Quote :

""I don't agree with this war" is the #1 reason I can think of to not fight in said war."

Maybe to you, and that's why you wouldn't enlist in the first place. But when you put your name on that dotted line, you do give up some of your personal sovereignty. Each person's line that they won't cross is certainly different, but I'm simply not willing to allow the troops to pick and choose after the fact which wars they will fight in. When you sign that line, you agree to fight in whatever war occurs. If you can't handle that, don't sign the damned line.

Quote :

"Meanwhile, you continue fighting a war that you've come to realize is unjust?"

Absolutely. You signed up to fight, so you lost that conscience argument at that point. Now, if somebody comes along and orders you to shoot women and children, you can say "fuck off." But you certainly can't say "I'm not gonna go fight over here because I don't like it, even though I agreed to go wherever you told me to go".

Quote :

"Oh, and by the way, keep your mouth shut and don't support any candidates that are offering a vastly different foreign policy?"

Who here has said that you can't support whatever candidate you want if you are in the military? Right, no one (at least no one other than smc).

1/11/2012 3:49:10 PM

A lot of what d357r0y3r says would be a lot more serious if he had any clue what he was talking about. Your own post gives you away. For example, you say...

Quote :

"Politicians, who are the ones crafting policy a lot of the time, aren't trained for shit."

...which is completely missing how things get done. "Policy" is set by the politicians, but you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone in uniform who knows what "policy" they are acting on. Operators rely on "doctrine" to define how they act on "policy". You keep acting like civilian leadership and politicians are one and the same which is completely wrong. Civilian leadership, usually side-by-side with uniformed personnel, develop doctrine that determines how to best approach policy. If a politician's policy is complete bullshit, the doctrine can always be formed in a way that it slowly impliments policy, giving it enough time to be re-evaluated or overturned.

It happens pretty frequently. That's what I was trying to tell you about earlier with the comment about the "conspiracy of paying off the leadership" being entirely too complex to be realistic. The only way any of that makes sense, where you believe a politician can come in and just randomly do what they want, is if you believe in the whole "underground government" thing in which case you probably also believe in the stages moon landing, the CIA being behind the Kennedy assassination, the Holocaust being fake, and all of the other bullshit theories floating around.

----

The other problem with what d357r0y3r says is that he begins his initial argument based on something that is either plainly false, or at best up to debate. Example, when responding to my comment that "strategic" objectives are a subset of "defensive" objectives...

Quote :

"I don't agree. The oil in the middle east does not belong to us. We do not have a right to it."

Here he automatically assumed that any military action in the middle east is only involved in the acquisition of oil. Through his ignorance of the facts, he has believed the first theory that seemed reasonable. With very little research, he would probably discover that one of the key tennets of global operations for our military is freedom of transit and freedom of commerce. Due to the global nature of our economy, you can easily attack us by attacking the free-flow of assets and by attacking allies we rely heavily on.

Wars in the Middle East have been waged for various reasons and there is obviously a lot of debate that we aren't going to solve in this thread regarding why each one occured, specifically. The one thing that is common in all of these engagements is that the stabilization of the region was 'a' primary concern as it directly affected the security of the region which included allies to the United States and nations that may seek to gain more control over the flow of trade.

1/11/2012 4:22:28 PM

Quote :

"Here he automatically assumed that any military action in the middle east is only involved in the acquisition of oil."

to be fair, oil is a major contributor

1/11/2012 5:12:15 PM

NCStatePride, obviously you you believe the war in Iraq is just. If you were strongly against a military occupation, would you deploy or resist?

1/11/2012 5:17:08 PM

^^^You posted all that, and I'm the one streaming bullshit? Most of what you said is pure pluff.

Quote :

"which is completely missing how things get done. "Policy" is set by the politicians, but you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone in uniform who knows what "policy" they are acting on. Operators rely on "doctrine" to define how they act on "policy". You keep acting like civilian leadership and politicians are one and the same which is completely wrong. Civilian leadership, usually side-by-side with uniformed personnel, develop doctrine that determines how to best approach policy. If a politician's policy is complete bullshit, the doctrine can always be formed in a way that it slowly impliments policy, giving it enough time to be re-evaluated or overturned."

This process apparently doesn't work. We went to war in Iraq and have been there for many years. The fact is, if there's some event that politicians can use to scare the population into going to war, it's incredibly easy for them to do exactly that, and there's nothing civilian leadership can do about it.

