Maybe you should actually look at things from a different perspective instead of screaming the fanboy position automatically. I don't think anyone is really asking for the US's help these days (besides pure foreign aid which most rich countries give). The US forces their "help" upon them. And it usually involves people dying.
Killing members of Taliban, al qaeda and Saddam's military is a great thing. We should kill more of them.
Oh and God Bless America
We helped the people of Serbia, Somalia in the past 15 years. Also we have liberated the people of Iraq. Afghanistan is no longer under the reign of the Taliban.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
I seem to believe that many places over the past 20 years, US forces have been either invited by the host country and/or asked to partcipate by the UN.
The US is always asked to help recover from natural disasters, then become critized for being there and helping out.
Latest example, the earthquake/tidal wave in the Indian ocean. US aid showed up. They were happy to take it, but no US presense was desired.
True,if THEY had we'd have 1500 US soldiers still ALIVE and thousands others with all their limbs plus TENS OF THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi's still alive.SH STILL wouldn't be a threat--or did we find those WMD that Bush was so PARANOID about?
Who the hell takes that smirking idiot in the WH seriously anymore? Maybe misinformed fools that watch FOX news and STILL think SH was behind 9/11. I sure as hell don't.
Go for it Bush,you'll have to re-instate the draft and the lottery once again,or do you think that OUTRAGED 19 year olds will be tripping all over themselves to get killed in another one of your phony,trumped up Wars??
No way Bush,they don't join with your thugs in your twisted PNAC ideaology where PNAC members get filthy rich off of War and kids just get dead.
No way Bush,they don't join with your thugs in your twisted PNAC ideaology where PNAC members get filthy rich off of War and kids just get dead.
The US has way more nukes than Iran, Syria, and North Korea. We need to balance this unfair advantage. We need to send over a planeload of these nukes to each of these countries and airmail them. Bush will be hated (which he is now), but the US will no longer be pushed around. These wacko countries and those that instigate problems against the US and the free world will quit making terrorist threats and maybe the surviving people will choose self-rule over the iron fist governments they currently live with. I want to live in the land of the free and home of the brave again.
WTH are you talking about? Last time the world checked, Saddam was classified an unstable force in the Middle East. Everyone, and that includes the European intelligence agencies, believed he was trying to develop or seek out materials to produce WMDs. And WMDs include chemical and biological weapons, which Saddam actively used against the Kurds and Iranians. The man has a sordid history.
We only came to disagreement with most of Europe when we tried to enforce U.N. Resolutions. Now, if you want to make an argument for an overhaul of U.S. intelligence, I would strongly agree with it. The CIA is a shell of its former self since the Church hearings of the late 70s, and 9/11 was a huge intelligence failure. From the looks of it, our intelligence in Iraq was also spotty. But again, that's an argument for overhauling an ineffective intelligence beauracracy, not waiting around for several more years to be reminded of the dangerous uselessness of sanctions and the nasty corruption that surrounded the source.
Let's say, several doctors diagnoses a cancer patient. They suspect a malignant tumor (God forbid). Some decide, based on the best available knowledge, that to operate is the best alternative. The others are interested in pursuing other options (chemo, for example) The surgeons operate, only to ultimately find that the tumor was benign. Were they ultimately wrong to operate anyway? Would the alternatives have been better?
Guess what folks? With Iraq, we spent over a decade pursuing the other options, only to find that Saddam would never allow the inspectors to do their jobs. The inspections failed. The UN refused to enforce its own highfalutin resolutions. The Oil-for-Food deal was an unmitigated disaster, showcasing a degree of corruption that the folks of Enron could only act out in their fantasies.
But what can I say, Sysbuilder05? Paranoia and conspiracy-mongering make for an informed opinion. :roll:
Your ignorance isn't healthy. The reality is that Iran is our best potential ally in the whole middle east. A large portion of the country is young, educated, and yearning for democracy. That said, threatening them with war or attacking them, even their nuclear reactors will inevitably cause them to pull into their shell and become nationalistic, as would any nation attacked. If that happens, there will NOT be a revolution from within so that we can "stand with them", as GW hinted at in the State of the Union address.
