How Iran is being backed into a corner

[0marTheZealot]

Trente, American lives how it does because it stands on the skulls and backs of peoples it has oppressed. America has been involved in more overthrowing of democracies and installions of dictators than any other country, including imperalist England.

Again, blowback finally has an American face on it and people are going paranoid. The American way of life is the sole galvanizing force for people everywhere to unite, even though there is consensus among most intelluctuals that our way of life is completely unsustainable for more a few more decades. Reaping what we sow man, thats what we are doing.

 

[Genx87]

Trente, American lives how it does because it stands on the skulls and backs of peoples it has oppressed. America has been involved in more overthrowing of democracies and installions of dictators than any other country, including imperalist England.

Yet you cant name a single nation the US has occupied and spread her imperialistic ways.
Dont forget the US also spends the most amount of money by any nation on Earth in humanistarian aid. Aid to people who probably burn the very flag from where the money and food came from.

Again, blowback finally has an American face on it and people are going paranoid. The American way of life is the sole galvanizing force for people everywhere to unite, even though there is consensus among most intelluctuals that our way of life is completely unsustainable for more a few more decades. Reaping what we sow man, thats what we are doing.

The only people I see who are paranoid and the self proclaimed intelectuals who like to paint others as being paranoid.

 

[0marTheZealot]

i'll name more than few.

1. Chronological list of interventions, with the purpose of effecting ?regime change,? attempted or materially supported by the United States?whether primarily by means of overt force (OF), covert operation (CO), or subverted election (SE):



a) OF and SE imply, necessarily, prior and continuing CO.



b) OF = directly applied state terrorism by the United States repressive apparatus i.e. the Departments of War/Defense, Energy, Treasury, and State. N.B. the formation of the National Security Council (1947) and the Office of Homeland Security (2002).



c) CO = reconnaissance, classical coups d?etat, legal harassment, disinformation (through media, legal, NGO, student, labor, and other front groups), bribery, sabotage, assassination, proxy warfare, running ratlines for fascist émigré groups, and assorted other clandestine activities.



d) SE = a particular species of CO, comparatively non-violent, high plausible deniability, usually involves dumping tons of cash and campaign technologies into the hands of rightist groups during elections, sowing discord in leftist parties, buying up media space in order to destabilize electorates, tampering directly with ballot results, and hiring jackboots to actively threaten and brutalize voters in the last resort. NB many subverted elections are preceded by lengthy terror campaigns (e.g. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Yugoslavia, etc).



It should go without saying that the following entries are simplified; only the major ?payoff? year is listed, where applicable. Most attempted overthrows were preceded by lengthy preparations?vast right wing conspiracies, indeed. NB that this list remains under construction; new data will be added in the next installment.



[Date ? place (head of targeted state/candidate in subverted election; political affiliation): outcome (means)]



The * indicates that I?m not clever enough to have found the absent data yet. Apologies.



?Neutralist? refers to a given regime?s desire to avoid taking sides with either power bloc in the cold war. It should be readily apparent that such is an unforgivable sin against the foreign policy establishment in the United States.



?Nationalist? refers to a given regime?s desire to nationalize foreign-owned means of production within its national boundaries. It should be readily apparent that such is an unforgivable sin against the foreign policy establishment in the United States.



1893 ? Hawaii (Liliuokalani; monarchist): success (OF)

1912 ? China (Piyu; monarchist): success (OF)

1918 ? Panama (Arias; center-right): success (SE)

1919 ? Hungary (Kun; communist): success (CO)

1920 ? USSR (Lenin; communist): failure (OF)

1924 ? Honduras (Carias; nationalist): success (SE)

1934 ? United States (Roosevelt; liberal): failure (CO)

1945 ? Japan (Higashikuni; rightist): success (OF)

1946 ? Thailand (Pridi; conservative): success (CO)

1946 ? Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): failure (SE)

1947 ? France (*; communist): success (SE)

1947 ? Philippines (*; center-left): success (SE)

1947 ? Romania (Gheorghiu-Dej; stalinist): failure (CO)

1948 ? Italy (*, communist): success (SE)

1948 ? Colombia (Gaitan; populist/leftist): success (SE)

1948 ? Peru (Bustamante; left/centrist): success (CO)

