Time to kick Iran

[Matteo Martini]

Well, I'm not necessarily advocating war as the only way to accomplish what I was talking about. I said I wished for these countries to become liberal democracies that extend basic civil rights to their citizens. If there is a way to do that without war then that is the way to go. China, I feel, is on the way to reform but still has a ways to go. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is still highly repressive. The US government has friendly relations with them and I feel that isn't right, but I don't call the shots.

So, but which standard does the U.S. decide, which country to attack and which contry to have good relations with?
By the way, why should be the U.S. at all, to decide this?

History is generally the arbiter of whether a war was legitimate or not. Necessary or not. Humane or not.

I disagree.
Caius Julius Caesar, is still seen as an hero by many, in Italy, in 2007.

The UN!?! Don't make me laugh. I can't wait for the day the US wises up and pulls out of the UN so that I can kick back and watch that horrible, impotent, bureaucratic abomination crash and burn with pure schadenfreude glee!

Do you realize that, it is because many American people think like you, that countries like Iran, want to have nuclear capability?

In my post to Oliver I noted that I approved of the war to be fought and terminated in a certain fashion. It was largely fought in the manner I wished but was terminated, and transitioned into rebuilding, in a manner I highly disagreed with.

Suggestion:
Next time, avoid invading another country, if you can not do it in a proper way..

Japan didn't have many problems with the Nazi's either. Strange how alliances, whether political or commercial, can do that.

Do not get your point.
Expecially the U.S. ( and the 52st state of the U.S.: the United Kingdom ) are pushing for some military intervention against Iran.
Germany, France, Italy, China, Russia, India, Brazil, .., they seem to be quite contrary to any military intervention against Iran, as they were against the military intervention against Iraq..

Please, demonstrate for me this alternative foreign history where South Vietnam wasn't being invaded by North Vietnam. I'd love to hear about how US troops weren't really fighting, killing and being killed by North Vietnamese Army regulars in the la Drang Valley. I'd like to here about how those 3 PAVN infantry divisions surrounding Khe Sanh weren't really there.

Just where do you think the insurgents in South Vietnam got their weapons? From the sky? Did some magic just conjure them up out of the rice paddies?

I said, it is your point of view, that the U.S. did not invade Vietnam

Good to see you will swallow any anti-American rhetoric no matter how irrational it is. Please explain to me how launching an invasion served America's oil interests? If the US just wanted cheap oil from Iraq it could have just stopped observing the embargo the way France and Russia did and started buying oil from Saddam. It would have been a lot easier and cheaper. Sure the people of Iraq would still be suffering under Saddam but, according to you, the US doesn't care about them anyways.

The U.S. needed and need to control that region
Not, just buy oil..

There was political will. In 1994 the Republicans were giving Clinton a real hard time about what had happened in Somalia. At that time the Republican position was that the US should not engage in interventions. Now, in reality, their position on this came about simply because they felt the need to oppose everything Clinton proposed. Consequently Clinton, in a moment of weakness, conceded and did for Rwanda what the Republicans of that time wished, nothing.

Look at the result.
The U.S. have invaded Iraq, twice, maybe will invade Iran.
Strange enough, did nothing for Rwanda, even if it was in a situation far worse than Iraq under Saddam..

By 2003 things had changed. Now, in 2007, things have changed yet again. It all amounts to what political will there is to do something at that time. Such is the nature of foreign policy politics.

It all amounts to a three-letter word..

I said I wanted the unelected, theocratic, repressive government of Iran "annihilated." That does not mean I want all the civil workers, or even their leaders, killed. If the removal, or transformation, of that government can be done peacefully then I am all for that.

How would you " annihilate " a foreign government?
Asking them kindly to leave office?
" Annihilating " foreign governments, is usually proposed and done by American leaders in a different way: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/

 

[Matteo Martini]

[qimg]http://jturn.qem.se/media/censored/2.jpg[/qimg]


Most likely Khamenei...
[qimg]http://jturn.qem.se/media/censored/12.jpg[/qimg]

Woops, too much skin here
[qimg]http://jturn.qem.se/media/censored/24.jpg[/qimg]

And the clincher, a front page with two people kissing.
[qimg]http://jturn.qem.se/media/censored/16.jpg[/qimg]

In the mean time, during the SuperBowl..

Super Bowl XXXVIII, which was broadcast live on February 1, 2004 from Houston, Texas, was noted for a controversial halftime show in which Janet Jackson's bare breast was exposed by Justin Timberlake in what was referred to as a "wardrobe malfunction". The incident, sometimes referred to by the portmanteau Nipplegate, was widely discussed. It, along with the rest of the halftime show, lead to a crackdown on indecency in the media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy

 

[Policenaut]

In the mean time, during the SuperBowl..