You're right that we're not going to resolve the debate in this thread. Sure, you could say that these conflicts are about "maintaining the flow of trade". That's code for, "maintaining cheap access to oil". Why bullshit? That's what this is about. If we didn't have a strong military presence in the Middle East, there's a very good possibility that gasoline would be much more expensive here, which is not something that anyone wants.

[Edited on January 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2012 5:27:36 PM

Quote :

"Iran is not a threat to the U.S., just as Iraq wasn't."

Never assume.

USS Stark...May 17th, 1987

USS Samuel B Roberts...April 14th, 1988

1/11/2012 7:13:27 PM

So the fact that U.S. ships were attacked while in Middle East waters is evidence that we actually are in danger?

Think about the absurdity of what you're saying. Imagine if China had warships off of our coast.

[Edited on January 11, 2012 at 7:42 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2012 7:42:37 PM

Yup, we shouldn't have been there.

[Edited on January 11, 2012 at 7:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2012 7:50:04 PM

International Waters?

1/12/2012 2:04:58 AM

^Yes, and this is where the entire discussion of "Freedom of Transit" comes into play, but apparently destroys: L33t edition is just glazing over that. Like I said, it's a guy who is so determined to believe the crap he currently knows that he's not willing to accept that there may be something about it that he doesn't understand. Freedom of Transit exercises is one of the most common training evolutions to go through during work-ups and shake-downs for deployment. It's such a hot topic because frankly many nations we trade with don't have the Naval assets to protect their own ships, much less the American flag ships that push imports/exports in international waters.

The alternative to US Warships being attacked would be US cargo ships being attacked becuase it's the closest thing with a US flag on it.

History wasn't written in the last 20 years, contrary to the political opinions of some posters ITT, and hostilities didn't break out because we are kicking in the door of benevolent dictators who want nothing more than to live in peace and harmony and hold no other hostilities towards the US. We've been fighting people in the middle east ever since 1801.

1/12/2012 9:23:55 AM

Can you answer my question above?

Quote :

"a guy who is so determined to believe the crap he currently knows"

I think you should examine your own views.

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 9:30 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2012 9:27:07 AM

I wasn't ignoring you, adultswim; I just wanted to answer it separately because I think you are asking a legit question.

Quote :

"If you were strongly against a military occupation, would you deploy or resist?"

Let me ask for clarification: are you talking specifically of Iraq or just in any generic engagement in the Middle East?

(I'm very willing to examine my own views. What is lacking is anything that resembles a new argument in this thread from destroyer. There might be some sound arguments here that seem logical and don't contradict what I work with every day, but they aren't coming from him. Trust me, if you're looking to point the finger at someone who is going to reject outright facts or sources without at least considering it, you're point at the wrong person.)

1/12/2012 9:32:52 AM

Any generic occupation anywhere. If you strongly believed we were in the wrong, would you resist deployment?

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2012 9:33:47 AM

I got confused by "resist deployment" because usually when I'm talking about deployment, I'm talking about deploying the force, not deploying an individual.

It would depend on whether I felt the engagement was morally wrong or politically wrong. If I politically believed it was wrong, I would liken it to working for a company who you feel makes a wrong business move. Is it something that you believe would sink the company? Is it something you think is so reprehensible that you need to leave the job you're in? There are a lot of "what ifs", but similarly to if I worked for a company that made a poor business decision, it would probably take something that I felt was absolutely disastrous to say "no, I'm not going".

Now if it were a moral issue, that's a different story. People consciously object to fighting in the military all the time. For what it's worth, I think anyone who signs up to fight in the military and doesn't think ahead of time of the moral ramifications of their actions is probably pretty short-sighted, but I'm sure it happens. In theory, I wouldn't ask anything of anyone else that I wouldn't be willing to do myself... that includes acting on something they find immoral.

As I said, though... I do not believe politics and morality are inherently linked; that's a position I would think I share more with libertarians and liberals than I do with conservatives who tend to believe the opposite.


[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 9:45 AM. Reason : ...]

1/12/2012 9:37:59 AM

Quote :

"Yes, and this is where the entire discussion of "Freedom of Transit" comes into play, but apparently destroys: L33t edition is just glazing over that. Like I said, it's a guy who is so determined to believe the crap he currently knows that he's not willing to accept that there may be something about it that he doesn't understand. Freedom of Transit exercises is one of the most common training evolutions to go through during work-ups and shake-downs for deployment. It's such a hot topic because frankly many nations we trade with don't have the Naval assets to protect their own ships, much less the American flag ships that push imports/exports in international waters. The alternative to US Warships being attacked would be US cargo ships being attacked becuase it's the closest thing with a US flag on it. History wasn't written in the last 20 years, contrary to the political opinions of some posters ITT, and hostilities didn't break out because we are kicking in the door of benevolent dictators who want nothing more than to live in peace and harmony and hold no other hostilities towards the US. We've been fighting people in the middle east ever since 1801."

