Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Once a distant, mysterious land, the U.S. has become intensely embroiled in Middle Eastern politics. While simultaneously waging campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq, America has turned a wary eye to Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons. With the lives of potentially thousands of soldiers and citizens at stake in both countries, should the U.S. take direct military action against Iran?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
GOOOOOOOOLLLLLL!!!!!
I thought we agreed humor was acceptable?
My "snarkiness" has nothing to do with my friends since none of them use this website. I'm not in this for pats on the back, I'm in it for my own amusement.
The fact of WWII is that the U.S. did everything it could. You can hardly criticize her for not entering into all-out war with a superpower over the rumor of a Holocaust. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to criticize someone else for not being perfect when you haven't had the opportunity to make the same mistake with the information that they had at the time. That the U.S. changed the course of the war is not propaganda, it's fact. The Nazis were winning, and then the U.S. came in. We may not know for certain what would have happened, but we can make a damn good guess about what probably would have happened. Notice that's the wording I used "probably," not "know." I've had enough of your constant appeals to ridicule.
The Kurds were discriminated against both before and after the Gulf War, but during? Coalition forces severely cut down on this, and pretty much stopped the killing. After they left, it started up again with increased fervor, which is what "with a vengeance" means.
When I called Hamas liars, I didn't mean they were lying to you. I frankly don't give a shit if they lie to you, that's part of war. You don't just give out information. What I meant was, Hamas has demonstrated in the past it's willingness to make treaties if only Israel will do this one little thing, jump through this one little hoop, or cede this one little territory. The treaty is signed, and a few weeks later, more rockets are landing in Israel, usually from the area ceded. Hamas doesn't want peace, they want Israel to be wiped from the Earth. Israel is reluctant to make treaties with Hamas because Hamas doesn't honor them. They are liars.
- richardsonkr
March 23, 2009 5:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I enjoy the snakiness, don't get me wrong
I'm a little hesitant about letting the US off the hook on the sending Jews back during WWII. It's not about hindsight, but I will say that I am inferring that the US at that time did know something about what was happening to the Jewish population there. If Hitler had a meeting (meetings,?) with a radical Islamic leader from the British controlled Jerusalem area then I would bet money the British and American governments had a clue. (I will find the name of the Islamic leader that met with Hitler - it's in a book I have somewhere around the house.)
My point about the Kurds was less about the qualifier you used but how a historic question of discrimination has been turned into part of the apology and defense for the Iraq war on the part of the British and American governments. On this, they absolutely have long known about the treatment of the Kurds and while they have given half-hearted support in the country they occupied, they don't say one word about what kurds go through in the countries of allies.
Yeah, I don't lose any sleep about the lies either, the only thing is both sides always lie. Hamas does ask for one more loop to be jumped through, so does Israel. That's why I brought up the fact that just defending one of the polarized views on this issue does no good.
It should be obvious to those of us outside the region that neither side appears to take any of the negotiations serious. Israel hasn't given back any of the land they said they would because they claim that the terrorists haven't stopped the violence. And the terrorists say they throw bombs because Israel never gives back any of the land they said they would.
Any way, how this relates to Iran is that Iran is not going to help the Palestinians. All the stuff about destroying Israel is pure political rhetoric. Not one of the Muslim nations has ever done anything to help Palestine (Syria, made a temporary exception to this fact but it proves the rule).
What we hear about the "danger" of Iran is also pure political rhetoric. The US government has tried to isolate Iran ever since they kicked out the US backed dictator in 1979 and back then the geopolitics of a country that shares a border with our old nemesis, the Soviet Union, not doing what our government wanted was a big no, no.
This is a problem our government created for us. And I think the best solution is to tell our government to stop putting its nose in Iran's business and start thinking about non-military solutions so that neither of our countries has to continue living in fear of each other.
- mangueken
March 24, 2009 10:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.