1949 ? Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): success (CO)

1949 ? China (Mao; communist): failure (CO)

1950 ? Albania (Hoxha; communist): failure (CO)

1951 ? Bolivia (Paz; center/neutralist): success (CO)

1951 ? DPRK (Kim; stalinist): failure (OF)

1951 ? Poland (Cyrankiewicz; stalinist): failure (CO)

1951 ? Thailand (Phibun; conservative): success (CO)

1952 ? Egypt (Farouk; monarchist): success (CO)

1952 ? Cuba (Prio; reform/populist): success (CO)

1952 ? Lebanon (*; left/populist): success: (SE)

1953 ? British Guyana (*; left/populist): success (CO)

1953 ? Iran (Mossadegh; liberal nationalist): success (CO)

1953 ? Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)

1953 ? Philippines (*; center-left): success (SE)

1954 ? Guatemala (Arbenz; liberal nationalist): success (OF)

1955 ? Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)

1955 ? India (Nehru; neutralist/socialist): failure (CO)

1955 ? Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): success (CO)

1955 ? China (Zhou; communist): failure (CO)

1955 ? Vietnam (Ho; communist): success (SE)

1956 ? Hungary (Hegedus; communist): success (CO)

1957 ? Egypt (Nasser; military/nationalist): failure (CO)

1957 ? Haiti (Sylvain; left/populist): success (CO)

1957 ? Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)

1958 ? Japan (*; left-center): success (SE)

1958 ? Chile (*; leftists): success (SE)

1958 ? Iraq (Feisal; monarchist): success (CO)

1958 ? Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)

1958 ? Sudan (Sovereignty Council; nationalist): success (CO)

1958 ? Lebanon (*; leftist): success (SE)

1958 ? Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)

1958 ? Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (SE)

1959 ? Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)

1959 ? Nepal (*; left-centrist): success (SE)

1959 ? Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)

1960 ? Ecuador (Ponce; left/populist): success (CO)

1960 ? Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)

1960 ? Iraq (Qassem; rightist /militarist): failure (CO)

1960 ? S. Korea (Syngman; rightist): success (CO)

1960 ? Turkey (Menderes; liberal): success (CO)

1961 ? Haiti (Duvalier; rightist/militarist): success (CO)

1961 ? Cuba (Castro; communist): failure (CO)

1961 ? Congo (Lumumba; leftist/pan-Africanist): success (CO)

1961 ? Dominican Republic (Trujillo; rightwing/military): success (CO)

1962 ? Brazil (Goulart; liberal/neutralist): failure (SE)

1962 ? Dominican Republic (*; left/populist): success (SE)

1962 ? Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (CO)

1963 ? Dominican Republic (Bosch; social democrat): success (CO)

1963 ? Honduras (Montes; left/populist): success (CO)

1963 ? Iraq (Qassem; militarist/rightist): success (CO)

1963 ? S. Vietnam (Diem; rightist): success (CO)

1963 ? Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)

1963 ? Guatemala (Ygidoras; rightist/reform): success (CO)

1963 ? Ecuador (Velasco; reform militarist): success (CO)

1963 ? United States (Kennedy; liberal): success (CO)

1964 ? Guyana (Jagan; populist/reformist): success (CO)

1964 ? Bolivia (Paz; centrist/neutralist): success (CO)

1964 ? Brazil (Goulart; liberal/neutralist): success (CO)

1964 ? Chile (Allende; social democrat/marxist): success (SE)

1965 ? Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): success (CO)

1966 ? Ghana (Nkrumah; leftist/pan-Africanist): success (CO)

1966 ? Bolivia (*; leftist): success (SE)

1966 ? France (de Gaulle; centrist): failure (CO)

1967 ? Greece (Papandreou; social democrat): success (CO)

1968 ? Iraq (Arif; rightist): success (CO)

1969 ? Panama (Torrijos; military/reform populist): failure (CO)

1969 ? Libya (Idris; monarchist): success (CO)

1970 ? Bolivia (Ovando; reform nationalist): success (CO)

1970 ? Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): success (CO)

1970 ? Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): failure (SE)

1971 ? Bolivia (Torres; nationalist/neutralist): success (CO)

1971 ? Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)