Super Bowl XXXVIII, which was broadcast live on February 1, 2004 from Houston, Texas, was noted for a controversial halftime show in which Janet Jackson's bare breast was exposed by Justin Timberlake in what was referred to as a "wardrobe malfunction". The incident, sometimes referred to by the portmanteau Nipplegate, was widely discussed. It, along with the rest of the halftime show, lead to a crackdown on indecency in the media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy

That's quite a bit different (although still dumb). It was watched by almost half the nation live (144 million people) and many kids were watching. I had no problem with it but I see why others who had kids may have. And it was all staged...there was no malfunction. You could plainly see the part covering her breast was a break away piece held in place with a snap on button. How many real dresses are made like that?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

In the mean time, during the SuperBowl..

Super Bowl XXXVIII, which was broadcast live on February 1, 2004 from Houston, Texas, was noted for a controversial halftime show in which Janet Jackson's bare breast was exposed by Justin Timberlake in what was referred to as a "wardrobe malfunction". The incident, sometimes referred to by the portmanteau Nipplegate, was widely discussed. It, along with the rest of the halftime show, lead to a crackdown on indecency in the media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy

Don't talk nonesense.

 

[Matteo Martini]

That's quite a bit different (although still dumb). It was watched by almost half the nation live (144 million people) and many kids were watching. I had no problem with it but I see why others who had kids may have.

What is the problem, with a boob?
Is not it part of the female body?
What is the problem with the female body?
Why is it so bad that kids see a part of a female body?

 

[jsiv]

What is the problem, with a boob?
Is not it part of the female body?
What is the problem with the female body?
Why is it so bad that kids see a part of a female body?

You don't see the difference between prohibiting sexual content on terrestrial TV and the Iranian government censoring all publications and all the media?

Of course, I happen to think that many of the rules regarding broadcast TV (and radio especially) in the US are silly and unnecessary, but I'd never try and equate the two.

 

[Travis]

I already said that America is not so bad, in another thread of mine, about one week ago.
Anyway, are we sure, that all this money do not end up in the deep pockets of some corrupted adimistrator, instead of going to help the poor chaps?
Just thinking..

I, like you, also hope that those in need get what they need. I'm fairly confident they will.

 

[Travis]

In the mean time, during the SuperBowl..

Super Bowl XXXVIII, which was broadcast live on February 1, 2004 from Houston, Texas, was noted for a controversial halftime show in which Janet Jackson's bare breast was exposed by Justin Timberlake in what was referred to as a "wardrobe malfunction". The incident, sometimes referred to by the portmanteau Nipplegate, was widely discussed. It, along with the rest of the halftime show, lead to a crackdown on indecency in the media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy

Janet Jackson was not brutally flogged, with a leather strap, now was she? Unlike how it would have been in that country you seem to think is so nice, Iran.

See a news story about this here:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3613

 

[Travis]

So, but which standard does the U.S. decide, which country to attack and which contry to have good relations with?

Here are some standards:
1)If the country has attacked us and/or officially declared war on us.
2)If the country is a threat, and has both the means and motive to attack.
3)If the country is harboring and protecting people who have attacked us.
4)If the country is waging wars of material or land conquest. Seeking to either steal the resources of the vanquished, or annex their land.
5)If the country is committing grave and heinous crimes against humanity either internally within its borders or as a component of a war of conquest.

America fought World War Two for reasons 1,4,-- fought the Korean War for reason 4 -- fought the Vietnam War for reasons 4,5 -- fought Gulf War for reasons 4,5 -- fought in Bosnia for reason 5 -- fought for Kosovo for reasons 4,5 -- invaded Afghanistan for reasons 1,2,5 -- invaded Iraq for reasons 2*,5

*This reason was discovered to be invalid after the invasion was over.

By the way, why should be the U.S. at all, to decide this?

Because the international community, with a few exceptions, suffers from two conditions: 1)They do not care + 2)They are too impotent to do anything even if they did care, which they don't.

I disagree.
Caius Julius Caesar, is still seen as an hero by many, in Italy, in 2007.

But the Nanking massacre is seen, and is taught, as despicable and unjust as it should be. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.

Do you realize that, it is because many American people think like you, that countries like Iran, want to have nuclear capability?

Iran wants nukes because a lot of Americans have wisely seen the folly, waste and improvidence of the UN? Frankly, at this point, I don't really care if Iran gets nukes. If they get them, and never use, then so be it. If they get them and launch a nuke on Israel or smuggle one into the U.S., then the end of Iran's time will have come. We'll see, won't we?