The reality is this: how many Islamic countries can we keep threatening to attack before they all unify against us, even Jordan and Saudi Arabia? GW is playing russian roulette, and we don't have many cylinders left.
You're right. A large portion of their country is young, educated and yearning for democracy. But you immediately strip them raw of their intelligence by assuming that they would be peeved at President Bush for destroying the mullahs' nuclear capacity. The Iranian reform movement has serious issues with the current Islamic regime. Far from joining the leadership in pulling into some jingoistic nationalistic shell, the reform movement would finally have an opportunity to properly challenge the autocracy. Conservatives are not seeking anything resembling a full-scale invasion. Michael Ledeen, who is the strongest proponent for regime change in Iran, argues against military action similar to our Iraq expedition. Iran's reform movement needs strong open support from Western leaders. The mullahcracy is ready to collapse, but the reformers will not take the next step without our encouragement. Moreover, the Iranians have the best chance at attaining stable, liberal government; the storied history of the Persians is more conducive towards such a task. A friendly Iran would make stabilizing the Iraqi situation all the easier.
Now, if Iran's nuclear capacity becomes a problem, I do not doubt that the President will use some sort of military force. President Bush will not allow Iran to become another North Korea. But full-scale war? Not really in the cards.
I don't think I strip them of their intelligence. I think it's a matter of a possible sequence of events. If the bombs fall, even in a limited strike to strip them of their nuclear capability, there will be collateral damage. No matter how precise, innocent Iranians will die. Never underestimate the power of a single image of an Iranian child being pulled from the rubble to polarize the masses against Western meddling in Muslim affairs. I think it's difficult at that point to make the claim, "But we're doing this for your freedom!"
What other encouragement did you have in mind? I seem to remember some encouragement at the Bay of Pigs that didn't go so well...
I don't understand why he's going after states which may or may not have nukes while he's ignoring those that do have nukes (north korea).
But are we talking about the masses or the Iranian reform movement, which is rooted within their university system and is fairly intellectual in substance? There were many Western pundits who believed that solving a potential problem in Iran was more important than Iraq (and of course, vice-versa), and better enabled due to a surging university-based reform movement. I could certainly see the mullahs using a dead Iranian child as propaganda, and that might sway those who have nothing to do with the reform movement. To what degree, neither you or I can say. Of course, it may not come to that.
Open moral and political support must come from the entire Western world, not just the United States. Western leaders, from Bush to Blair to Howard to Chirac, Schroeder, etc. must declare that the Iranians have rights to freedoms that the mullahs are denying them. Bay of Pigs, disaster that it was, is not relevant. We are not interested in covertly invading Iran with several thousand exiles to incite regime change, as those who would pressure regime change already live and suffer there. In a recent article Michael Ledeen makes a good case:
"It would be an error of enormous proportions if, on the verge of a revolutionary transformation of the Middle East, we backed away from this historic mission. It would be doubly tragic if we did it because of one of two possible failures of vision: insisting on focusing on Iraq alone, and viewing military power as the prime element in our revolutionary strategy. Revolution often comes from the barrel of a gun, but not always. Having demonstrated our military might, we must now employ our political artillery against the surviving terror masters. The great political battlefield in the Middle East is, as it has been all along, Iran, the mother of modern terrorism, the creator of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and the prime mover of Hamas. When the murderous mullahs fall in Tehran, the terror network will splinter into its component parts, and the jihadist doctrine will be exposed as the embodiment of failed lies and misguided messianism.
The instrument of their destruction is democratic revolution, not war, and the first salvo in the political battle of Iran is national referendum. Let the Iranian people express their desires in the simplest way possible: "Do you want an Islamic republic?" Send Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel to supervise the vote. Let the contending parties compete openly and freely, let newspapers publish, let radios and televisions broadcast, fully supported by the free nations. If the mullahs accept this gauntlet, I have every confidence that Iran will be on the path to freedom within months. If, fearing a massive rejection from their own people, the tyrants of Tehran reject a free referendum and reassert their repression, then the free nations will know it is time to deploy the full panoply of pressure to enable the Iranians to gain their freedom.
The time is now. Faster, please."
Of course, Ledeen is considered a neocon, and many members of the Left vehemently dislike the man and his views. Nonetheless, I think he makes a good case for regime change in Iran.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter