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?
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:
I don't understand how an organisation that has as its stated goals "... promote the principles of reason, rational self-interest, individual rights and ... " can argue that to launch an aggressive war against a country that has not attacked the US.
Almost all of the cases you cite in support of you arguments are attacks against US military in places where they shouldn't be.
If you look at this from a different perspective. The US invaded Iraq. Over the years resistance to the US military presences has grown. When you are in that situation you will welcome help fro m the devil himself.
- Andrew Holt
September 1, 2008 1:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Iran has been funding and supporting numerous terrorists such as Hezbollah and Al Qaida for years, using them to give arms and training to insurgents who then cross the border into Iraq to kill American soldiers -- or, indeed, fly airplanes into our skyscrapers.
A war by proxy is still a war, despite the lack of official paperwork. Iran declared war on us years ago, and we must defend ourselves now, because next time it will not be a jet airplane that they attack us with.
It will be a nuclear bomb.
- Sarrisan
September 4, 2008 8:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The US cannot occupy the moral high ground here.
Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union would have been justified in attacking the US when the CIA were arming & funding the Mujahideen ?
Or that the UK should have attacked the US when individuals were funding the IRA ?
Or that almost any central & south american nation would also have similar cause ?
Iran is a potential target because it's safe. There will be no ICBM's arcing towards US soil. I notice that the heat has gone out of the rhetoric aimed at North Korea. Concern about Chinese involvement perhaps ?
Here's a mad idea. Why do you think Iran wants nuclear weapons ? Because it fears that it's only defences against the West will be to have the ability to kill lot's of US soldiers. Try talking, bargaining, make use of the rational self-interest.
BTW
"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."
William Blum
- Andrew Holt September 4, 2008 9:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
How can you equate the Soviet Union with the United States? The Soviet Union was a slave state fighting to bring even more people under it's oppressive regime, it had no rights and no justification for even existing. Likewise Iran has no right to oppress its citizens and wage Jihad on its neighbors and the US. It has no right to exist let alone have nuclear weapons. The United States for all its faults still stands for individual rights and freedom, that's why people come here in droves, including Muslims who have more rights here than anywhere in the Middle East. Such countries are an objective threat and any free country has a right to do what ever necessary to neutralize that threat. I don't believe Iraq was such a threat, Iran most certainly is, they have slaughtered hundred if not thousands of Americans. What would they do with a nuke?
- Nigel October 29, 2008 6:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"How can you equate the Soviet Union with the United States?"
I don't. I question the right of any nation to say that any other has no right to exist. The US is quick to say that Israel has a 'right' to exist.
Hypocrisy is the issue. The US says one thing and does another.
Can you give examples of Iran attacking the US ? There are several examples of the US attacking Iran.
You talk much of rights, by what 'right' does the US seek to impose it's model of democracy upon a nation, other than force of arms ?
The US is building an empire. It can impose it will either by using its military muscle, or by, effectively, blockading a country.
You have no right to impose your way on another, if you try they have the right to resist. Is that not how the US came to exist in the first place ?
- Andrew Holt October 30, 2008 4:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So the Soviet Union (or Iran, or Taliban Afghanistan, or Nazi Germany) and the US are morally equivalent, neither is better than the other? That's just nihilism.
America is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic based on the inalienable individual rights to life, liberty and happiness. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship where citizens have no rights. The difference is between freedom and slavery, life and death, that's what gives us the right. America has every right to protect the right of its citizens from the threats of illegitimate, totalitarian states such as Iran. Iran enslaves and slaughters its own citizens, it recognizes no rights; how absurd it is to claim it has the right not to be interfered with. The only empire being built is the one the Jihadists are building, they're the ones imposing an ideology and way of life on everybody. In the US and the West in general you can be whatever religion you want to be, and do whatever you want if you respect the same rights of others. To grasp this obvious difference I suggest you try being a Christian, or a Jew, or a secularist, or a woman, or a homosexual, or anything other than a good Islamic fundamentalist, in Iran.
Iran has been attacking the US since the invasion of our embassy in 1979.
1979 - US Embassy invaded and hostages seized [students sanctioned by Khomeni]
1983 - U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three people were killed, including 17 Americans [Hezbollah]
1983 - American embassy in Kuwait was bombed. 5 people were killed, and more than 80 others were injured. [Al Dawa]
1982-92 - assorted kidnappings in Lebanon, totally 30 Westerners from '82-92 [Hezbollah]
1984 - truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel. [Hezbollah]
1984 - Kuwait Airways Flight 221, the hijackers killed two American officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development. [Hezbollah]
1985 - TWA Flight 847 was hijacked, hostage Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, was shot and his body dumped on the airport tarmac. U.S. [Hezbollah]
That's just 6 years and it just gets worse, do I have to go on? According to the FBI (reporting prior to 9/11), Iranian-backed Hezbollah was responsible for the slaughter of more Americans than any other group.
It's important to note that Iran's spreading of totalitarian Islam, and its involvement and success at sponsoring terrorism is what inspires and motivates Bin Laden and other terrorist organizations, and has made them think they can kidnap and murder Americans with impunity. If we had taken Iran at it's word and eliminated their terrorist state back in 1979 or even the early 1980s, in my opinion the resurgence of terrorism and 9/11 would never have happened. It's thanks to the non-military "solution" i.e. appeasement, that today terrorist groups operate all around the world (including a Hezbollah cell in my state in the US), raising funds and raising future "martyrs" who will probably make 9/11 look like child's play.
- Nigel October 30, 2008 10:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
OK How about:
Iraq:
1963: CIA organises coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
Iran:
1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister.
1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorised Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953, With American support, the Shah was able to rapidly modernise Iranian infrastructure, but he simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition.
Lebanon
1958: In that intervention, 14,000 Americans were sent to Lebanon by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to quell the opposition to President Camille Chamoun.
1981, Israeli air craft bombed multi-story apartment buildings in Beirut
1982: Israeli siege of Beirut
1982 Invasion of Lebanon by Israel
Others:
Cuba 1961 Attempted invasion and regime change in Cuba.
1962-present ongoing trade restrictions
Laos 1962 Invasion of neutral country
Dominican Republic 1965-66 Marines land during election campaign.
Guatemala 1966-67 Green Berets intervene against rebels.
Cambodia: 1969-75 Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
Oman: 1970 U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
Chile: 1973 CIA-backed coup ousts elected Marxist president.
... and so on ...
I have no sympathy with religion, Islam or otherwise. I have worked with the Saudi's, the government there is despicable.
My point is that you cannot credibly moralise about democracy whilst destabilising democratically elected, but unfriendly regimes. That's hypocrisy. You cannot claim to be a defender of a nations sovereignty (Kuwait) and then ignore it when it suits you (Syria, Pakistan)
As George Washington wrote "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. ..."
- Andrew Holt October 30, 2008 12:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Why go to war when by becoming energy independent, we can bankrupt them while saving our economy by using the $700B/yr in overseas oil. They are on the edge now.
Taking that money for high mileage cars, high speed, commuter trains, NG semi's, Electric, plug in hybrid cars, jobs we could do it in 8-10 yrs.
Or we can go to war, bankrupt ourselves, kill off our soldiers, many innocent people! Your choice?
When are we going to get smart? I hope in 5 days!!
jerryd
- jerryd October 29, 2008 8:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
>>Does that mean another quagmire like Iraq? No. The campaign in Iraq is a global-welfare mission--not a real war designed to advance our self-defense.
Exactly how do you avoid another quagmire like Iraq? (Sidepoint-wasn't "quagmire" a forbidden word by the warmongers previously?) The people of Iran will fight an invader with the same passion as those of Iraq. Your belief that a population won't fight an invader leads me to believe that you'd make the choice of not fighting were your country to be invaded. For most people, that thought never enters their head.
- Hey Its Todd August 14, 2008 11:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Have you read the arguments? Iraq is a quagmire because we weren't allowed to fight like we mean it and because Iran is the real enemy. They're behind a large part of the insurgency and I would be very surprised if they didn't have some political influence in the current Iraqi government as well. If we topple Iran decisively and allow (and even assist with) the opposition takeover, terrorists will lose a great deal of the logistical support they currently enjoy.
- Hank August 15, 2008 7:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
So we should follow the lead of the same criminals who concocted the Iraq Invasion & Occupation direct another attack? The cliche that "insanity is the repetition of the same act with an expectation of different results". And as for not being allowed to "fight like we mean it", should we have more contractors not under any laws or guidelines? Fight in more population centers? Nuke the region? We already have decades if not centuries of hatred from the region's occupants; are we aiming to have the hatred last as long as the radiation poison from a nuclear attack?
>>They're behind a large part of the insurgency and I would be very surprised if they didn't have some political influence in the current Iraqi government as well.
A while back, Iraq was responsible for all things evil in the Middle East. Who will it be next week? As for aiding the defense of Iraq against a foreign invader, would we help Canada if a Muslim-led nation attacked them?
- Hey Its Todd August 15, 2008 9:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
A while back, Iraq was responsible for all things evil in the Middle East.
I never said that, and I don't align myself with those who do. We should have attacked Iran to begin with. And we should help our ally Canada regardless of who attacks them. What do Muslims have to do with it?
Fight like we mean it:
"ordered not to bomb key targets, such as power plants, and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest we offend Muslim sensibilities. Instead, we sent our troops to lift Iraq out of poverty, open new schools, fix up hospitals, feed the hungry, unclog sewers--a Peace Corps, not an army corps, mission." Is any of this not true? I'm open to argument on this subject, as the only information I have is purely rhetorical, and therefore somewhat untrustworthy. I accepted it as true because it wasn't refuted by an expert on the 'No' side.
- Hank August 16, 2008 9:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
>>And as for not being allowed to "fight like we mean it", should we have more contractors not under any laws or guidelines?
Why do you take "fight like we mean it" to mean the abolishment of all laws and guidelines and the use of mercenaries (i.e. contractors)? Why do you attribute a policy which you undoubtedly associate with Bush -- rightly or not is another question entirely -- to people who have supported no such thing? If you are going to oppose the writer at least focus on what he has said, not what Bush has said and done or what you think he has said and done.
>>Fight in more population centers?...Nuke the region?
Do you think Hezzbolah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc are going to stand out in the desert and wait to be annihilated by the 3rd ID? They are in the cities, so of course that is where we have to fight them. As for nuking the region, no one has supported that.
- Junius509 August 21, 2008 1:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
US soldiers should be in Iran as long as they pose a threat to myself,my family and the security of the free world. I think it's wrong that they feel we should die just because we believe as strongly in our God as they do in their Allah. I guess I have grown accustomed to the liberties the US has provided in the belief of freedom of religion.Were they to live on our soil they too would be given those liberties. We on their soil would not be so lucky.I'm not saying we should try to change their beliefs but nor do I think we should allow them to change ours!
- Mommyteacher September 27, 2008 3:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm curious what is meant by the phrase "create the conditions for Iranians to win their own future?" This sounds much like the Bush doctrine of trying to spread "democracy" throughout the world, for altruistic purposes, without the fundamental ideas necessary to guarantee individual rights. Democracy, without individual rights, is just majority rule at the expense of the individual.
What ideas would the US fight for while trying to create said conditions? What fundamental principles would we call on to battle the virulent totalitarian Islamist ideology? "Self-determined democracy" is not such a principle. All one has to do is look at the precarious situation in Turkey, where the Islamists are gaining ground, threatening to overthrow the secular state in a fully "democratic" manner. Is a violent Islamist regime OK because the people voted for it? Need I bring up how the Nazis came to power?
- C August August 21, 2008 9:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
If Iran is attacked, the Ahmadinejad-regime will portray itself as a victim and that will unfortunately be a reason for many (illiterate) people to support the regime. It will thus give the islamists more power still.
It's better to support the ones who want to reform the regime from the inside. Lasting result will only come from within. Therefore: help the reformists!
(Sorry if my English is not so good).
- fromholland September 2, 2008 2:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
In world war two, the Empire of Japan (A far more powerful nation than Iran can ever hope to aspire) attacked the US. By the end, the US had used all means necessary -- including the first detonated nuclear bomb in history -- to destroy their vicious ideology. The result was not sympathy, victimhood, or an everlasting hatred of the US. The result was the crushing defeat of their spirit, seeing that they cannot win, and they abandoned their ideology as such. Now, Japan is one of the leading economic powerhouses in the world, enjoying conditions unlike ever it had in history.
If the US attacks Iran with overwhelming force -- which need not be a nuclear bomb -- then they will be defeated, as will their ideology. Those who see this will not rally behind them, but instead see that their cause is hopeless. Only then can their be any true reconstruction.
- Sarrisan September 4, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The islamic ideology is not just confined to Iran. It is an agressive ideology that since 14 centuries has spread all over the world and will not suddenly disappear when Iran is attacked. Islamists play the victim-card already and will use every attack to convince muslims to fight for islam.
Best thing to do is a largescale support for reformists (inside and outside Iran) to fight their regime from within, including the sabotage of nuclear installations, and convincing and educating ignorants.
By the way: why does the world accept all this haughty talk about human rights in Europe and America from islamic regimes in de UN who actually violate all these rights (beheadings, hangings, torture, no rigths for minorities) in their own countries?? I think it's time Europe and America turned their backs on this deformed UN!
- fromholland September 6, 2008 4:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
>> "The islamic ideology is not just confined to Iran. It is an agressive ideology that since 14 centuries has spread all over the world and will not suddenly disappear when Iran is attacked. Islamists play the victim-card already and will use every attack to convince muslims to fight for islam."
This is an often reasonable consideration - that they will simply play the victim and win support for their cause. But the only reason their even _have_ a cause, is because of decades of appeasement, from both the US and Europe. If they are shown that, finally, a strong power (In this case the US) will not abide the existence of such an aggressive ideology, then, far from triggering an influx of followers, it will show them that there can be no victory. But this can only happen if they are shown that the US is committed, 100% to use any means to attain victory. Any holding back will only be seen as a sign of weakness.
>> "By the way: why does the world accept all this haughty talk about human rights in Europe and America from islamic regimes in de UN who actually violate all these rights (beheadings, hangings, torture, no rigths for minorities) in their own countries?? I think it's time Europe and America turned their backs on this deformed UN!"
On this, we are wholeheartedly in agreement.
- Sarrisan September 6, 2008 10:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What this particular argument seems to misunderstand is that both Japan and Germany were defeated militarily. i.e. they had a bunch of tanks and guns and such and when it was become overwhelming clear that we had way more tanks and bombs than they did, they rightfully saw that the specific goals they were trying to achieve were futile. And, very importantly, they had a central power structure that had enough authority to accept defeat.
In the case of the jihaddi ideology, there is no numerical calculation by which either they or we can judge defeat, no point at which surrender suddenly seems the most logical option. If all it takes is 19 dudes and some flight training classes to start two wars, then really the only way to militarily defeat Jihaddism would be to kill everyone who would ever espouse such an ideology. It takes a massive economy and military buildup to bomb Pearl Harbor and hope to get away with it. All it takes is a kid and some hate to create terror.
Basically you can not bomb hate and lunacy into submission.
- Bezukhof September 21, 2008 11:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Islamic Totalitarianism has grown massively due to state sponsorship and support, from entities such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. This is precisely because we have left them alone and done nothing. They openly hate us and provoke us because we have proven we will do little to nothing. Terrorists freely move about in Iran and other countries, they have training bases and material support from many of the states they operate in. Their public media (state controlled) extol the virtues of martyrdom and the evil of the US. These are the places to start, with Iran for sure. When we have shown we are serious and no state that supports terrorism will survive, the other countries will take notice and stop their support for terrorism. You can bet their citizens will demand it when they learn that they're next in line for de-terrorization, especially after they've seen a demonstration or two of our commitment.
- Nigel October 29, 2008 7:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
An objective look at history shows that the Cold War was nothing but a series of pragmatic stop-gap measures, a balance-of-power see-saw of shifting alliances. There was no fundamental principle that was fought for. It was not a rational and consistent fight for individual rights and the interests of the US. It was not a battle of ideas.
The very actions taken by US foreign policy to contain communism made the modern Iranian problem possible. How many times did the US shift its support from one country to another, based on nothing other than "will this tick off the Soviets or keep the status quo?"
Why didn't the US attack Iran when it declared war on us, by seizing our embassy and kidnapping our citizens? The answer is because we were paralyzed by pragmatism and altruism, and had abandoned the ideas worth fighting for.
All of this begs the question: What ideas should we fight for?
- C August August 21, 2008 9:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
We might keep in mind how the Cold War started - by America giving half of Europe to Russia. Will we repeat this course by leaving the Mid-East in the hands of fascists?
- Mr Cropper August 22, 2008 11:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The Cold War in short form:
Successes: Nixon (and McDonalds) in China, Cuban Missile Crisis, Military Industrial Complex, Perestroika and Glasnost, MTV, Kennedy and Kruschev...
Failures: Vietnam, Korea, Afganistan, Bay of Pigs, Operation Phoenix, Project MKULTRA, Nuclear Proliferation...
Seriously
- Submariner September 3, 2009 3:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
After WW2, America's closest allies, the nations that copied her nearly-Capitalist culture, were not the nations rescued from Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. They were Germany and Japan. If the argument against attacking Iran is that its young people, eager to earn the well-being of the West, don't hate America, we should consider how to free them of oppressive Islamism which blocks them from emulating the West. The example of our dealings with Germany and Japan seem instructive.
What is lacking in this strategy is that the holy sites of Islam are in Saudi Arabia which supports Islamism and terrorism.
We don't need the oil of either country. We have enough of our own. The serious development of electric vehicles by GM could end the need for automotive oil soon after 2010.
What we need is to be able to argue that if Allah cannot protect Islamic holy sites, then maybe He doesn't guarantee an inevitable conquering of the peoples of the Earth, any more than Marxism did.
- pbeaird August 20, 2008 6:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
There is no proof that we "need" to take down a regime. They are a free and independent country that can have any type of government they want. I don't have to agree with it but then again they don't have to agree with ours. Let's see a list of our own governments terrorist activities and take care of that first. There is a reason that so many countries are against us and it's not about religion or jealousy. It's because our government has made bad decisions to involve itself in other countries internal affairs.
Like many people, we get tired of and irritated at those neighbors who barge into our house without calling beforehand or even knocking on our door.
- mangueken November 23, 2008 3:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree with this argument entirely. The Islamic regime in Iran is not a legitimate government. Our government is. Iran is clearly posing a threat to our country. Our government therefore has a right, and indeed, a duty, to eliminate this threat as quickly as possible, using whatever force is necessary.
- steve1952 March 25, 2009 1:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Yes, *both* military and ideological attack must be used against Iran, the "motherland" of Islamic totalitarianism. There can be no compromise, no diplomacy or "talks" with an enemy dedicated to your destruction, and who has already attacked you. Iran's attack began with the hostage-taking in '79 and continues to this day in its sponsoring, supplying, and guiding the attacks on our soldiers in Iraq.
We already *are* at war with Iran.
- HBinswanger August 21, 2008 11:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Why Should the US risk it's soldiers and wealth to protect Israel? To each country their own.
We've already shown that we are a failure when it comes to regime change--why tangle with a larger, stronger country?
- akahn November 11, 2008 7:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If anything we should strike Isreal in retaliation for the unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty.
Considering the effort US interests put into establishing Isreal and the effort US interests put into exploiting Iran, I really fail to see the moral imperative here.
Maybe if Isreal would stop raiding villages in areas it deems itself worthy to govern it would have the resources to topple Iran itself.
Or maybe, if we take a breath and get a clue, we might give the people there a chance to take matters into their own hands and topple their own tyrants.
- Submariner September 3, 2009 3:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Perhaps those of us not residing in the Holy Land should leave it to God to figure out?
It seems less than prudent for the US to get further embroiled in the Middle East, particularly in the form of further extending our forces unilaterally, when the UN is having so much trouble even getting Isreal to clean up its own human-rights violations backyard, and Isreal remains the only nuclear power in the middle east posturing for an attack.
- Submariner September 3, 2009 3:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
OMG really, I can't breath. You're hilarious! A pact between the USA, Israel and "all its neighboring Arab-Islamic states". That's a good one.
oh, hold on. You're actually serious about that aren't you? OK, I'm not sure exactly where you've been hanging out for the last 60 or so years but Israel and their Arab-Islamic neighbors aren't exactly on the best of terms. I think you might have a hard time convincing the rest of those Arab-Islamic states to join up with Israel to fight another Arab-Islamic state.
For your final point, exactly what military do you plan on sending to Iran? Oh, right, you've been out of touch for the last 60 years. In the last 8 years we've sent all of our military into Afghanistan (who attacked us) and Iraq (who . . . well . . .attacked us, hold on, no they didn't . . .WMD, no, that's not it . . . freedom, no wait . . . oh well, I'm sure we had a good reason). They're a little busy trying to clean up those messes. We haven't even been able to win a war in Afghanistan or Iraq who have virtually no military to speak of. We're certainly not going to be able to put up a good show against the strongest military in the Middle East.
Got any other clever ideas? Here's one. Want to stop Iran for good? Want to know the 1 way that we can strip Iran of all of its power? Really, there's a relatively easy way. STOP USING OIL! Get rid of your SUV. Use public transit. Drive less. Move closer to work. It doesn't take very much effort on the part of the US to drop the price of oil like a rock. A year or two ago the US dropped their driving by 5% total and the price of oil went from record highs to low to average prices. 5% that's nothing! Want to stop Iran? Cut off their funding. Want to cut off their funding? Stop buying oil. Done.
- State of Reason November 4, 2009 1:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Drill for oil here. The US has immense oil reserves, and refuses to drill for it because it is trapped in a Cold War mindset and determined to be the last one with oil left. If the US drills, the price of oil sinks like a rock, and the US makes a dump-truck load of money in the process. It has become pretty clear that we are not going to run out of oil. We will develop alternative fuel sources or the air will kill us all long before that happens.
- richardsonkr November 4, 2009 7:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Actually, we are 100% guaranteed to run out of oil . By definition it is a non-renewable resource. There is no question whatsoever that we will absolutely run out of oil. What is questionable is when we will run out. I suppose I should be clear, we may never completely expend every drop of oil in the earths crust but we will eventually find the supply to be so low and so hard to get at that it will be economically unreasonable to drill and buy it.
So what we're really discussing here is " peak oil ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
At some point we will undoubtedly find that the amount of oil we can extract at a reasonable price starts dropping rather quickly. This will happen regardless of whether the USA drills. Our drilling will only push the date out a bit. Everyone who knows anything about oil knows that this is a fact, the question isn't if, it's when.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File :PU200611_Fig1.png
For current known oil reserves, that's including ANWR, most realistic estimates put Peak Oil in the next 25-50 years with the most optimistic saying 100 years. Why would we continue to base our economy on this? Why would we not instead dedicate resources to getting ourselves off of our dependence on oil?
As oil prices go up after we hit peak oil Iran and the rest of the Middle East will get more powerful and more wealthy, not less. The nation that weans itself from oil first will have a vast advantage over the rest of the world. If we could wean ourselves off of oil and still have large reserves on our territory that we could sell when the price skyrockets even better. Why would we not do that? Just so you don't have to make a few tiny changes to your lifestyle? So you don't have to sacrifice your precious SUV?
- State of Reason November 5, 2009 9:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Theoretically, we will eventually run out of oil , because it is not a renewable resource. In practice, however, the problem of pollution will create a demand for alternative fuel sources that will replace oil long before it has been completely expended, or even mostly expended. There is plenty of oil, don't worry your little head about it running out just yet.