Suggestion:
Next time, avoid invading another country, if you can not do it in a proper way..

When I was debating my support or nonsupport for the invasion of Iraq I had to consider some things. I had to consider the likely outcomes from conducting the invasion or not.

One outcome, from doing nothing, was a certainty. That "certainty" was that Saddam was horribly mistreating his people and would continue to do so as long as the country was his.

The other, invasion, had two potential outcomes. One outcome is that a freed Iraq might be rebuilt quickly and prosper into a healthy and prosperous democracy. The other outcome was that sectarian feuds would rip the country apart and a bloody counterinsurgency operation would be needed.

Doing nothing led to the outcome that was a certainty. The certainty that Saddam would continue to abuse, torture and massacre his people until he lost the country somehow in the future.

Doing something, on the other hand, whilst it could lead to bloody sectarian war, COULD also lead to a quick peace and prosperity for a fledgling democracy.

There was no hope, at all, in doing nothing. There was some hope in doing something.

I choose for the "some hope" and I stand by that decision.

Do not get your point.
Expecially the U.S. ( and the 52st state of the U.S.: the United Kingdom ) are pushing for some military intervention against Iran.
Germany, France, Italy, China, Russia, India, Brazil, .., they seem to be quite contrary to any military intervention against Iran, as they were against the military intervention against Iraq..

If there was a giant meteor headed for Earth and the U.S. had the sole means of diverting it Germany, France, Italy, China, Russia, India and Brazil (just the countries you named, there are others that would do this) would all oppose the U.S. diverting it. They would oppose diverting the meteor just because it's something the U.S. is doing and they oppose everything the U.S. does even if it means their utter destruction. So don't give any weight to their opinions on anything related to what the U.S. is doing.

I said, it is your point of view, that the U.S. did not invade Vietnam

It is not my viewpoint. It is a historical fact.

The U.S. needed and need to control that region
Not, just buy oil..

To what end then?

Look at the result.
The U.S. have invaded Iraq, twice, maybe will invade Iran.
Strange enough, did nothing for Rwanda, even if it was in a situation far worse than Iraq under Saddam..

So, you're saying that because the U.S. failed to intervene in Rwanda, that it should then never intervene again? That's like saying that because you failed to stop a man mugging an old woman once, and you felt really bad about it, that you should never try to stop a man from mugging an old woman ever again.

Ever hear of a notion where one learns from their mistakes?

How would you " annihilate " a foreign government?
Asking them kindly to leave office?
" Annihilating " foreign governments, is usually proposed and done by American leaders in a different way: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/

The U.S. annihilated Saddam's government without killing everyone in it. The top leaders weren't even killed in the invasion but caught afterwards.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You don't see the difference between prohibiting sexual content on terrestrial TV and the Iranian government censoring all publications and all the media?

Yes

Of course, I happen to think that many of the rules regarding broadcast TV (and radio especially) in the US are silly and unnecessary, but I'd never try and equate the two.

Not equating, just making a parallel..

 

[Matteo Martini]

I, like you, also hope that those in need get what they need. I'm fairly confident they will.

Your confidence of the good nature of American and Africans is maybe little naive, in my opinion.
After no many years of " helping " Africa, did the situation get any better?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Janet Jackson was not brutally flogged, with a leather strap, now was she? Unlike how it would have been in that country you seem to think is so nice, Iran.

See a news story about this here:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3613

I am not nice with Iran.
I just said that it would not be " fair ", to go there and " annihilate " their more or less democratically elected government.
Do you get the difference?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Here are some standards:
1)If the country has attacked us and/or officially declared war on us.
2)If the country is a threat, and has both the means and motive to attack.
3)If the country is harboring and protecting people who have attacked us.
4)If the country is waging wars of material or land conquest. Seeking to either steal the resources of the vanquished, or annex their land.
5)If the country is committing grave and heinous crimes against humanity either internally within its borders or as a component of a war of conquest.

America fought World War Two for reasons 1,4,-- fought the Korean War for reason 4 -- fought the Vietnam War for reasons 4,5 -- fought Gulf War for reasons 4,5 -- fought in Bosnia for reason 5 -- fought for Kosovo for reasons 4,5 -- invaded Afghanistan for reasons 1,2,5 -- invaded Iraq for reasons 2*,5

*This reason was discovered to be invalid after the invasion was over.

