Time to kick Iran

[RandFan]

So? Why didn't the US just assassinated Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Saddam? That would've been the smaller solution.

First off I'm not so sure that it wasn't tried and or that it was that simple.

Why supporting revolutionists instead just assassinating leaders -aka- why taking thousands and more of deaths into account while playing "God" in countries that don't agree with US-Politicians and US-Companies?

The only reasons I found so far are imperialistic (economical, strategical) ones.

That isn't what your and mine "Western Ideologies and Moral Standards" are about, is it?

I won't defend many of the poor decision made. I have been very critical of many of our interventions. Not all have been per se poor decisions though.

I'm afraid that the world is a bit more complex than you make it out to be. Rightly or wrongly we perceived communism and other changes in the world to be very detrimental to us and sought to control things internationally. Our fears might have been overblown or misplaced I'll grant that. With hindsight I would have to say that often we could have made better decisions but not always.

Consider something else. America has largely wanted other nations to prosper at least as well as we have. After WWII we could have done what the Soviet Union did. We could have annexed West Germany and Japan. We didn't do that. We wanted those nations to be democratic. We made great effort to aid them (see The Berlin airlift). We helped rebuild Japan and left it autonomous.

I would have to take issue with the notion of Imperialism. I would prefer hegemony. However, I will easily concede that many of our actions have been disastrous. Especially in South America.

I don't mind criticism in these areas. I do mind a myopic view that says that America has only done evil in the world.

 

[Oliver]

First off I'm not so sure that it wasn't tried and or that it was that simple.

I won't defend many of the poor decision made. I have been very critical of many of our interventions. Not all have been per se poor decisions though.

I'm afraid that the world is a bit more complex than you make it out to be. Rightly or wrongly we perceived communism and other changes in the world to be very detrimental to us and sought to control things internationally. Our fears might have been overblown or misplaced I'll grant that. With hindsight I would have to say that often we could have made better decisions but not always.

Consider something else. America has largely wanted other nations to prosper at least as well as we have. After WWII we could have done what the Soviet Union did. We could have annexed West Germany and Japan. We didn't do that. We wanted those nations to be democratic. We made great effort to aid them (see The Berlin airlift). We helped rebuild Japan and left it autonomous.

I would have to take issue with the notion of Imperialism. I would prefer hegemony. However, I will easily concede that many of our actions have been disastrous. Especially in South America.

I don't mind criticism in these areas. I do mind a myopic view that says that America has only done evil in the world.

I don't think that the world is that complicated once you understand the pretty human, basic intentions behind a far more complex issue.

The problem is to understand these intentions since no one will point them out for you.

So what's so "evil" about communism. What exactly was the propagated threat about? That they are trying to invade America or destroy it? If you're one of the people who believed these governmental claims, what's the evidence for it? "The government is afraid - so should you"?

What is the communist threat?
What is the terrorist threat?
What is the french threat?
What is the iranian threat?
What is the Iraqi threat?
What is the Cuban threat?
What is the "Canadian Healthcare System"-threat?
What is the "socialism" threat?

Does any of these questions above make factual sense to you? And if so - which doesn't - in your critical mind?

 

[RandFan]

I don't think that the world is that complicated once you understand the pretty human, basic intentions behind a far more complex issue.

You are entitled to an opinion. I'm not sure why anyone else should agree with you. If that were true then I think the world would likely be a very different place than it is.

The problem is to understand these intentions since no one will point them out for you.

I can't parse this. What?

So what's so "evil" about communism. What exactly was the propagated threat about? That they are trying to invade America or destroy it? If you're one of the people who believed these governmental claims, what's the evidence for it? "The government is afraid - so should you"?

What is the communist threat?
What is the terrorist threat?
What is the french threat?
What is the iranian threat?
What is the Iraqi threat?
What is the Cuban threat?
What is the "Canadian Healthcare System"-threat?
What is the "socialism" threat?

Does any of these questions above make factual sense to you? And if so - which doesn't - in your critical mind?

Oliver, I'm affraid that you completly missed my point. Further you are raising a lot of straw men. Your post is almost entirely irrelevant to mine.

Oliver,

Could you re-read my post and attempt to post something salient to the point at hand? Also, could you skip the strawmen?

 

[Oliver]

You are entitled to an opinion. I'm not sure why anyone else should agree with you. If that were true then I think the world would likely be a very different place than it is.

I can't parse this. What?

Oliver, I'm affraid that you completly missed my point. Further you are raising a lot of straw men. Your post is almost entirely irrelevant to mine.

Oliver,

Could you re-read my post and attempt to post something salient to the point at hand? Also, could you skip the strawmen?

Before making it more complicated because you missed the basics here:

Why did Nazi-Germany have the holocaust?