- richardsonkr November 5, 2009 9:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
As much as the many Arab states who neighbor Israel hate that country, they are even more afraid of Iran. Also, Iran is a Persian country, not an Arab one. Though they are both Moslem, Iran is Shi'a, and most of the Arab nations are Sunni. They do not exactly get along. Do not oversimplify the dynamics of the region. They are complex. I'm not saying that the US should get involved, or that creating the state of Israel was a good idea, but if I were in Israel's shoes, I would be trying to get my Arab neighbors to get in a pissing war with Iran. I would advise against the US or Israel actually telling them to do so, however. That would probably only insure that they refused to do it. Let it happen of its own accord.
- richardsonkr November 4, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Iran is not Arab. It is also not the same brand of Islam. Their neighbors aren't especially fond of them and do fear them. However, If Israel wants to get the rest of the Middle East on their side they're going to have to stop actively stealing land and killing Palestinians. As long as Iran is targeting Israel with their rhetoric (even if they're more likely to target Saudi Arabia with their nukes) the rest of the Middle East will likely side with them before Israel.
Please note that just because I said Israel is stealing land and killing Palestinians (both unquestionable facts), among other horrific war crimes, this is not to say that Palestine is innocent. There is no innocent side in that fight and both nations have done terrible things over the years.
- State of Reason November 5, 2009 9:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There is no question that Israel has killed Palestinians, such is the nature of war , but stealing land? I'm going to have to ask for evidence on that one. Also, the matter is not so simple as to just "stop killing Palestinians." When a country is attacked, they are justified in defending themselves, and when the attack is coming from across the border in the form of rocket fire, then you really have no choice but to attack the enemy, and in so doing, you will inadvertently kill civilians. The US killed civilians in Afghanistan as well, and was certainly justified in their invasion after the attacks of September 11.
- richardsonkr November 5, 2009 10:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Palestine is not innocent, not by a long shot. The Palestinian leadership and Palestinian terrorist orgs have caused much death and destruction. However, as long as Israel continues to kill innocents along with combatants they're going to have a hard time getting anyone in the Middle East on their side. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's the way it is.
Are you serious? You need evidence they're stealing land? Let's just ignore all the land they already stole (all of Israel) and talk about the
"Legal" settlements & their expansion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
illegal settlements:
http://www.google.com/search?q=illegal +settlements+ israel &ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
The wall that they're building on Palestinian land, through peoples fields:
http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm
What would you call it if Canada or Mexico were doing those things to the USA? I imagine you'd call them a good reason to fight back.
- State of Reason November 5, 2009 10:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
First of all, Israel did not steal the original territory it occupied after WWII, the Allies did, and gave it to Israel. Second off, Israel took vast swaths of land in counterattacks after being attacked by its neighbors. Such is the nature of war . They then gave a large amount of it back, only keeping tactically important positions that they felf were critical to their defence. By any standard of warmaking other than the new "World Police" attitude taken on by the US, capturing territory and incorporating it into your sovereign state is very normal. Giving it back is the exception. Israel has bent over backwards to accomodate their Arab neighbors, doing everything short of laying down their weapons and allowing themselves to be exterminated. The US even captured a large chunk of Mexico in the US-Mexican war. Would you consider New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and California to be "stolen?"
- richardsonkr November 5, 2009 2:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
OK, so you're saying that Israel didn't steal the land themselves, they just accepted stolen property. If I'm not mistaken that's still illegal .
If your neighbor builds a concrete wall through the middle of your yard claiming that half as his territory what would you call that? If he built a house in your yard and ringed it with barbed wire and shot at you if you got too close, what would you call that?
Maybe you just don't like the non- military term of "steal". If you prefer occupation I'm happy to use that but in the end when settlers come into your country build a house and claim the land as theirs it all pretty much boils down to the same thing and whether you think it's their right as the guy with the bigger guns (or maybe because god gave it to them a few thousand years ago) it's still taking land from other people and it's not getting anyone any closer to peace.
- State of Reason November 5, 2009 2:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Uh, thanks for volunteering me and my fellow people to go die in Iran for another contrived cause with no justification or even real gain for the USA.
Why don't you go first?
- Submariner September 3, 2009 3:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
>>From a strategic point of view, a nuclear Iran makes no sense. It would make the country a pariah in the West and a target of fear and suspicion by every Middle Eastern power.
The same could be said for the 1939 Russo-German invasion of Poland: "It would make the country a pariah in the West and a target of fear and suspicion by every [European] power.
We should try to remember that the Iranian mullahs, like Hitler and Stalin, are mystical, uneducated power-lusters. Logical analysis isn't necessarily in their ken.
- Mr Cropper August 20, 2008 10:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Since when did diplomatic interchanges between nations become "wimpishness" or "surrender."? Barack Obama is the voice of reason when he argues that it is sine qua non to face your adversary and to listen to their side of the issue and then lay it on the line to them what we will and will not tolerate. But to precipitously threaten to bomb them to extinction is no polity; it is pure testerone of an adolescent nation (yes, us, the U.S.) to yell, scream, use epithets and propaganda, and then to blast them physically.
- EthelbertSchnartenflugen August 20, 2008 1:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Persuasion only works when both sides are committed to using reason to resolve their differences. From its inception the Islamic Republic of Iran has been committed to the use of violence against the US. They are religious fanatics who explicitly reject reason. Their faith tells them that we are evil and should be destroyed. They have attacked us repeatedly, and we have repeatedly responded by trying to reason with them. But we will never reason them out of a position that is grounded in religious fantacism. Our only option, if we value our existence, is to destroy them before they acquire the means to destroy us.
- Ardsgaine August 20, 2008 4:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
As events in the country of Georgia show clearly, the Russian Bear has NOT been declawed.
It is not the Iranian youth who run the Iranian government or military.
Religious hatred against what Islamic believers consider the filth of Jews inhabiting a sliver of what was once Arabia is a deeper source of motivation than diplomatic niceties.
Your liberal mindset that "talk-nice" will dissuade people who have openly declared their intentions and stated their deepest motivations for their intended actions is a malady that needs a research foundation of its own to find a cure.
That cure is philosophy which tells us what kind of universe we live in, what kind of beings we are, what principles should guide our actions so that we can live well here. In world culture there is only one voice that offers a demonstrated cause for peace among men. That is found in the philosophy of mankind's greatest moral teacher, Ayn Rand. I point you to Atlas Shrugged, the most inspiring novel ever written.
- pbeaird August 20, 2008 6:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The Iranians do not have WMD. There is no argument there. It has signed on to the non proliferation of these weapons. On the other hand the only country that has WMD in the Middle East is Israel. Now the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Consititution. Why is it that Iran cannot have WMD to defend itself against another Country. The fear that they might can be used against any other Country possesing the WMD. India, Pakistan, China etc. Perhaps invade someone with the ability or go broke.
Is the real reason to invade the WMD? Or is it the fact that the Federal Reserve does not have Iran under debt?
- Canknucklehead
September 8, 2008 8:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The argument presented says, "The military options at America's disposal range from the "merely" troubling, difficult and expensive, to the truly horrifying." Yes that is what we want. If they thought it would be a cake walk or a welfare mission they would scoff as they are. Diplomacy without a reputation to back it up is worthless. The enemy needs to know " horrifying" is in the equation. Otherwise when and if they get to that stage of readiness it will be the U.S. saying we cannot face such awful power and must recapitulate. Being a superpower is of no use when facing up to conquest oriented zealots unless we confront them with the consequences and they know that we mean it.
- Tuner38 August 24, 2008 7:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
>"Now is not the time, however, to consider military action against Iran."
By what standard do you propose to judge when we should conduct military action? Do we wait for them to attack? Oh, wait, they've already done that. How big does the attack need to be (how many people killed)? How long do we have to turn the other cheek, to commit detente, to conduct dialogue, to engage diplomacy before it is appropriate for the US to have a military response? Because no answer is ever given, the implicit premise behind this statement is that it is never right for the most powerful and efficacious military in the world to defend itself, its citizens, its military forces by the use of military force.