Three points:
1) the fact that Saddam H. did not have any WMD was known before, and not after the invasion, please, see the video where Rice and Cheney say, in 2000, that Saddam had no WMD ( posted by Oliver );
2) America has been a threat to many democracies in South America, and has worled to overthrow a number of governments there, staging coups and helping a number of dictatorships there ( in response to points 2 and 3 );
3) in response to point 5, why the U.S. did not attack Rwanda, then?

Because the international community, with a few exceptions, suffers from two conditions: 1)They do not care + 2)They are too impotent to do anything even if they did care, which they don't.

So, the world community, does not care about bad things happening in other countries ( point 5 ), why the beautiful and caring government of the U.S. does..
What have you smoked?

But the Nanking massacre is seen, and is taught, as despicable and unjust as it should be. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.

Look who is the winner at the end.
Caesar was the winner, he became an hero.
Japan was the loser, they became the criminals.
The American pioneers won the fight against natives ( and provoked the death of millions of them ), they became the heroicus pioneers.
Look at how the story goes..

Iran wants nukes because a lot of Americans have wisely seen the folly, waste and improvidence of the UN? Frankly, at this point, I don't really care if Iran gets nukes. If they get them, and never use, then so be it. If they get them and launch a nuke on Israel or smuggle one into the U.S., then the end of Iran's time will have come. We'll see, won't we?

I would like to prevent disasters, if possible.
But, by no means invading a foreign country..

When I was debating my support or nonsupport for the invasion of Iraq I had to consider some things. I had to consider the likely outcomes from conducting the invasion or not.

One outcome, from doing nothing, was a certainty. That "certainty" was that Saddam was horribly mistreating his people and would continue to do so as long as the country was his.

At, least, the blame of the killings would have been on Saddam, not on you.

The other, invasion, had two potential outcomes. One outcome is that a freed Iraq might be rebuilt quickly and prosper into a healthy and prosperous democracy. The other outcome was that sectarian feuds would rip the country apart and a bloody counterinsurgency operation would be needed.

If, with a 500-billion-dollar-plus per year Army, you can not make a war with Iraq in a proper way, my suggestion is to stay home, and, cut the budget of the Army, so, you do not make disasters and save a lot of money that can be sent to rebuild New Orleans..

Doing nothing led to the outcome that was a certainty. The certainty that Saddam would continue to abuse, torture and massacre his people until he lost the country somehow in the future.

Doing something, on the other hand, whilst it could lead to bloody sectarian war, COULD also lead to a quick peace and prosperity for a fledgling democracy.

There was no hope, at all, in doing nothing. There was some hope in doing something.

I choose for the "some hope" and I stand by that decision.

How nice, is to play dices with the lives of millions of foreign women and children, uh?

If there was a giant meteor headed for Earth and the U.S. had the sole means of diverting it Germany, France, Italy, China, Russia, India and Brazil (just the countries you named, there are others that would do this) would all oppose the U.S. diverting it.

What?
Again, do you have any paranoid syndrome?
What are you talking about?
I hope you are joking..

They would oppose diverting the meteor just because it's something the U.S. is doing and they oppose everything the U.S. does even if it means their utter destruction. So don't give any weight to their opinions on anything related to what the U.S. is doing.

No, they opposed ( and they rightly did ), to an invasion, in which only the U.S. and the U.K. believed.
Invading another country, is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong..
Do you get it?
Wrong, Wrong, you do not have to do it.

It is not my viewpoint. It is a historical fact.

Is it not, but, if you let me, I would drop this discussion on Vietnam, as I am little tired.
Please, allow me so..

To what end then?

Control the region that has the most part of oil on Earth..

So, you're saying that because the U.S. failed to intervene in Rwanda, that it should then never intervene again?

No, I have asked, why the U.S. intervened in Iraq, and not in Rwanda.
The U.S. did not fail to intervene in Rwanda, they simply did not do anything at all..
Why?

That's like saying that because you failed to stop a man mugging an old woman once, and you felt really bad about it, that you should never try to stop a man from mugging an old woman ever again.

Why did I not stop the first man, in first place?
That is the question..

Ever hear of a notion where one learns from their mistakes?

What do you mean?
What is the " mistake "?

The U.S. annihilated Saddam's government without killing everyone in it. The top leaders weren't even killed in the invasion but caught afterwards.

And, after the invasion..

 

[Oliver]

 

[RandFan]

Control the region that has the most part of oil on Earth.

Hi Matteo,

This is a popular refrain but one I'm afraid is just CT quality argument.