1971 ? Liberia (Tubman; rightist): success (CO)

1971 ? Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)

1971 ? Uruguay (Frente Amplio; leftist): success (SE)

1972 ? El Salvador (*; leftist): success (SE)

1972 ? Australia (Whitlam; liberal/labor): failure (SE)

1973 ? Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): success (CO)

1974 ? United States (Nixon; centrist): success (CO)

1975 ? Australia (Whitlam; liberal/labor): success (CO)

1975 ? Congo (Mobutu; military/rightist): failure (CO)

1975 ? Bangladesh (Mujib; nationalist): success (CO)

1976 ? Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): failure (SE)

1976 ? Portugal (JNS; military/leftist): success (SE)

1976 ? Nigeria (Mohammed; military/nationalist): success (CO)

1976 ? Thailand (*; rightist): success (CO)

1976 ? Uruguay (Bordaberry; center-right): success (CO)

1977 ? Pakistan (Bhutto: center/nationalist): success (CO)

1978 ? Dominican Republic (Balaguer; center): success (SE)

1979 ? S. Korea (Park; rightist): success (CO)

1979 ? Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (CO)

1980 ? Bolivia (Siles; centrist/reform): success (CO)

1980 ? Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)

1980 ? Italy (*; leftist): success (SE)

1980 ? Liberia (Tolbert; rightist): success (CO)

1980 ? Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): success (SE)

1980 ? Dominica (Seraphin; leftist): success (SE)

1980 ? Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)

1981 ? Seychelles (René; socialist): failure (CO)

1981 ? Spain (Suarez; rightist/neutralist): failure (CO)

1981 ? Panama (Torrijos; military/reform populist); success (CO)

1981 ? Zambia (Kaunda; reform nationalist): failure (CO)

1982 ? Mauritius (*; center-left): failure (SE)

1982 ? Spain (Suarez; rightist/neutralist): success (SE)

1982 ? Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)

1982 ? Chad (Oueddei; Islamic nationalist): success (CO)

1983 ? Mozambique (Machel; socialist): failure (CO)

1983 ? Grenada (Bishop; socialist): success (OF)

1984 ? Panama (*; reform/centrist): success (SE)

1984 ? Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (SE)

1984 ? Surinam (Bouterse; left/reformist/neutralist): success (CO)

1984 ? India (Gandhi; nationalist): success (CO)

1986 ? Libya (Qaddafi; Islamic nationalist): failure (OF)

1987 ? Fiji (Bavrada; liberal): success (CO)

1989 ? Panama (Noriega; military/reform populist): success (OF)

1990 ? Haiti (Aristide; liberal reform): failure (SE)

1990 ? Nicaragua (Ortega; Christian socialist): success (SE)

1991 ? Albania (Alia; communist): success (SE)

1991 ? Haiti (Aristide; liberal reform): success (CO)

1991 ? Iraq (Hussein; military/rightist): failure (OF)

1991 ? Bulgaria (BSP; communist): success (SE)

1992 ? Afghanistan (Najibullah; communist): success (CO)

1993 ? Somalia (Aidid; right/militarist): failure (OF)

1993 ? Cambodia (Han Sen/CPP; leftist): failure (SE)

1993 ? Burundi (Ndadaye; conservative): success (CO)

1994 ? El Salvador (*; leftist): success (SE)

1994 ? Rwanda (Habyarimana; conservative): success (CO)

1994 ? Ukraine (Kravchuk; center-left): success (SE)

1996 ? Bosnia (Karadzic; centrist): success (CO)

1996 ? Russia (Zyuganov; communist): success (SE)

1996 ? Congo (Mobutu; military/rightist): success (CO)

1996 ? Mongolia (*; center-left): success (SE)

1998 ? Congo (Kabila; rightist/military): success (CO)

1998 ? United States (Clinton; conservative): failure (CO)

1998 ? Indonesia (Suharto; military/rightist): success (CO)

1999 ? Yugoslavia (Milosevic; left/nationalist): success (SE)

2000 ? United States (Gore; conservative): success (SE)

2000 ? Ecuador (NSC; leftist): success: (CO)

2001 ? Afghanistan (Omar; rightist/Islamist): success (OF)

2001 ? Belarus (Lukashenko; leftist): failure (SE)