1. Hitler hated Jews - and his staff loved the idea, too.
2. The Jews were evil according to the "average Joe's mind".
3. Jews are indeed evil.
4. Just out of the blue because it was trendy.
5. [randfan] "It's soooo complicated I can't grasp it".
6. There were many misconceptions that finally resulted in the holocaust, thanks to point 1.

 

[RandFan]

Before making it more complicated because you missed the basics here:

Why did Nazi-Germany have the holocaust?

1. Hitler hated Jews - and his staff loved the idea, too.
2. The Jews were evil according to the "average Joe's mind".
3. Jews are indeed evil.
4. Just out of the blue because it was trendy.
5. [randfan] "It's soooo complicated I can't grasp it".
6. There were many misconceptions that finally resulted in the holocaust, thanks to point 1.

{sigh}



Very dispointing Oliver.

I don't maintain that it is so complicated that it can't be grasped.
What's ironic is that your number 6 is simply "many" misconceptions.

Oliver, it wasn't simply that Hitler hated Jews or that there were many misconceptions (good job of making simplicity out of complexity). Demonizing the Jews was a way for Hitler to scape goat many of the past problems and to find something iconoic that the people's frustrations and anger could be channeled into. The same is true of Muslim nations that blame America for all of their problmes (see The Great Satan). There are other problems. It is a complex issue but not one that can't be discussed or understood.

Oliver, please don't make arguments for me? It's really poor form, not to mention a fallacy.

 

[RandFan]

You are entitled to an opinion. I'm not sure why anyone else should agree with you. If that were true then I think the world would likely be a very different place than it is.

I can't parse this. What?



Oliver, I'm affraid that you completly missed my point. Further you are raising a lot of straw men. Your post is almost entirely irrelevant to mine.

Oliver,

Could you re-read my post and attempt to post something salient to the point at hand? Also, could you skip the strawmen?

Oliver,

Could you please go back to the subject at hand? We were having a discussion and I made some relevant points. Would you please address them? If there is something that you don't understand would you ask me what that is? I would really appreciate a sincere response.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver,

Could you please go back to the subject at hand? We were having a discussion and I made some relevant points. Would you please address them? If there is something that you don't understand would you ask me what that is? I would really appreciate a sincere response.

Would you do me the favor and post the links to the arguments you're referring to since I'm jumping between 6 different issues right now?

 

[danielk]

Demonizing the Jews was a way for Hitler to scape goat many of the past problems and to find something iconoic that the people's frustrations and anger could be channeled into.

Gotta chime in here to clear a common misconception. It is of course true that scapegoating played an important role, but Hitler actually believed what he said about the Jews. This is quite clear from reading "Mein Kampf", where he outlines his delusions openly. Unfortunately the book wasn't taken seriously at the time.

 

[RandFan]

Gotta chime in here to clear a common misconception. It is of course true that scapegoating played an important role, but Hitler actually believed what he said about the Jews. This is quite clear from reading "Mein Kampf", where he outlines his delusions openly. Unfortunately the book wasn't taken seriously at the time.

Oh, no question. My only point is that the cause of the Holocaust was a dynamic with a number of variables. Scholars and historians don't hold that there is a simple explanation for the Holocaust.

 

[RandFan]

Would you do me the favor and post the links to the arguments you're referring to since I'm jumping between 6 different issues right now?

Oliver,

You are arguing that America has interfered too often and with disastrous result in the affairs of other nations. You argue that it is because of our imperialism.

I have argued that it is in fact hegemony and that our intent is more to establish democracy around the world because we honestly believe that is better for the world, it's citizens and us.

To back up my thesis I note that America did not annex West Germany or Japan the way the Soviet Union annexed East Germany and much of the Soviet Block following WWII.

The truth is we fought to keep West Germany free and independent. We pumped millions of dollars into Europe and Japan so that European nations and Japan would be free and democratic. YES IT WAS IN OUR BEST INTEREST but we believed that was in their best interest was also in our best interest.

The reasons we interfered in affairs in South America and other places was in large part because we believed that it was in our mutual self interest.

I will concede that many of these attempts were disastrous and that American corporations exploited many of these attempts hurting both the countries and the citizens of those countries. That said, we also did much good and had we not have intervened there are good arguments that many of these countries could have or would have been worse off.

Oil IS an issue in the Mid East but not because we want direct control. It's an issue because if enough fantics controlled a big enough slice of the pie they could use the oil as an economic weapon. As it is most of the people who control the oil (OPEC) like money and care more for money than they do Allah.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver,

You are arguing that America has interfered too often and with disastrous result in the affairs of other nations. You argue that it is because of our imperialism.

I have argued that it is in fact hegemony and that our intent is more to establish democracy around the world because we honestly believe that is better for the world, it's citizens and us.

To back up my thesis I note that America did not annex West Germany or Japan the way the Soviet Union annexed East Germany and much of the Soviet Block following WWII.

