWA]

myriad. How's this for a list?

1. Religion.
2. Culture.
3. Rights of women.
4. Democracy.
5. Jealousy over poverty vs. the "decadent West"

Is it your opinion that the hijackers decided to sign up for the mission b/c the US had placed military bases there at the behest of the Saudi government? Even when we pulled all of our troops from Saudi in 2003, bin Laden said that

Their agenda now goes beyond the boundaries of one country, he says. Their goal is to liberate all Muslim societies from foreign troops and what they see as ungodly secular rulers.
The al-Qaeda leader was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991 because of his anti-government activities.

These aren't principled martyrs for religious freedom and rights for all, these are thugs looking for an excuse.

How much oil were we getting from the Afghans in the 80's? We were supporting the Afghans b/c they were a sharp stick in the Soviets' side, keeping them occupied and destabilizing their power in the region. I won't claim that we didn't support "west friendly oppressive governments", but I will claim that we did so strategically in keeping with the national security views of the Cold War. At least, that's what the Presidents and Congress were doing on behalf of the American people. If you want to say "it's about oil", I'd only agree to the level that the Soviets had shown they were no respecter of international policy/treaties and wouldn't think twice about extortion using oil if they were based in/on the Indian Ocean. Whereas America's reputation is much greater than that.

I have no sympathy for regimes that threaten neighbors to get what they want. We're friendly with Canada, but if they invaded Iceland I'd say that we have a responsibility to assist the UN and EU if called upon to get them out. We're friendly with Turkey, but if they decided to start slaughtering millions of Kurds I'd say we have a responsibility to assist the UN and EU if called upon to stop it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Article III, Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[BrianFromWA]

What's a xenophone? Is that like some sort of xenophobic xylophone hybrid? Nice.
I edited out the charlatan/idiot thing, but the rest looks like fair trash talk to me. Stop trying to convince me of your flawed foreign policy and don't respond to my post in the first place. Share your opinion with other like-minded neoconservatives.

I'm sorry that my reasoning and experience threatens your academic viewpoints. It saddens me that someone who took the time to write that much about an elective can't re-create cogent arguments about their thesis, or have a discussion with someone who thinks that what you're saying has no rational basis.

Sorry but I just wrote 49 pages on Middle Eastern Foreign policy for an elective I had. So I do read a lil, bruh.

Let's hear what the ivory tower has to say, then. Why is it that Iran gets to flout international law, and then respond with threats of terrorism and piracy if sanctions are imposed because of their illegal activities (as voted on by 200 countries and the security council, not just some unilateral US neocon attitude)?

Stay out of Iran's way, we don't have a good reputation with them and propped up a dictator.
Sanctions are what murderers support, so no your reasoning is flawed.

We have a fabulous reputation with the populace. We don't have one with their leadership (military or religious).
I would submit that it would be quicker and easier to carpet-bomb them conventionally and not worry about sanctions. We know where their weapons sites are. That would stop their illegal program. But the US will not unilaterally flout international law and do so. Sanctions are what the world uses as punishment for illegal activities.

Israel can handle their defense just fine, let them wage war or promote peace instead.

So based on your reading/writing about Middle East Foreign Policy, you think that it's in the best interests of the world and the region to let Israel off the leash to do whatever it wants to militarily? You seem not to be making sense.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

ahh the ol' "they hate us for our freedom!" argument, classic

without our continued provocation their fundamentalists are no more dangerous to us, than our christian fundamentalists are to them.

well, I think you are just pulling stuff out of your rump

I made no reference to anything you try to give me credit for, as the "classic" arguement, rather pointed out current and historical facts (see the last place we just pulled out of)

oh, and I believe that the western civilazation has progress a tad bit..the crusades have ended for us, while i can not say the same for them.

I dont see fired up Mennonites burning their flags, hanging in effigy their leaders or flying hyjacked planes into their civilian centers on suicide runs..