There was never any hope that we would have absolute control over Iraqi oil. Assuming that we had absolute control what benefit would we derive from that control? I know that it intuitively it seems obvious but it isn't. Have you ever noticed that there are few explanations as to how controlling Iraqi oil would benefit America? Having control of Iraqi oil wouldn't stave off another embargo and besides, the embargo hurt OPEC for more than a decade. They have no plans for another.

We had Saddam by the short hairs before the war. If control of oil was the goal we had a great way to control that oil without a war and without any unknowns.

So what use is Iraqi oil to us? I ask that in a sincere and sober fashion. I should note that I have been asking that question on this forum since before the war began. No one to date has given a compelling argument so far. Ok, I could just be denying that anyone has given such an argument but I've changed my mind on many things since I've been here. If someone comes up with a valid argument I'm there with boots on. Trust me on this one.

Nope, it's always, wink wink, nudge nudge, oil...

 

[jsiv]

Osama Bin Laden used his expert CIA training to pull off 9/11, huh?

Now that one belongs in the CT forum.


So Oliver, what do you think the outcomes of the various conflicts would have been if the US had simply done nothing? Fewer deaths, more deaths? Better, worse? It's a difficult issue, and while the body counts may be factually accurate, presenting them in a way that is designed to give viewers the impression that things would have been better without US intervention is perhaps a litte dishonest.

Don't you agree?


(And before you start, no, I am not saying that the US is necessarily justified in everything it does.)

 

[jsiv]

Hi Matteo,

This is a popular refrain but one I'm afraid is just CT quality argument.

There was never any hope that we would have absolute control over Iraqi oil.

A somewhat ironic point is that many of the countries that strongly oppose the war are doing whatever they can to take advantage of the current situation and get access to the Iraqi oil.

Heck, even Sweden.

 

[RandFan]

Typical single minded myopic Oliver.

Yes, America has made mistakes. Terrible ones and we have suffered the consequences of those mistakes. Sadly other people have suffered from those consequences also. However they were not all completely without reason or purpose and we have also had our successes including some in his video. You wouldn't know it because the video is simply propaganda. Oliver won't tell you about those. Nor will he tell you about the deaths caused by other governments. He doesn't care about that. He says he is here for "understanding" and "discussion" but he spends as much time as possible trashing America.

Hey, America should be criticized for our misdeeds. I hope we learn from them. I also expect that most people who come to JREF are reasonable and don't see the world in the stilted perspective that Oliver does.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Hi Matteo,

This is a popular refrain but one I'm afraid is just CT quality argument.

So, the U.S. alone consumes 1/4 of the oil produced in the whole world.
The U.S. are, by far, oil importers.
Without oil, the U.S. economy would be 100% dead.
The Middle East has, by far, the biggest oil reserves in the world.
Mmmm..
Nicely built " conspiracy theory ", I would say..

There was never any hope that we would have absolute control over Iraqi oil. Assuming that we had absolute control what benefit would we derive from that control? I know that it intuitively it seems obvious but it isn't.

It seems obvious??

Have you ever noticed that there are few explanations as to how controlling Iraqi oil would benefit America? Having control of Iraqi oil wouldn't stave off another embargo and besides, the embargo hurt OPEC for more than a decade. They have no plans for another.

We had Saddam by the short hairs before the war. If control of oil was the goal we had a great way to control that oil without a war and without any unknowns.

Iraq ( Saddam ), and Iran ( Ahmadinejad ), are sitting on an ocean of oil.
5 of the first 16 of the biggest world corporations are oil companies.
The make billions out of buying and selling oil ( and refining it ).
Iran and Iraq both want a biigest slice of the pie.
Saddam got punished for this.
Ahmadinejad will not, if he can get some nukes soon.
Again, so many coincidences, uh?

So what use is Iraqi oil to us?

Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
Without oil, we are all dead, you know?
And, Iraq, has the 3rd worl biggest reserves.
Another coincidence..
Rwanda did not have oil..
Why the U.S. did not help Rwanda?

I ask that in a sincere and sober fashion. I should note that I have been asking that question on this forum since before the war began. No one to date has given a compelling argument so far.

As you, like most Americans, are so bought into the ideology that America is the source of freedom of the world ( which, to some extent, is true ), that you do not want to see the argument

Ok, I could just be denying that anyone has given such an argument but I've changed my mind on many things since I've been here. If someone comes up with a valid argument I'm there with boots on. Trust me on this one.

Nope, it's always, wink wink, nudge nudge, oil...

Unfortunately, I am afraid, that is a compelling argument..

 

[Matteo Martini]

A somewhat ironic point is that many of the countries that strongly oppose the war are doing whatever they can to take advantage of the current situation and get access to the Iraqi oil.

Heck, even Sweden.

Heck, even Italy