The truth is we fought to keep West Germany free and independent. We pumped millions of dollars into Europe and Japan so that European nations and Japan would be free and democratic. YES IT WAS IN OUR BEST INTEREST but we believed that was in their best interest was also in our best interest.

The reasons we interfered in affairs in South America and other places was in large part because we believed that it was in our mutual self interest.

I will concede that many of these attempts were disastrous and that American corporations exploited many of these attempts hurting both the countries and the citizens of those countries. That said, we also did much good and had we not have intervened there are good arguments that many of these countries could have or would have been worse off.

Oil IS an issue in the Mid East but not because we want direct control. It's an issue because if enough fantics controlled a big enough slice of the pie they could use the oil as an economic weapon. As it is most of the people who control the oil (OPEC) like money and care more for money than they do Allah.

Huh? Hegemony is imperialism if the state in question doesn't agree with the hegemony coming from the US. You're confirming my point.

The US kept western Germany free and independent from what? The communist-Boogey-Man??? Sorry, I seriously missed the Anti-Communism propaganda over here. Looks like it didn't exist in a country that lived pretty near to this "threat" compared to the "Commi-Scared"-US - some thousand miles away. How do you explain this myth since you adopted the propaganda???

 

[RandFan]

Huh? Hegemony is imperialism if the state in question doesn't agree with the hegemony coming from the US. You're confirming my point.

You know, when you post smilies of confusion without even bothering to find out what you are confused about it makes you appear willfully ignorant.

Hegemony (pronounced [ˈhɘ.dʒɘ.mɘ.ni]) (Greek: ἡγεμονία hēgemonía) is a concept that has been used to describe the existence of dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group -- referred to as a hegemon -- acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force.

Imperialism is the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and/or political dominance over other nations.

Oliver, in the future, take a moment of your time to learn your terms.

Imperialism = authority by force.
Hegemony = influence and or dominance through consent.

The US kept western Germany free and independent from what?

You honestly never heard of the Berlin Airlift (blockade)? Really?

The communist-Boogey-Man??? Sorry, I seriously missed the Anti-Communism propaganda over here. Looks like it didn't exist in a country that lived pretty near to this "threat" compared to the "Commi-Scared"-US - some thousand miles away. How do you explain this myth since you adopted the propaganda???

You didn't know that the Soviet Union anexed Czecoslovakia? Poland? Hungry? You didn't know that the Soviet Union would violently put down calls for independence? You never noticed the folks streaming into your nation over the Iron Curtain? You never heard of the Stasi? You honestly think after trying to take all of Berlin (see above) that the Soviet Union didn't for one moment want all of Germany? You seem rather ignorant of the history of the Soviets and their influence in Europe?

 

[Oliver]

You know, when you post smilies of confusion without even bothering to find out what you are confused about it makes you appear willfully ignorant.

Oliver, in the future, take a moment of your time to learn your terms.

Imperialism = authority by force.
Hegemony = influence and or dominance through consent.

You honestly never heard of the Berlin Airlift (blockade)? Really?

You didn't know that the Soviet Union anexed Czecoslovakia? Poland? Hungry? You didn't know that the Soviet Union would violently put down calls for independence? You never noticed the folks streaming into your nation over the Iron Curtain? You never heard of the Stasi? You honestly think after trying to take all of Berlin (see above) that the Soviet Union didn't for one moment want all of Germany? You seem rather ignorant of the history of the Soviets and their influence in Europe?

While I don't care about non-western states since they have their own moral-standards: My translator said this concerning "Hegemony":

"authority or influence exercised by one state over others, leadership, predominance"

See? According to my translator you're making my point concerning "Imperialism".

 

[RandFan]

While I don't care about non-western states since they have their own moral-standards: My translator said this concerning "Hegemony":

"authority or influence exercised by one state over others, leadership, predominance"

See? According to my translator you're making my point concerning "Imperialism".

Your translator is wrong. However, words are used for communication and are NOT rules that govern the universe or logic or anything else.

If we choose to use your definition of hegemony then I do not accept that America is engaging in that or Imperialism. At present it can be said that we are only trying to control to nations by force, Iraq and Afghanistan.

• We are losing big time in Iraq.
• We have NO control over Iraq.
• We have NO control over Iraqi oil.
• The majority of Americans want us to get the hell out.
• Come the next election, if the war isn't over America will vote in a president to get us the hell out.
• In Afghanistan they practice Sharia law and other cultural aspects that offend Americans.
• We are doing a lousy job of Controlling Afghanistan.
• There are legitimate reasons why America is in Afghanistan.

So Imperialism is just another CT.

 

[Oliver]

Your translator is wrong. However, words are used for communication and are NOT rules that govern the universe or logic or anything else.