- Kingscrest September 1, 2008 9:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I totally agree with the Heritage Foundation. They are 100% right on this issue. Thank you for the reasoned response and for renewing my faith that there is still some small bit of rational thought on the right.
- State of Reason November 4, 2009 1:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Someone needs to tell Dr.Bukay that this same argument can be used against his side. Those mainly pushing for a third middle east war are the far religious right, who place the safety of Israel over their own country.Dr.Bukay says that if Iran is not attacked, the Middle East will become a tinderbox. That is exactly what will happen if we go into Iran and the fact that Israel is armed with nuclear weapons and is perfectly capable of defending itself from any potential threats evidently makes no difference in his mind.
- zaneman1 April 9, 2009 12:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
We made a huge mistake by using force far too quickly in Iraq. This should teach us a painful lesson and already has limited our options (given our depleted military resources and spent political capital among our allies).
We need to be careful about using diplomatic threats given our reduced ability to back it up and the reduced fear Iran has about our attacking them.
All that said, aggressive actions to counter their acquiring materials, proactive attacks on potential reactors they are building, using Israeli intelligence and their forces to make attacks are all key tactics.
In addition, we need to work hard to gain the unilateral support of our European allies and attempt to minimize the influence of China.
This is a marathon not a sprint.
- pdctravel August 15, 2008 12:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
>> "We made a huge mistake by using force far too quickly in Iraq. This should teach us a painful lesson and already has limited our options (given our depleted military resources and spent political capital among our allies)."
The mistake we made in Iraq was not one of speed - but of not identifying with clear, objective terms the enemy, and subsequently using all available forces to crush him. Furthermore, the identification of Iraq itself as a primary enemy (On a list of potential targets, they stand at 10 or 13, at best) was a mistake. What the US needs to do is identify it's enemy -- Islamofascism in all of it's forms -- and state in unequivocal terms the morality of its cause. It then needs to use all available force against those enemies -- the respect that the US has lost in Europe and elsewhere will follow.
- Sarrisan September 4, 2008 8:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 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
Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, If...
I would support a war against Iran if they've committed overt acts of war against us.
For instance, if they've violated our sovereign territory (such as a US embassy), held Americans hostage, given state sponsorship to terrorists trying to kill Americans, and openly plotted the nuclear destruction of one of our most valuable allies in the Middle East such as Israel.
Wait, you mean they've already done all that?
Then why is it even a question?
- FIRM
August 14, 2008 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (8)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hypocritical standards
By those standards, how many countries are justified in declaring war upon the US?
- Hey Its Todd August 14, 2008 11:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
They can if they want...
Plotting nuclear destruction of an ally? Japan, Germany, and Italy(wait, we already won that war). We did apologize, though.
Sponsoring terrorism? Do you have an example?
Held their citizens hostage? Well, half the Middle East, but I think it would solve a lot of problems for us if they did declare war on us. I almost hope they do.
Violated sovereign territory? Iraq and Afghanistan... (wait, we won those wars, too)
- Hank
August 15, 2008 7:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No problem
>>Sponsoring terrorism? Do you have an example?
Blackwater. Iran-Contra. Central American Death Squads.
>>Held their citizens hostage?
Abu-Gharib
>>Violated sovereign territory? Iraq and Afghanistan(wait, we won those wars, too)
Why do you use the past-tense for the Afghanistan War (more properly the Al-Qaeda War) and the Iraq Invasion & Occupation? I must have missed the withdrawal of the majority of our troops. Please point me to the stories of such an action. Despite the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq, we're still there more than five years later. I bet the families of the dead are relieved that their loved ones died in insignificant combat.
- Hey Its Todd August 15, 2008 9:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Blackwater Terrorists
This is from Mirriam-Webster:
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
I don't think Blackwater fulfills this definition. Granted, some of them get drunk on duty, and some of them shoot first too quickly (and are wrong), but what armed force in history hasn't struggled with that problem? A mercenary is intrinsically no less moral than a soldier.
- Hank
August 16, 2008 8:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
False premise
>>A mercenary is intrinsically no less moral than a soldier.
Perhaps they don't start that way, but given that the mercenary contract killers have not beenn bound by either the US Military Code nor the laws of the occupied country, do you think there is any 'moral' force guiding these invaders?
As for whether they are terrorists, from the Iraqi population's perspective, they sure as hell are - they are armed invaders roaming the country with no governing force to moderate their behaviors.
- Hey Its Todd August 18, 2008 3:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Nationalist sentiment
>>As for whether they are terrorists, from the Iraqi population's perspective, they sure as hell are
Actually, the insurgency is being carried out by soldiers from Iran, Syria and other countries.
Many Germans in WWII welcomed the American invasion. The same applies to Iraq: just because it is "their" country doesn't necessarily mean they support it and oppose invaders.
To suggest that Iraqis automatically oppose America is to suggest they are incapable of thinking.
- Mr Cropper August 20, 2008 10:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Iran-Contra
I'm not convinced the Contras were any worse than the Sandinistas (though they were certainly no better), and they at least had a better cause. As far as selling arms directly to Iran (do you now accept that they are a terrorist state?), that was done without authorization, and Oliver North was tried and convicted for his crimes. In any case, does the fact that we created a problem mean we shouldn't try to solve it?
- Hank
August 16, 2008 8:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Central American Death Squads
Are you talking about El Salvador? I couldn't find any conclusive evidence that our government was aware of the extent of their atrocities (though there would have to have been some willful blindness at some level). Can you point me to a good source of information?
- Hank
August 16, 2008 9:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Iraq and Afghanistan
Neither government will be in a position to threaten us for a long time, which should have been our only aim in invading them. Whether they freely and democratically choose a repressive government should be none of our concern. I was (and still am) a little confused about why we chose Iraq to invade, though.
- Hank
August 16, 2008 9:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
who is real terrorist?
Iranians are dangerous.Iranians killed 40 millions in WW2.Iranians killed 3 millions in Vietnam.they killed 2 millions in Iraq for OIL.Iranians killed hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan.they supported the terrorist state of Israel.they supported the civil war in Sudan.Iranians created and supported Bin laden in 1979 to fight the USSR. Iranians supported Saddam Hussain against Iran. they bombed Heroshema and Nakazake in Japan.Iranians burned 6 millions Jews in Germany (If Holocaust be true!)
Iran has many atom bombs, but Iran doesn't allow other countries like America or Israel to have nuclear reactor just for creating electricity power.
Iran is the only country in the Middle East which has Nuclear weapon, but Israel doesn't have any!
So they are terrorist.
- Usrael September 20, 2008 4:57AM
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 know who the real terrorist are.
We didn't kill forty million in WWII. That was a global conflagration. We had nothing to do with the Holocaust - that was Germany and yes it was real.
Vietnam was a civil war that started under French occupation that we allowed to get ourselves sucked into. It can be argued that we shouldn't have been there.
We provided support to the people of Afghanistan after their government was removed by the USSR and supported Sadam against Iran because of the invasion of Embassy and the holding of our citizens as hostage.
We entered Afghanistan because of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the threat posed by Alqeda.
The Iraq situation was started in 1987 when Iraq launched a missile at the USS Stark. When we did not react forcefully it was assumed that we lacked the will and the groundwork was set for the first Gulf War. After the war Sadam proceeded to slaughter lage numbers of Shia and Kurds, attempted the assasination of George H. W. Bush when he was speaking in Qatar and stared paying families a reward if their loved ones turned themselves into human bombs. The current administration handeled it poorly but the invasion of Iraq served a purpose and to date we have received no oil profits from Iraq. They need the money to rebuild.
The current Iranian administration openly supports Hezbollah and Hamas and stated that Israel should not exist. Yes we worry about them getting nuclear weapons. They support terrorist and we don't know what lengths they will go to.
- Aegiltheugly
September 23, 2008 2:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Selective facts
"We had nothing to do with the Holocaust - that was Germany and yes it was real."
We sent back Jewish families on the same boats they used when they tried to escape the Nazis. We didn't do much to help, that for sure.
"We provided support to the people of Afghanistan after their government was removed by the USSR and supported Sadam against Iran because of the invasion of Embassy and the holding of our citizens as hostage."