2001 ? Nicaragua (Ortega; Christian socialist): success (SE)

2001 ? Nepal (Birendra; nationalist/monarchist): success (CO)

2002 ? Venezuela (Chavez; reform-populist): failure (CO)

2002 ? Bolivia (Morales; leftist/MAS): success (SE)

2002 ? Brazil (Lula; center-left): failure (SE)



We should keep in mind that the goals of the imperialist in each of these instances are multiple: acquisition of access to local ?markets? of all varieties; imposition of neoliberal policy; destruction of any potential alternative to the techno-fascist ruling order; provision of incentive for a sprawling parasitical and parastatal medical-intelligence-military-industrial complex (MIMIC); production of official ?villains? for propaganda purposes; intimidation of non-combatants (as in the year 1945), and continuing political hegemony of the transnational elite based in DC.

That enough?

http://www.whatreallyhappened....usinterventionism.html

The two Americans listed (roosevelt and Kennedy) refer to the fascist plot of 1934 thwarted by Smedley Butler (one of my personal heroes btw) and the assassination of Kenneday.

 

[EagleKeeper]

To classify the US as imperialist and murders (according to items on the linked page) lends some lack of credance to the site.

Also, notice the page title. Spouts of Cold War propaganda and cherry picking.

 

[0marTheZealot]

The language shouldn't get in the way of facts, and while they do sometimes, so far, most of those have checked out according to my readings.

also another good site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...terventions_since_1945

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The list seems a bit suspect - Nixon, 1974, success?

We intervened in our own regime change?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Maybe it refers to Nixon's resignation. Didn't get that far in the list yet.

I can't find evidence of the French 1947 one. Also, a lot of these are alleged involvements.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The other site also shows positive as well as so called negative items.

Alleged is exactly that - unproven.

Also, be interesting to see how the ex Soviet Union stacks up.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Also, be interesting to see how the ex Soviet Union stacks up.

I was thinking the very same thing.

Notice as well that a large number of the "interventions" (Doh, almost typed "inventions" 😀 ) listed were during the Cold War era.

 

[0marTheZealot]

I've been looking for information on Soviet Interventions, but its tough.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've been looking for information on Soviet Interventions, but its tough.

That is the problem with not having access to a free and fairly open society.

Mistakes are allowed to be viewed/analyzed and distorted.

Once point to start from would be to look at all the "alleged" CIA involvements. You will probably find a Soviet (or one of the sattelite countries) trigger nearby.

 

[BBond]

Here's Abizaid threatening Iran, and the world, with the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

IS THIS WHAT YOU PEOPLE WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE NEOCON MADNESS REALLY WANT???

General says U.S. military isn't overextended

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Iraq warned Iran and others in comments published on Monday to think twice before trying to take advantage of the U.S. military at a time when it is fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

?Why the Iranians would want to move against us in an overt manner that would cause us to use our air or naval power against them would be beyond me,? Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with USA Today.

Abizaid, speaking in Qatar, was asked about concerns in Congress that a shortage of U.S. troops might tempt nations such as Iran or North Korea, both accused by Washington of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Abizaid, the top U.S. military commander for Iraq and Afghanistan, said the armed forces were not overextended.

The United States has 138,000 troops in Iraq and more than 18,000 in Afghanistan, with others deployed in Kuwait, Japan, Germany, Africa, South Korea and Bosnia.

?We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it,? Abizaid said. ?If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily.?

Washington and some Iraqi officials have accused Iran of supplying Iraqi insurgents with money, arms and militants, but Tehran said Sunday it was ready to cooperate with Iraq to stop militants crossing their mountainous 1,000-mile border.

?We have no intention of interfering in Iraq?s state matters. Iraq?s stability is necessary for Iran?s security,? Iran?s deputy interior minister for security affairs, Ali Asghar Ahmadi, said in Tehran.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
Here's Abizaid threatening Iran, and the world, with the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

IS THIS WHAT YOU PEOPLE WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE NEOCON MADNESS REALLY WANT???

General says U.S. military isn't overextended

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Iraq warned Iran and others in comments published on Monday to think twice before trying to take advantage of the U.S. military at a time when it is fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

?Why the Iranians would want to move against us in an overt manner that would cause us to use our air or naval power against them would be beyond me,? Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with USA Today.

