I'm also fine with Israel defending themselves. I just don't want us involved at all, I'm not anti-Israel.
I wasn't talking about that. Granted, I'm not high right now, but the thread's about "war with Iran." The reason we're talking about it is b/c Iran threatened military action to stop international trade. That's what the threads about. Keep saying lol bruh and fuck neocons, but you're the one who's way off base here. Pot, this is kettle...over... It's not theirs, your ignorance and lack of care go hand in hand and I wouldn't that much more "fucked" than anyone else. I'm going to be in Afghanistan in a few months, and unable to keep teaching you these little lessons in realpolitik. Unless you can prove otherwise, I'm not the EU. I don't represent 200 nations of the UN. I'll reply again. A) It's not theirs. B) They don't want the consequences (sanctions from the EU) of actions they're taking (developing nuclear weapons illegally). Now it's my turn to LOL. What the fuck is "blowback?" Your logic here is unassailable. By that I mean, there isn't any here to assail. Hm. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. "The International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report last week that contained what it called credible evidence pointing to military dimensions to Iran's atomic activities, fueling demands in Washington and Europe for further sanctions." (Hint: The bolded is against international law. Just like, say, killing millions in genocide or drilling in Iran's territorial waters) Oh yeah, and that they don't have the foggiest fucking clue who's dropping viruses on their illegal nuclear stuff, but they blame Israel and the US. Stellar reporting by you, bruh. Who says we need to be perfect? Are you going to define neocon at some point? Which "debates" do you speak of? Is newt a neocon? Ron Paul? Romney? Obama? Help me out here...I'm not on anything illegal right now so it's tough to follow you. That's the spirit! Let's go back to forgetting "diplomacy" and "sanctions" and just using brute force to solve problems!
if we left them alone over there and didnt keep sticking our pig fucking noses into their shit, the war on terror would end overnight thats the tiny hidden fact that all the war mongers try to hide or..... we can continue to kill their women and children and we can continue to support the regions totalitarian regimes and we can continue to prop up puppet governments for the benefit of a few billionaires...and they will continue to wish death upon us all the war machine needs fuel, and it runs on the pain, suffering and death of the human race
"I'm relatively well-educated" means what exactly? Sounds like you were talking about it, brah. We're talking about various stuff and you need to read my fucking posts if you're going to respond. If not have a conversation by yourself. Let me refresh your memory since you're incapable of understanding why I am fucking with you. 1. I made a post against military intervention. I really didn't want to communicate with you at all. 2. And then you decided to respond with neocon and factually incorrect Bullshit: "They're threatening to block the straight of Hormuz to trade ships. There's a point to not letting them get away with it." "What the hell are they going to do? Fabricate nuclear weapons to make it easier to meet their stated intention of "wiping Israel off the face of the earth?" " 3. The implication being that Iran is SUDDENLY, causing problems that the US needs to solve. Well sorry I don't give a fuck what they do with the strait, stop your sanctions already. 4. And they are your sanctions because you responded like a mindless republican zombie. Sorry but read next time, it is easy. Hmm it is now buddy, maybe if you didn't vex them this wouldn't be a problem. LOL. I'll reply again, your bullshit attitude got Khatami fired. Congrats, but Iran doesn't give a fuck about the NPT. The NPT is a failure just like all your past excursions in Iran. 1979. 1980-1988. Very simple. This idea that you're going to use hard power every time someone has a nuke, is psycho. Your logic is phony because economic embargos are the only way to stop the spread of nukes and technology, and they still fail in the long-run. Dude sorry, suck me off now. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007278474 We are fucking with them and the IAEA means jack shit, it is naive. Preventing Genocide also got us involved in Libya and Vietnam, the government is incompetent. Yeah military freaks are neocons. What a hypocrite, Sanctions kill millions of people. What a cowardly comment. Also you can have diplomacy without the UN, LOL. They don't have a monopoly on it.
It needs but one foe to breed a war, and those who have not swords can still die upon them. - Tolkien I'm interested in your view of how many women and children we have killed in Iran, and how sanctions over their illegal nuclear weapons development is our fault or has any religious overtones whatsoever. Which totalitarian regimes are we propping up right now? Which billionaires are profiting? The war on terror started after 9/11. AFAIK, we didn't have a single troop in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Somalia or Iran at that time. Then, the warmongers in Congress voted almost unanimously for the following: ...SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons...
Man you are such a xenophobe. Yes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan qualify as propping up. We also had sanctions in Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, etc. What a paranoid guy you are, no one is using a nuke.
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. 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? 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?"
did we have a single troop in saudi arabia? you know, where all the hijackers were from? im sure they didnt mind though, must be some other reason. the us built up saddam, the us built up the taliban, and the us has supplied weapons to whomever suited their needs at that moment. and why? tell my brian why did we support iraq in the iran/iraq war? why did we supprt afgahn rebels/al qaeda against the russians? if you dont say oil, im not even sure we can continue. and guess what, corporations are making billions off that oil. also i really doubt you need a history lesson about our history of propping up west friendly oppressive governments throughout the region, im sure you are well versed. if you want to claim ignorance, id be happy to enlighten you, but i doubt that needs to be done so 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?
why should the US be willing to kill and send soldiers to their death, as well as continue to make our civilians targets, for the right of fair trade through the straight of hormuz?
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?
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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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. 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)? 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. 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.
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
from your quote brian 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.
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
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.