This was that beautiful time period when our government, Saddam and Osama were all friends. You forgot the first cause of the Iranian take over of the embassy: we took out their democratically elected leader when they took out the US puppet dictator.
"After the war Sadam proceeded to slaughter lage numbers of Shia and Kurds,"
It's disrespectful to rewrite the history of the Kurds this way. Saddam didn't start killing Kurds after the first Gulf invasion. As a matter of fact the Kurds are an oppressed nationality in almost every country they live in, even by our allies in the region.
Hamas has already said they would accept Israel if Israel would just go back to the 1967 borders. Why has Israel made no move to take them up on this? Does the Israeli government really want peace for their citizens or not?
- mangueken
February 28, 2009 10:54AM
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.
How kind of you.
You titled your comment quite fittingly, giving everyone a head's up that your facts were selective. Thank you.
We may have made some mistakes in our handling of the Holocaust, but we had no way of knowing what the extent of this was. If we had gone into Germany on suspicion that there may have been death camps, and it had turned out that they were much less than we had suspected, it would have been the same situation as Iraq, except that we had attacked a major world power instead of Iraq. Hindsight is always 20/20. The United States did the best it could with the information it had during WWII. Who could have imagined that people were capable of such evil without seeing it with their own eyes. Even today people deny that it happened, even though they can see the pictures and see the facts, because it is too horrible for them to contemplate. The fact is, if not for the United States, the Nazis probably would have won the war, and the Holocaust would have gotten a whole lot worse than it did.
Saddam did massacre the Kurds with a vengeance after we pulled out of the Gulf. They were mistreated and often massacred before, but after the U.S. withdrawal it started again with fresh malice. Though Al-Anfal occured before the Gulf War, the massacre continued after U.S. departure.
Hamas has proven itself liars over and over again. Israel does not move to take them up on anything because that would be negotiating with terrorists, rewarding them for terrorism, giving up some of its current advantage, and encouraging them to continue. The Israeli government wants peace for its citizens, but listening to Hamas is not the way to do it. They will not be happy until Israel is wiped from the face of the Earth. On second thought, probably not even then. They'll find someone else that doesn't agree with them and start killing them. Radical Islam will not be happy until the world is bound by strict Sharia law and their particular brand of Islam.
- richardsonkr
March 12, 2009 9:38AM
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.
GOOOOOOOOLLLLLL!!!!!
"You titled your comment quite fittingly, giving everyone a head's up that your facts were selective. Thank you."
Snarkiness will only get you a pat on the back from your friends. And even that doesn't mean they actually agree with you, it just means they thought you provided more humor than the other person.
"We may have made some mistakes in our handling of the Holocaust, but we had no way of knowing what the extent of this was. ... The fact is, if not for the United States, the Nazis probably would have won the war , and the Holocaust would have gotten a whole lot worse than it did."
I was joking when I talked about selecting facts. You on the other hand seem to be mistaking propaganda for facts. "we made some mistakes", really? is that the best you can come up with. "the Nazis probably would have won the war" really (i know, it's terrible to repeat)?
Seriously though, The US played a significant role but then so did the Russian and the British. It is no accident that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt planned their operations together. Besides, there is always a weakness to any argument in history that tries to use "would have (verb)..." as a defense for anything other than what actually did happen. We will never "know" what "would have happened" if something else actually happened.
"Saddam did massacre the Kurds with a vengeance after we pulled out of the Gulf. They were mistreated and often massacred before, but after the U.S. withdrawal it started again with fresh malice. Though Al-Anfal occured before the Gulf War, the massacre continued after U.S. departure."
Is being massacred with "a vengeance " worse than just being massacred? You basically restate what I said: The Kurds were killed and discriminated against before and after the Gulf War. That was never the reason we went to war. It has always been a side bar of support for our actions. You also don't take up the fact that every country with a significant Kurd population treats them like sub humans, including all of our Arab allies.
I can only go by what each side says. Honestly, I generally think both sides are always lying in the case of Isreal and whoever. Hamas (or the armed part) still through bombs randomly into Israel. Israel continues to occupy land they know they have no right to occupy.
The easiest way through this argument is the polarized view. But I hardly think that the Palestinians and Jewish families suffering the losses and instability of the region find much value in the polarized view.
I guess that was the reason I presented the facts I presented about Iran. Sometimes we need to step back from the polarized political arguments of each side and see what is really being done. Are we really helping ourselves by trying to play the innocent victim? Is it possible to rectify past grievances in a productive way for both sides without resorting to war?
If that possibility exists, I think we should pursue it. We shouldn't blind ourselves with a false sense of innocence in a complicated world.
- mangueken
March 21, 2009 1:34AM
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 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.
David Bukay and the Ayn Rand Center are right!
The Ayn Rand Center (ARC) lists the ample provocations by Iran against the United States to justify a military response by us. In fact, with the Iranian threat continuing to grow and Iranian ambitions, as Dr. Bukay makes clear, quite extensive, the response has to be more than just a pin-prick attack to take out a potential nuclear capability.
A definite end has to be put to the Iranian regime and thus at the heart of Islamist ambitions in the Middle East. As ARC points out, the only moral, practical and principled path is to fight a total war against Iran similar to the wars fought against Germany and Japan during WWII. Dr. Bukay names the specifics needed: "a surprise military air-naval attack on most of the political and military sites, camps and political institutions and structures." I applaud Dr. Bukay and the Ayn Rand Center for recognizing the severity of the threat and recommending the only right path.
- Gideon Reich
August 14, 2008 7:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Whoa, chicken-hawks...
If you want war, don't order or wish the soldiers to Iran, GO THERE YOURSELVES!!! As a former soldier, I KNOW there are recruiting stations in every state and territory of the US. When it comes to war, we as a people must push aside pride and hate and explore EVERY OPTION besides war, unless we are clearly facing annihilation. I don't see that from Iran. It's no coincidence that when the bullets start flying, the most outspoken proponents of war are nowhere to be found. Be careful what you wish for...
- PSYOP
August 14, 2008 9:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
Whoa, yourself...
As a current soldier, I am ready to go there myself. I have to side with the "chicken-hawks" on this one; I'd rather fight hard now, than harder later.
- Hank
August 15, 2008 7:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Whoa, myself...
Current soldier, I respect your opinion, and if you end up deploying, I hope you make it back safely. That said, Are you a veteran of OIF, Enduring Freedom, or any combat op? During Vietnam, the idea of "fighting now in order to not fight later" was trumpeted frequently. I believe it was related to the domino theory. I found that for the most part, when we went to detain or interrogate suspected EC's, most of them would say "let me get my shoes" when we asked them to accompany us. That said, I was a 37F, and we are trained to use words, not weapons, when possible. I'm guessing you're 11B?
- PSYOP
August 15, 2008 12:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Whoa
I don't intend to argue with you about the conduct of the war in Vietnam; I wasn't there. However, our justifications for going in there were significantly different from what our reasons for invading Iran would be. Iran has threatened us and our allies directly, and shown a willingness to act on those threats.
I'm guessing you're 11B? I'm actually in the Air Force. I called myself a soldier for rhetorical purpose and because we Airmen have a tendency to play fast and loose with terms like that(I've had commanders refer to us collectively as 'soldiers', so I figured the term was generally permissible). My unit doesn't deploy, and though I've volunteered a few times, I was never chosen to go.
- Hank
August 16, 2008 9:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Chicken-hawk Debate is a Non-Sequitur
Why is the “if you want a war, you need to go” a valid argument? Does that necessitate all Congressmen become soldiers if they vote yes on a war resolution? On a more ludicrous level, using the same “logic,” I can argue that:
1)You must have an abortion if you advocate abortion as an option.
2)You must convert to a religion in order to recommend that others convert.
3)You must have children in order to advise others to have children.
4)You must eat tofu in order to advise others to eat tofu.
5)You must watch a movie in order to recommend it to others.
While it certainly helps credibility to have experienced something in order to recommend it, it is not a prerequisite. I am someone that wants to explore EVERY option before choosing armed conflict, but I am also one that would recommend strongly that when war is all that is left, those with sound logic are the ones making sure the war (and all of the options before-hand) are prosecuted effectively.
- Benjamin Tuttle August 18, 2008 3:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Every option??
Including the one where we do nothing until a nuclear bomb explodes in downtown New York? I see no reason to wait for that. They've declared their intentions toward us, and they are working on a means of carrying it out. We need to stop them NOW.
- Ardsgaine
August 20, 2008 4:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Premptive actions are the best
We could use this logic in so many places:
Spank the kids when they go into the kitchen because you know they are going to get a cookie before dinner.
Jail people with guns because we know they will cause harm to someone eventually.
Hit the boyfriend of your teenage daughter because you he's thinking about having sex with her. Then just lock her in her room because she was probably considering saying yes.
Picking random people entering banks and giving them some jail time because everyone has said or thought about robbing a bank at some point.
Send the leaders of countries who have used, in any fashion, WMDs against other nations to jail - Doh! we can't preempt that one cause the US did that some 60+ years ago.
Well, it's not a perfect logic but it could save us a lot of trouble in so many ways.
- mangueken
February 28, 2009 11:07AM
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.
Massive Obfuscation
If you want to parody my logic, you should try to understand it first. My conclusion was based on the fact that they have already declared their intention toward us, and that they are working on a means to carry it out. If you had used that same assumption in your weak attempt at refutation, then you would have to say, for example, that the child has declared his intention to get a cookie before dinner, that the gun owner has declared an intention to harm someone, that the daughter has declared an intention to have sex, etc, etc. If you include those assumptions, then it's plain that some action would be called for (though not necessarily the ones you seem to think appropriate in the case of the child and daughter). The police can arrest someone for conspiracy to rob a bank, if they can establish that the person had the intent and was working toward that goal.
All your examples involve making an assumption of intent based on zero evidence. We are not in that position with Iran. All we have to do is listen to what they have been saying for the past thirty years, and look at what they are doing. That they have been chanting "Death to America" while building a nuclear bomb would give any sane person cause for concern. They have employed terrorist attacks against us on numerous occasions. We do not have to wait for them to fire the first shot. To do so would be suicide.
- Ardsgaine
March 3, 2009 12:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm glad you challenged it
It was a parody and not all that good of a one either. But neither are the arguments for military action against Iran. Every one is being so selective about history in this debate. Iranian Politicians' anti west rhetoric is as common as anyone else' rhetoric on a number of political issues. However, our country tries to bank the role of potential victim when in reality we have been the aggressor against Iran. We teamed up with Britain and arrested thei democratically elected prime minister towards the end of the 1950's, we then installed a leader (the Shah) more favorable to our countries' interests. When the Iranians had their political revolution against a tyrant we supported in 1979 we escalated military threats to the country, including nuclear strikes from our navy ships that were in the area at the time.
Then we supported Saddam's military while Iraq launched a war against Iran.
I would imagine the Iranian political rhetoric against our country gets a hearing because so many people in that country have suffered directly because of actions we have already taken over the past 50+ years.
Our government should admits its wrong doings and approach the Iranian government peacefully and work on things that the two countries can agree upon as way of building mutual trust between our nations. This seems to be more viable and will produce better results in the future than any military action could ever hop to accomplish.
- mangueken
March 3, 2009 5:02PM
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 worded something poorly
I should have said threatened Iran with nuclear strikes from our navy. The way I wrote it makes it seem, wrongly, that we did fire nuclear missles at the country.
- mangueken
March 3, 2009 5:04PM
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.
Glad you clarified that.
I almost wrote the comment asking you to back that one up with some facts. I'm glad I scrolled down a bit to see this comment before I did.
- richardsonkr
March 12, 2009 9:46AM
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.
The HF: Putting the chicken in chicken hawk
I'm an OIF vet x 2 and I approve of the ARC's message. Insanity has completely taken over our foreign policy. Iran is killing US soldiers in Iraq, and the only reason they don't kill as many soldiers as they used to is that the military fielded the MRAP. They are still there, waiting. You can take it to the bank that the real trouble will start in 2011.
Like it or not, those people are crazy, they are committed, they think they can win, they are not going away, and they are going to continue to kill us, soldiers and civilians, until someone smashes their movement into the ground.
The Heritage Foundation is not living in reality. Play with sanctions and international jaw-jawing all you want, but in the end, if you can’t back up your measures with force, you’ve got nothing. Our leaders think force is always optional whenever they want it to be.
The liberals are right about one thing, but not in the way they mean it: The rest of the world doesn't respect the United States anymore.
- Wendy
August 20, 2008 7:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'll go to Iran...
As a soldier, currently serving in Iraq, for the second time, I would like the U.S. to finally put an end to the Iranian regime. By eliminating Iran, the benefits to American security would be enormous, both in the short-term and long-term. Iran would no longer have the ability to fund terrorist organizations that continue to plot and strike against the U.S., her troops, and her allies. Additionally, the people in Iran, and other peoples around the world who would do us harm, could then see that America is not “a paper tiger.”
Plus, on a note of sheer, overt, direct self-interest: I want to fight a real war in Iran. After all, that's what I signed up to do. I volunteered to fight a war to end certain threats to America, so that I could quickly return to a normal state of living. I did not volunteer to be a nation-building, street guarding, watchdog for another country.
I have served one tour in Iraq as an infantryman and I’m half-way through my second tour, this time as a support soldier- a truck driver. I know full well what an actual, full-fledged conflict with Iran would entail- and I'm ready. Let’s finish this once and for all.
- Kris Walker
January 30, 2009 12:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We already took out one of their regimes
We took out a democratically elected regime in the 1950s: in 1953 President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax which had Prime Minister Mossadegh arrested and removed from power. We threw our support behind the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was more popular with our government than that of the Iranian people who finally kicked him out in the late 1970's. Since the people kicked out our government's puppet Iran has had to face embargoes and a war. Remember when Saddam was our friend and ally and we supplied them with military support to fight the Iranians?
If anyone feels threatened it has been Iran. I'm pretty sure Iranian people don't you over their killing family and friends, destroying their national treasures, or "be[ing] a nation-building, street guarding, watchdog for another country."
- mangueken
February 28, 2009 11:21AM
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.
but who will lead
The right question really is; 'Should the US have used military force against Iran in 1979 after the Iranian government condoned storming the US embassy? The same people with the same attitude are still in control of Iran but some thirty years of abysmal US foreign policy has simple made they bolder and more obnoxious. To say the Iranian regime is dangerous is probably an understatement however while they kill Americans in the middle east I think they are still somewhat short of being deadly on continental north America. That said, what to do about them?
I'm confident that American forces could deal with the Iranians but could the political leaders finish the task? Squandered opportunities are truly an American legacy that the next administration aren't likely to change.
- seine
August 20, 2008 8:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It Should've been Iran instead of Iraq
I certainly side with the Ayn Rand Center on this one. A couple of thoughts here. Some of the comments have claimed that Iraq and Iran are "sovereign" nations. WHAT?! That term should only apply to freedom loving, rights respecting nations like America. Other comments have, rightly, shown that Iran has been at war with us since they took American's hostage in 1979. I would go further back and say we should have bombed them out of existence back in the 1950's when they nationalized [stole] the west's oil fields.
- Secular Foxhole
August 23, 2008 9:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What a twisted sence of freedom you present
"Iraq and Iran are "sovereign" nations. WHAT?! That term should only apply to freedom loving, rights respecting nations like America."
Anyone who understands what freedom and the right to national sovereignty are about would never claim such an idea of telling others (individuals or countries) what they do and how they should do it.
If those oilfields were located within the national border of Iran, the idea of stealing is absurd.
If your post is any sign of your real thought process then you don't love freedom; you don't know how to respect others and you have complete disregard for history.
- mangueken
February 28, 2009 11:45AM
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.
Twisted?