Abizaid, speaking in Qatar, was asked about concerns in Congress that a shortage of U.S. troops might tempt nations such as Iran or North Korea, both accused by Washington of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Abizaid, the top U.S. military commander for Iraq and Afghanistan, said the armed forces were not overextended.

The United States has 138,000 troops in Iraq and more than 18,000 in Afghanistan, with others deployed in Kuwait, Japan, Germany, Africa, South Korea and Bosnia.

?We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it,? Abizaid said. ?If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily.?

Washington and some Iraqi officials have accused Iran of supplying Iraqi insurgents with money, arms and militants, but Tehran said Sunday it was ready to cooperate with Iraq to stop militants crossing their mountainous 1,000-mile border.

?We have no intention of interfering in Iraq?s state matters. Iraq?s stability is necessary for Iran?s security,? Iran?s deputy interior minister for security affairs, Ali Asghar Ahmadi, said in Tehran.

Yeah. Let's not support those nuts.

Let's support Iran in building nukes instead.

 

[rickn]

the conflict between america and iran it not a conflict between countries or nuclear weapons, it's a conflict between civilizations.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Here's Abizaid threatening Iran, and the world, with the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

IS THIS WHAT YOU PEOPLE WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE NEOCON MADNESS REALLY WANT???

General says U.S. military isn't overextended

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Iraq warned Iran and others in comments published on Monday to think twice before trying to take advantage of the U.S. military at a time when it is fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

?Why the Iranians would want to move against us in an overt manner that would cause us to use our air or naval power against them would be beyond me,? Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with USA Today.

Abizaid, speaking in Qatar, was asked about concerns in Congress that a shortage of U.S. troops might tempt nations such as Iran or North Korea, both accused by Washington of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Abizaid, the top U.S. military commander for Iraq and Afghanistan, said the armed forces were not overextended.

The United States has 138,000 troops in Iraq and more than 18,000 in Afghanistan, with others deployed in Kuwait, Japan, Germany, Africa, South Korea and Bosnia.

?We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it,? Abizaid said. ?If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily.?

Washington and some Iraqi officials have accused Iran of supplying Iraqi insurgents with money, arms and militants, but Tehran said Sunday it was ready to cooperate with Iraq to stop militants crossing their mountainous 1,000-mile border.

?We have no intention of interfering in Iraq?s state matters. Iraq?s stability is necessary for Iran?s security,? Iran?s deputy interior minister for security affairs, Ali Asghar Ahmadi, said in Tehran.

Yeah. Let's not support those nuts.

Let's support Iran in building nukes instead.

You regurgitate the mindless fear mongering you're fed.

 

[BBond]

TLC, did you even bother to read the OP?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Trente

Fixed for you.

I guess I should have written:

In Iran, the regime is forcing the people to live and die by religios laws and rules. In the US, laws and rules fit a modern democratic society, driven by its wish to let all Americans live freely, regardless of their religion.

Except for gays, we can't let those heathens marry or that will be the end of us all.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Trente

Fixed for you.

I guess I should have written:

In Iran, the regime is forcing the people to live and die by religios laws and rules. In the US, laws and rules fit a modern democratic society, driven by its wish to let all Americans live freely, regardless of their religion.

Except for gays, we can't let those heathens marry or that will be the end of us all.

Or minorities. We can't let their votes count or it will be the end of civilization as we know it.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Is war justified 'for securing our way of life'?

Absolutely. (not trolling here; this is a serious answer)

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: GrGr
Come on. Self defense is one thing. But this is something altogether different. War for a 'way of life' is what Hitler did. And Winston Churchill was the Arch Imperialist of all Imperialists. Frankly, that logic is the sure fire way to a hot WWIV as there is. If the US starts to go to war to assure access to oil so it can continue it's 'way of life' then other nations have the "right" to go to war for that purpose too. That includes China, the UK, France, Russia and all other nations packing nuclear weapons. The logical conlusion to WWIV is nuclear war. If one side has nothing to lose why should it allow the other side to win?

Your have a point there. it is strong, it is right 'on-the-spot', but it does not hold on to reality. and a reality check tells us that:


In Iran US flags are burned in the streets. in the US, Iranian flags aren't burned on the streets.