Common man. you can do far better than this

 

[3RA1N1AC]

from your quote brian

Their goal is to liberate all Muslim societies from foreign troops and what they see as ungodly secular rulers.

soooo, if we left them alone, they get what they wanted, war over. lives saved. much rejoicing on both continents.

nowhere to bomb. nobody to shoot. boo hoo.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I dont see fired up Mennonites burning their flags, hanging in effigy their leaders or flying hyjacked planes into their civilian centers on suicide runs..

if al qaeda was funding our government, and setting up military bases on our soil, i bet there would be the exact same fucking thing going on in reverse. if you choose to be blind to common sense, thats on you

 

[BrianFromWA]

what I'm saying is that that changed. Originally bin Laden's goal was "troops out of Saudi."

Bin Laden publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military. Bin Laden believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led that government to attempt to silence him.
Shortly after Saudi Arabia invited U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia, bin Laden turned his attention to attacks on the West.

He wanted to use his private army to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam. His government said "no thank you." Yet he didn't like that the US military was used and targeted us, rather than these other countries (also on Saudi soil...) Kuwait
United States
United Kingdom
Arab League
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Syria
Morocco
Qatar
Oman
United Arab Emirates
France
Spain
Italy
Denmark
Belgium
Pakistan
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Argentina
Bangladesh
Niger
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Greece
South Korea
Hungary

Then, when US troops left the "land of the mosques" (hooray! We left them alone! They got what they wanted! War over! Much rejoicing! No one to bomb!) bin Laden changed his mind. Now, the objective was to liberate "all Muslim societies from ungodly secular rulers." Tell me again why bin Laden gets to overthrow elected governments? Answer: he doesn't, but he needed another excuse to keep up his terror.

It's naivete to think that this kind of human activity goes away if the might-for-right folks just go home.

 

[MARIS61]

Getting back to the thread that you've been all over the map on...Iran's VP and senior navy leadership have declared that if "the West" imposes sanctions b/c they're illegally building a nuclear weapons program, they will commit international terrorism and/or piracy by not allowing the free flow of trade through the straight of Hormuz (which isn't theirs anyway). That's indisputable.

Nonsense.

Nowhere in the laws of Iran is there any such restriction.

All countries, not just the 1%ers, have the absolute right to defend themselves.

Just because the 1%ers want to control the world doesn't mean their impotent "world court" has any actual jurisdiction over anyone.

Nothing but a puppet show.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It appears likely we will have a naval battle with Iran soon.

Any guesses/thoughts as to if it will stop there, or will we use it as a reason to go after their nuclear capabilities in a big way?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Tell me again why bin Laden gets to overthrow elected governments?

tell ME again, why the US gets to overthrow elected governments? i can cite numerous examples if youd like

and just to be clear, are you saying that if we withdraw all troops and interests from the middle east, you are scared they will still attack us because of our freedom?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

if al qaeda was funding our government, and setting up military bases on our soil, i bet there would be the exact same fucking thing going on in reverse. if you choose to be blind to common sense, thats on you

And IF I had tits and different plumbing, I would be a girl..just not valid.

I makes me a sad panda to see what our towers of higher learning are producing as a collective mindset. To believe that all of this is "our fault" is just not true.

Yes, the US has been involved in promoting pro western thinking post liberation from the AXIS powers.
No, we were not like the french, Itallians or English, we did not see these areas as our territories, rather we aided in their self government. We supported kingdoms, to presidents to dictators.
We are there in response.
We did use this as a test bed in the cold war, and bled the Soviet Union Dry. We were asked to help the Afghans.


That stated, to believe that our religious leaders pose the same level of threat that theirs do is silly. Hell, they dont like each other, and they hate us. they have thousands of years of tribal/ factional infighting that goes on to this day, and have sworn to erase Isreal as a nation, and to make war on the US and anyone who stands with isreal.

Their whole belief system is as alien as you can get from ours, and still be from the same planet. They think it honorable to decieve in action, word and thought. To apply your beliefe system to their situation and expect a rational outcome is nieve.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Why do we have to withdraw interests from the middle east? Are you saying that McDonald's can't sell there, that Halliburton can't drill there, that Blackwater can't be used to train their policemen, etc? I can't buy middle eastern oil anymore, that I have to buy from Venezuela just b/c someone says his interpretation of religion says I can't?

To answer the rest of your question, i say "partially." I'm scared that people will then attack for money, or do other stupid shit that impacts our strategic interests. People are not good and nice, and the reason there isn't constant savagery is because a) the grace of God and b) because there are people willing to make sure that bullies don't overrun the rest.

What possible history can you cite to say that if left alone, these places would turn into communal utopias?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i couldnt care less what they turn into, utopia or otherwise. why should i? clearly we arent over there to "save their people from oppressive regimes" when you count the fact that we built up these regimes in the first place.

the tech and weapons we supplied iraq killed millions of people, then we go over there and kill millions more. go us. but they hate us for the fact that our women can vote?

the war machine marches on, leaving a trail of death in its wake, and we are all just along for the ride. and when somebody finally punches back, we act innocent? "what did we do to deserve this!?"

and im the naive one?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Their whole belief system is as alien as you can get from ours, and still be from the same planet. They think it honorable to decieve in action, word and thought.

who are you even talking about? the entire arab world? muslims in general? you cant really be this xenophobic/ bigoted, but i guess fox news can brainwash the eager to fear fairly easily

 

[BrianFromWA]

we are over there to "save people from regimes that we shoud've taken out decades ago, but pussed out on." Yeah.

yes, you're the naive one. That, or jaded by misapplied "truths" that somehow the US is the cause for the world's problems.

Let me guess...you think that if we didn't sell another dime of "war material" to someone, then there wouldn't be gunfire, bombs, assassinations, rapes, dictators, etc.?

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'll ask again, b/c it doesn't seem to have been answered...

Why is it ok for Iran to sign an international treaty that allows it representation and protection in accordance with those parameters, and then when they illegally continue to build up a nuclear weapons program to threaten state-sponsored terrorism and piracy? Does anyone really think that if every US soldier, sailor, airman and Marine went home that Iran would scrap its nuclear weapons program and promise forever unadulterated peaceful access to the gulf?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

we are over there to "save people from regimes that we shoud've taken out decades ago, but pussed out on." Yeah.

if we didn't sell another dime of "war material" to someone, then there wouldn't be gunfire, bombs, assassinations, rapes, dictators, etc.?

who cares if there is? wouldnt it then make it easier to control them if we didnt give them the weapons in the first place?

i mean seriously

we built up saddam and iraq and then attacked them

we built up the taliban and then attacked them

wouldnt it have been easier just to not build them up in the first place? ahh but we needed to set up pipelines, thats worth a few million lives.

the us isnt the cause of the worlds problems by a longshot, but we are the cause of our own, obviously

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Does anyone really think that if every US soldier, sailor, airman and Marine went home that Iran would scrap its nuclear weapons program and promise forever unadulterated peaceful access to the gulf?

who the fuck cares? are you planning on vacationing in the gulf with the wife? want to get a speedboat and do some wakeboarding in the straight?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

im not saying we have the power to stop war, but we have the power to not create more of it

 

[barfo]

Why do we have to withdraw interests from the middle east? Are you saying that McDonald's can't sell there, that Halliburton can't drill there, that Blackwater can't be used to train their policemen, etc? I can't buy middle eastern oil anymore, that I have to buy from Venezuela just b/c someone says his interpretation of religion says I can't?

To answer the rest of your question, i say "partially." I'm scared that people will then attack for money, or do other stupid shit that impacts our strategic interests. People are not good and nice, and the reason there isn't constant savagery is because a) the grace of God and b) because there are people willing to make sure that bullies don't overrun the rest.

What possible history can you cite to say that if left alone, these places would turn into communal utopias?

The history of the communal utopia that is S2.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

I'm sorry that my reasoning and experience threatens your academic viewpoints. It saddens me that someone who took the time to write that much about an elective can't re-create cogent arguments about their thesis, or have a discussion with someone who thinks that what you're saying has no rational basis.

"I'm right and you're wrong." Sorry but that is weak. Your entire argument is the standard neocon xenophobic nonsense.

And you gave up on rational debate long ago, by calling me childish instead of responding to my lengthy post. You tapped out already, it is ok to admit that dude.


I exposed you as the mindless republican I thought you were, blindly supporting sanctions over good sense. None of your arguments work, Israel can defend itself, smart one.

Let's hear what the ivory tower has to say, then.

Sounds awesome, don't mind if I do.

Why is it that Iran gets to flout international law, and then respond with threats of terrorism and piracy if sanctions are imposed because of their illegal activities (as voted on by 200 countries and the security council, not just some unilateral US neocon attitude)?

Your argument is nonsense, so let them "unsign" the treaty then.

Why are you so eager to murder millions of people after similar sanctions in Iraq/Korea killed millions?

We have a fabulous reputation with the populace.

Um no we don't, our foreign policy is extremely unpopular with all of the middle east. Poll after poll shows that, you are simply ignorant.

We don't have one with their leadership (military or religious).

And they wisely hate us.

I would submit that it would be quicker and easier to carpet-bomb them conventionally and not worry about sanctions. We know where their weapons sites are. That would stop their illegal program. But the US will not unilaterally flout international law and do so. Sanctions are what the world uses as punishment for illegal activities.

Really, it would be easier to start another war in a country 2.5 times the size of Iraq to get an imaginary nuclear weapon they will never use? That doesn't really make sense.

So based on your reading/writing about Middle East Foreign Policy, you think that it's in the best interests of the world and the region to let Israel off the leash to do whatever it wants to militarily? You seem not to be making sense.

Oh please, you think Iran is going to nuke a country, you are a military freak just like I thought.

And yet a good 40% of the population in Israel doesn't even want to go to war with Iran, nor have they ever used a nuclear weapon.

 

[huevonkiller]

what I'm saying is that that changed. Originally bin Laden's goal was "troops out of Saudi."He wanted to use his private army to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam. His government said "no thank you." Yet he didn't like that the US military was used and targeted us, rather than these other countries (also on Saudi soil...) Kuwait
United States
United Kingdom
Arab League
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Syria
Morocco
Qatar
Oman
United Arab Emirates
France
Spain
Italy
Denmark
Belgium
Pakistan
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Argentina
Bangladesh
Niger
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Greece
South Korea
Hungary

Then, when US troops left the "land of the mosques" (hooray! We left them alone! They got what they wanted! War over! Much rejoicing! No one to bomb!) bin Laden changed his mind. Now, the objective was to liberate "all Muslim societies from ungodly secular rulers." Tell me again why bin Laden gets to overthrow elected governments? Answer: he doesn't, but he needed another excuse to keep up his terror.

It's naivete to think that this kind of human activity goes away if the might-for-right folks just go home.

It's naivete to think 1.2 billion muslims are potential terrorists.

You are a paranoid schizo, plastic bags and bathtubs kill more Americans than terrorists.

 

[BrianFromWA]

who cares if there is? wouldnt it then make it easier to control them if we didnt give them the weapons in the first place?

In all seriousness, here's where the naivete (if ever) comes in. If we hadn't have supplied Taliban with weapons, there probably would've been an even greater genocide of Afghan boys in the 80's, and we would've been at the mercy of the Soviets' promises that they wouldn't do things like extort weapons technology for the right to let your oil tanker pass through the strait of HOrmuz without being blown up. We would've been reliant on their ability to maintain international law in disputes. We'd seen for years that they didn't care about that, whereas we've demonstrated for a century that we're a pretty scrupulous country that tries to play by the rules. We're not perfect, but we generally do the right thing. And our strategic role (something I know that many don't care about, but some of us have to) is to make sure that the US and its interests can do whatever they (legally) want to do, wherever in the world it's legal to do it, without having to worry about someone blowing them up or stealing their cargo or firebombing their hotel. It means that the container ship that walmart is using to ship your plasma tv for 599 isn't giong to be impounded and stolen by the Chinese. It means that your gas won't go up to 10/gallon b/c Iran decides that it wants to shut down the strait and extort more money from people. Etc.

We built up Saddam as a hedge against Iran's militant West-hating religious leadership. If he hadn't have invaded Kuwait, he might still be dictator there. We didn't do anything to Kim Jung Il or Castro. But invading another country got the UN involved, and we were asked to lead the effort.

We gave the Taliban weapons to keep the Soviets occupied. When they started allowing terrorists to have unimpeded access to their land outside of the rule of law, we stopped that.

What pipelines have we set up in Afghanistan (or Iraq, for that matter) that are making oil cheaper for us? Who's stealing all of the resources from the literal gold mine the Afghans are sitting on right now?

 

[The Sebastian Express]

The only way Iran is going to nuke anyone is if they see it as a last ditch option if they're going to be destroyed. No one wants to set off a world-wide nuclear war, that is endgame for all of us. The results would be catastrophic. It is a bunch of posturing unless things get very, very desperate.

 

[huevonkiller]

If we hadn't have supplied Taliban with weapons, there probably would've been an even greater genocide of Afghan boys in the 80's, and we would've been at the mercy of the Soviets' promises that they wouldn't do things like extort weapons technology for the right to let your oil tanker pass through the strait of HOrmuz without being blown up.

Based on?

Also all your paranoia about the Soviet Union ended in failure, their economy collapsed and now we have friendly relations with them. Oh God those dangerous Soviets!

We would've been reliant on their ability to maintain international law in disputes.

Fuck international law.

We'd seen for years that they didn't care about that, whereas we've demonstrated for a century that we're a pretty scrupulous country that tries to play by the rules. We're not perfect, but we generally do the right thing.

What a pathetic excuse for endless wars.

And our strategic role (something I know that many don't care about, but some of us have to) is to make sure that the US and its interests can do whatever they (legally) want to do, wherever in the world it's legal to do it, without having to worry about someone blowing them up or stealing their cargo or firebombing their hotel. It means that the container ship that walmart is using to ship your plasma tv for 599 isn't giong to be impounded and stolen by the Chinese. It means that your gas won't go up to 10/gallon b/c Iran decides that it wants to shut down the strait and extort more money from people. Etc.

What are the Chinese going to do to our plasma TVs? They're already in massive debt and we owe them money.

We built up Saddam as a hedge against Iran's militant West-hating religious leadership. If he hadn't have invaded Kuwait, he might still be dictator there. We didn't do anything to Kim Jung Il or Castro. But invading another country got the UN involved, and we were asked to lead the effort.

You fucked up in Iraq, I know.

Also you killed a million people in Cuba you apologist.

We gave the Taliban weapons to keep the Soviets occupied. When they started allowing terrorists to have unimpeded access to their land outside of the rule of law, we stopped that.

What pipelines have we set up in Afghanistan (or Iraq, for that matter) that are making oil cheaper for us? Who's stealing all of the resources from the literal gold mine the Afghans are sitting on right now?

Shut the hell up about international law, that's what lead to the Korean war and other sanctions.

We don't care.

 

[BrianFromWA]

It's naivete to think 1.2 billion muslims are potential terrorists.

You are a paranoid schizo, plastic bags and bathtubs kill more Americans than terrorists.

I didn't say a single word about 1.2B muslims. I said that bad people all over do bad things, even if you kowtow to them. You keep attacking me, but you don't seem to have anything to say. Bust out some knowledge from your 49-page treatise, bruh. Tell us uneducated military types why, even when every troop was off Saudi soil, bin Laden didn't say "ok everyone, mission accomplished, let's go home and leave them in peace!" Tell me why he then stated that all Muslim societies now had to get rid of secular rulers, and that the jihad would continue until it did. Tell me why America was targeted, instead of all those other countries. Did bin Laden really get off on the interventionist policies of Niger and Bangladesh?

I'll wait with bated breath until the next non-answer with paranoid neocon xenophobic schizo comes out, bruh.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Shut the hell up about international law, that's what lead to the Korean war and other sanctions.

We don't care.

LOL!
You really don't want to shift over to the Korean war. You're getting your ass handed to you on a topic you wrote 49 pages on, and now you want to ramble over into my neck of the woods b/c you don't care about international law. Fabulous.

You're right...what the hell does international law have to do with foreign policy?