If we choose to use your definition of hegemony then I do not accept that America is engaging in that or Imperialism. At present it can be said that we are only trying to control to nations by force, Iraq and Afghanistan.

• We are losing big time in Iraq.
• We have NO control over Iraq.
• We have NO control over Iraqi oil.
• The majority of Americans want us to get the hell out.
• Come the next election, if the war isn't over America will vote in a president to get us the hell out.
• In Afghanistan they practice Sharia law and other cultural aspects that offend Americans.
• We are doing a lousy job of Controlling Afghanistan.
• There are legitimate reasons why America is in Afghanistan.

So Imperialism is just another CT.

Nice dodge - but I'm not talking about "outcomes" here.
It's a simple question - and I know for sure you don't know the answer. But I ask you nevertheless to make up your own mind for yourself:

Why deinstalling foreign leaders in Iran and other ridiculous "military powers"?

1. Isreal
2. Oil
3. For the fun if it. (Test the newest weapons?)
4. RandFan doesn't know and loves to dodge instead
5. 1+2+7
6. "Overwhelming threat for America and "Freeeeeedoms" (OMG!!!11!11!!OMG11!!OMG11eleventy!11!)"
7. Economical advantages

Well?

 

[RandFan]

Nice dodge - but I'm not talking about "outcomes" here.
It's a simple question - and I know for sure you don't know the answer. But I ask you nevertheless to make up your own mind for yourself:

Why deinstalling foreign leaders in Iran and other ridiculous "military powers"?

1. Isreal
2. Oil
3. For the fun if it. (Test the newest weapons?)
4. RandFan doesn't know and loves to dodge instead
5. 1+2
6. "Overwhelming threat for America and "Freeeeeedoms" (OMG!!!11!11!!OMG11!!OMG11eleven!11!)"

Well?

What? "Dodge"? What dodge?

Oliver, can't we just have a discussion? What the hell are you talking about? What does this mean? What does deinstalling mean?

Ask me a straight question and I'll give you and honest and straight answer.

How long are we going to be imperialistic if we always fail? How can it said that we are imperialistic if we have no empire?

 

[Oliver]

What? "Dodge"? What dodge?

Oliver, can't we just have a discussion? What the hell are you talking about? What does this mean? What does deinstalling mean?

Ask me a straight question and I'll give you and honest and straight answer.

How long are we going to be imperialistic if we always fail? How can it said that we are imperialistic if we have no empire?

I would love to see people answering my questions and I would love to answer theirs in return. But it's annoying if I ask a question and 10 people in here don't give me an answer to my question and ask 20 counter-questions instead.

But if you agree to answer my questions straight out of your head, I will do so, too.

Now concerning your question: First of all, imperialism isn't solely based on territory. Imperialism today also includes economical, diplomatic, political and strategical ways of Imperialism. And I know that America doesn't have much success right now with these kind of strategies - but the intentions for getting the "foot in the door" in Iraq and Iran, is out of imperialistic reasons: To gain control. Wrong?

 

[RandFan]

I would love to see people answering my questions and I would love to answer theirs in return. But it's annoying if I ask a question and 10 people in here don't give me an answer to my question and ask 20 counter-questions instead.

But if you agree to answer my questions straight out of your head, I will do so, too.

Now concerning your question: First of all, imperialism isn't solely based on territory. Imperialism today also includes economical, diplomatic, political and strategical ways of Imperialism. And I know that America doesn't have much success right now with these kind of strategies - but the intentions for getting the "foot in the door" in Iraq and Iran, is out of imperialistic reasons: To gain control. Wrong?

Yes, wrong for all of the reasons I have stated again and again. Imperialism is control by force. We can't do it. We just can't. At best we can hope to do what we did in German and Japan. Influence them and start democacies.

Ranting on and on that America is imperialistic in the face of evidence to the contrary is just a big waste of time. It's not going anywhere.

• America has NOT acted like the former Soviet Union.
• America could have acted like the former Soveit Union at one time.
• Our goal is to start democracies like we did in Germany and Japan.
• Sometimes we suck at it.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I also realized this and I wonder if everyone in America knows about it, why this is no scandal at all, and to what extent this is legal or "fair&balanced" in the "average John Doe's mind". That doesn't make sense for a society that claims they believe in freedoms, "fair&balanced", equality, human rights and neutrality.

Hi Oliver.
Agreed with what you say..

Anyway, this does NOT mean that OBL is a nice guy, right?

 

[Matteo Martini]

I also realized this and I wonder if everyone in America knows about it, why this is no scandal at all, and to what extent this is legal or "fair&balanced" in the "average John Doe's mind". That doesn't make sense for a society that claims they believe in freedoms, "fair&balanced", equality, human rights and neutrality.

Oliver, did you see this video?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2831174&postcount=121
What do you think?