So what the hell does this have to do with what you are talking about ?? I've see American flags get burnt in Europe and yes even in Israel.

In Iran, religion is controlling the country. in the US, Americans are controlling the country.

It seems that fundi Christians want a this to happen in our nation and they are pushing us further toward that path. A goverment controlled by the Christian religion for the Christian religion. I don't see any right wing Christians ranting about "seperation of church and state" in fact I'd wager they envy the interwoven relationship of religion and state in Iran.

In Iran, anti-US films are on national TV. in the US, no anti-Iran films are on national TV.

Again I could point out several other nations where you could see anti-US films and some of them are in Europe.

In Iran, a parliament member shouts "death to America". in the US, no parliament member shouts "death to Iran".

So you've been to the parliament in Iran ? You know this to be a long held tradition ? Then again what are you gunning to do ? Put a gun to their heads and force them to love you.

In Iran, a child is being executed on the streets by the regime for a stupid reason. in the US, no child is being executed on the streets by the regime for ANY reason. I wonder what they say in North Korea's goverment or Syria's, Jordan, etc.. about our goverment. Hmmm what are their slogans which get shouted out ???

All those things I mentioned regarding Iran are being held - or at least supported - by the Iranian regime. would you let those guys obtain nuclear weapons?

Would YOU let them obtain an a-bomb that could indirectly - if only slightly - threaten YOUR way of life?!

The things you said either have no bearing to the conversation or can be proven to be true for other nations around the world. The fact is having a Islamic nation with the ability to defend itself is not in Israel or our interest. How else are you gonna force nations to the table when they have means to tell you "NO...Leave us alone."

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
To classify the US as imperialist and murders (according to items on the linked page) lends some lack of credance to the site.

How does classifying the US as imperialist remove credibility? Many claim that the US can't be imperialistic because it's not a monarchy/dictatorship, but when we look at empires in Western history, the greatest ones weren't under heriditary absolutist rule. Look at the second British Empire, or remember that Rome was a Republic when it conquered the majority of its empire. The US has been an empire for most of its history.

 

[cquark]

I dont believe it is any nations "right" to develope nuclear weapons including my own.

Agreed.

Perhaps it would be fair to let Iran develop nuclear weapons, as their neighbors (Pakistan, US-occupied Iraq) have them, but it would not be wise.

However, eventually the cat's going to escape the bag. Nuclear weapons aren't high tech by today's standards, and as the world develops will continue to come within reach of more and more nations.

Yes, we should slow proliferation down as much as we can, but we have to develop a strategy for the future to deal with this inevitability.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: GrGr
Would YOU let them obtain an a-bomb that could indirectly - if only slightly - threaten YOUR way of life?!

Would you trust a country that used two nukes that killed over 100,000 innocent people to have hundreds of them lying around?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: rickn
if the US attacks Iran, they better have a backup plan to get oil out of the persian gulf, because in all likelyhood Iran will attempt to sink any vessel that passes thru the Strait of Hormuz. I think attacking Iran would be an unwise move. They are not Iraq, they have not had military sanctions on them for 15yrs. That country is 20yrs ahead of where Iraq was at pre-1991 levels.

U.S. Navy > Iranian Navy.

Who needs a navy to sink vessels in the Strait of Hormuz?

It's only a few miles across. You don't even need missiles; you could use artillery to sink ships there.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: rickn
if the US attacks Iran, they better have a backup plan to get oil out of the persian gulf, because in all likelyhood Iran will attempt to sink any vessel that passes thru the Strait of Hormuz. I think attacking Iran would be an unwise move. They are not Iraq, they have not had military sanctions on them for 15yrs. That country is 20yrs ahead of where Iraq was at pre-1991 levels.

U.S. Navy > Iranian Navy.

Who needs a navy to sink vessels in the Strait of Hormuz?

It's only a few miles across. You don't even need missiles; you could use artillery to sink ships there.

Which would be taken out about 2 minutes after they opened up with it and I douibt they would even be able to hit anything consitantly. Hell, we could even grab an Iowa class battleship out of storage and show the Iranians the real meaning of the word "artillery" if we wanted to.