Thank you for your thoughts. I will try to clarify what I mean. It was the Western nations, meaning America and England [possibly others] that used their science, technology and capital to discover oil in the Middle East, and make its use possible. In 1951, Iran looted the private property of these oil fields and "nationalized" them. That means they stole what didn't belong to them. Other nations, seeing our cowardice in not defending our own property properly, jumped on the bandwagon and proceeded to nationalize the oil fields in their countries.
Thugs who rule by force, and the "nations" they rule, should not be considered sovereign, because they rule by "undemocratic" or "uncivilized" means. Please don't give me any gruff about Iranian's or others being able to "vote". That alone does not prove, nor signify right's respecting nations. I define freedom as the absence of force in human relationships. This disqualifies most, if not all the rogue countries in the ME. As for respecting others, I don't respect those who allow themselves to be trampled on by theocrat's or any other style of two-bit dictator.
Again, thank you for your comment and thoughts. I do take them seriously.
- Secular Foxhole
March 1, 2009 3:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Our democratic views
doesn't allow us to define sovereign for our own personal use. When we do, we usually mess it up.
Obviously western private oil companies didn't learn from the Mexican revolution. It just takes some longer to learn longer than others. However, just because one has the technology doesn't mean one has rights to it. All nations have rights over their natural resources. This situation is only exasperated when one is talking about a former colony, where certainly the governing body was controlled by the colonizing country. Breaking that relation and claiming independence usually nullifies any deals made under a colonial government. Our revolution did the same to the British.
I won't give you gruff, but the right to vote in Iran is actually not much different than those in the United Kingdom. They can vote for their prime ministers but the Monarchy has final say in the matter.
Your definition of "right's respecting" nations would also exclude England and Israel.
My final question though, do you mean you disagree with those who let "themselves to be trampled on by theocrat's or any other style of two-bit dictator"? Don't forget our country was under colonial domination for something around 150 years before we as a country revolted. And parts of our nation had something similar to theocratic rule at least locally even after the revolution. It was a long process getting people to accept secular control here, and we still have religious groups trying to impose their beliefs on our public policy. When I think of the historical process our country went through to get to where we are today, I tend to be a little more understanding of the difficulties other countries have.
- mangueken
March 1, 2009 7:39PM
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.
Not without a good reason
And a good reason would be:
1. To defend an ally, whom America is obliged, by treaty, to defend.
2. A direct attack on America.
It seems that the US only attacks those nations it knows cannot strike America. So Iraq, and Afghanistan. Where there is a possibility of retaliation (e.g. North Korea) words will suffice.
America, you look like a bully to the rest of the world.
- Andrew Holt
August 30, 2008 6:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Iran has indirectly attacking Israel, our ally
Check out the info at The Israel Project, an international non-profit organization. There are detailed lists of Iranian financing of terrorist organizations.
http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH /b.4486167/k.CECA/Iran_Training_and_Arming_Terrorist_Groups_that_Target_Israel.htm
Also, check this out: Council on Foreign Relations, an independent think tank.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362 /#2
Here's one more source of info for you: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs - The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is an independent non-profit institute for policy research and education.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=380&PID=1865&IID=2033
- Kris Walker
January 30, 2009 1:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not convinced ...
Can you cite any non Israeli/none US sources ?
My argument still stands, the Palestinians in Gaza have no significant military capabilities.
If you look at the world from Iran's position, you would have seen (at least for the least 8 years) a steady flow of generally hostile rhetoric flowing from the US, increasing talk of military action from both the US & Israel. You have no chance of success in a, conventional, military conflict so you search for an equaliser, say Nuclear weapons.
If you want to understand the conflicts in the middle east you need to go back to the 1917 and the Balfour Declaration stating that the British government "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", then to 1945-48 with the creation of Israel.
- Andrew Holt
January 31, 2009 5:07AM
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.
Arguments don't have much validity
Can someone post facts/figures relevant to the situation, or will this simply be a war of words? It would be nice to receive some substantiated evidence on how dire the situation in Iran actually is.
- antonber September 1, 2008 12:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just the facts...
On December 19, 2007, a U.S.-based law firm succeeded in freezing the funds of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) in France on behalf of American clients who, in the judgment of U.S. courts, were victims of terrorist attacks sponsored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Four CBI accounts at Natexis Banques Populaire totaling 90 million Euros, 52 million Swiss francs, and 25 million British pounds were included the freeze. CBI accounts at Bank Melli (the National Bank of Iran) in Paris that held 231 million Euros and $52 million were also frozen.
Iran's Central Bank also has had a role to play in terrorist financing. In September 2006, the U.S. Treasury disclosed that the Central Bank of Iran was sending money to Hizbullah through Bank Saderat, which was also providing financial services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hamas.2 U.S. Treasury officials also revealed that the Central Bank of Iran was in fact asking financial institutions around the world to hide any possible connection between their transactions and Iranian missile procurement, nuclear programs, and the financing of terrorism.3 The Central Bank of Iran had good reasons for exercising this caution. Bank Melli and Bank Saderat had transferred millions of dollars through their European branches to both Hizbullah and Hamas.4 All these Iranian banks are state-owned; they hence have no independence and serve the interests of the Iranian regime.
(see http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=380&PID=1865&IID=2033 for original webpage)
Does Iran sponsor terrorism?
In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.” U.S. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told CFR.org in June 2007 there is “overwhelming evidence” that Iran supports terrorists in Iraq and “compelling” evidence that it does the same in Afghanistan. For these reasons, news reports in August 2007 cited U.S. officials as saying that the United States would consider adding Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. Iran has repeatedly denied involvement in helping attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What terrorist activities have been linked with Iran?
The U.S. government first listed Iran as a terrorist sponsor in 1984. Among its activities have been the following:
• U.S. officials say Iran supported the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen.
• Observers say Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks, such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a UN observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina.
Terrorist organizations linked to Iran:
A few months after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections in early 2006, Iran pledged $50 million to the near-bankrupt PA. The United States, among other nations, has cut off aid to the PA because of Hamas’ terrorist ties.
(see http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362 /#2 Council on Foreign Relations- webpage for original source)
Also, for info on Iranian funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), and Other Iran-financed attacks against Israeli civilians check out The Israel Project – an international non-profit organization. ( http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH /b.4486167/k.CECA/Iran_Training_and_Arming_Terrorist_Groups_that_Target_Israel.htm)
It's a lot of info. Have fun.
- Kris Walker
January 30, 2009 1:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
current committments inaffective
We are now 5 1/2 yrs into Iraq and Afghanistan. We have not yet even secured the city of Baghdad!!!!! Are you joking in suggersting we send already stretched -out troops to another zone of conflict??? Lat's face it our current track record isn't that great. For those of you old enough to remember the Vietnam "conflict" remember that it was also a disaster!!! The U.S.Gov't then assd now, had NO CLUE what they were up against.. namely unending support from China and the USSR!!! Jugears is just as clueless as the morons who got us into Vietnam!! If we fail to learn from the mistakes of history we are condemnded to repeat them ... especially if we keep re-electing the current morons who insist on keeping us where we are now... facing a winless war!!
- Gary Collins September 3, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
different between Nuclear energy and Nuclear power
they just want to have Nuclear energy not more .
- joolaee
September 5, 2008 2:23AM
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.
Yes it is the complete moral thing to do.
Yes America should declare war not only on IRAN BUT ALSO ON SAUDI ARABIA.The reasons for this is this two countries are the pillars of islamic terror,by virtue of thier ideology.Saudi Arabia provides the moral backing,through money and mysticisim,while iran provides the logistics i.e Training.If this two pillars of radical islam were taken out the rest of the of the islamic radical movement would take notice and cease there attacks on the west.The only thing worse than the altruistic morality the west is now practicing,is not to attack these two countries and destroy the pillars of islamic terror.
- Reason above anything
June 4, 2009 7:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
MORAL?????
Just as went the invasion of Iraq you suggest now we attack another two countries who have not harmed us. Hey how about we take the nuclear weapons away from the nation that attacked the USS Liberty??
- oneoldman
July 29, 2009 12:22PM
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.