My stance is that we should take a huge step in the direction of diplomacy, rather than our current position of strong arming every country that doesn't bow down before us. A large portion of our problems with Middle East and their hostility towards us is due to our constant bullying and meddling. The actions we take against them (sanctions, bombings, wars, etc.) hurt the people MUCH more than the governments, and that's bound to create a lot of anti-US sentiment.

The fact that we unilaterally support Israel is also not helping. If we truly wanted to take steps toward stability, we should be able to recognize and admit that Israel is as much to blame. Surely you can agree with me there, at least.

Quote :

"Now if it were a moral issue, that's a different story. People consciously object to fighting in the military all the time. For what it's worth, I think anyone who signs up to fight in the military and doesn't think ahead of time of the moral ramifications of their actions is probably pretty short-sighted, but I'm sure it happens. In theory, I wouldn't ask anything of anyone else that I wouldn't be willing to do myself... that includes acting on something they find immoral."

Good answer.

1/12/2012 9:55:52 AM

Quote :

"The fact that we unilaterally support Israel is also not helping. If we truly wanted to take steps toward stability, we should be able to recognize and admit that Israel is as much to blame. Surely you can agree with me there, at least."

As with many areas of politics, the harsh political rhetoric of those I disagree with keeps me from verbally agreeing too much...

...but they do have an ever more "strong arm" policy than we do. I don't know if I blame them given their history, but I can agree that they "poke the bear" a bit much.

---

The only thing I would object to is your comment of sanctions being more of a "strong arm" approach. I consider sanction more of a disciplinary action that can be taken on a diplomatic front. Other then that, my interest and concern in any of these matters is ensuring that the military (specifically the Navy) can project as much power as possible on strategically relevant theaters/targets at any give time. Obviously that is much easier if we aren't deploying assets to every skirmish we think is important. In situations like Libya or whatever other minor event you want to point at, it would be much cheaper and take far less resources to seek other forms of aid/intervention than deploying assets.

1/12/2012 10:37:14 AM

Quote :

"International Waters?"

Ah, yes. International waters...off the coast of Saudi Arabia. Going back to my previous comparison, I'm sure you'd have no problem with Chinese warships showing up in the gulf of Mexico to ensure "freedom of transit".

Quote :

"History wasn't written in the last 20 years, contrary to the political opinions of some posters ITT, and hostilities didn't break out because we are kicking in the door of benevolent dictators who want nothing more than to live in peace and harmony and hold no other hostilities towards the US. We've been fighting people in the middle east ever since 1801."

The part in bold is the point I've been trying to make. You act is if Iran is belligerent towards the U.S. for no reason. It's actually quite reasonable for them to be pissed off. They're trying to create energy for their country, like all nations are entitled to do, and we're sanctioning them, threatening to invade them, and have possibly been assassinating their scientists. Candidates here are running for office, guaranteeing that they will not allow Iran to develop nuclear power, which means military intervention.

We've gotten into this before, and you simply refuse to acknowledge the historical context of the situation. All of this goes back to 1953, and if you can't accept that yes, the U.S. did stage a coup for the purpose of securing oil, then there's no point in having a discussion. The historical record is very clear on this. Iran attempted to nationalize their oil fields, instead of allowing the British to take 85% of the profits. We wouldn't stand for it, because in the eyes of the U.S. and British governments, the Iranian people do not own that oil, U.S. and British corporations own it.

Put simply, this "freedom of transit" you talk about is a veil of bullshit. This is about asserting military power and keeping the Middle East (especially oil-rich nations) in a chaotic, subservient, and desperate state, which allows us to keep extracting resources from the area.

All of this is understandably difficult for you to face, as doing so would be an admission that your employer is involved in something that is not honorable or noble. My dad served in the Navy in the late 70s and early 80s and was a staunch conservative and hawk when I was growing up. Even he is a Ron Paul supporter now, since it's far beyond obvious at this point that our foreign policy is not in the best interests of working Americans and hasn't been for some time.

Quote :

"I consider sanction more of a disciplinary action that can be taken on a diplomatic front."

Disciplinary action for who? The Iranian people that have done nothing to deserve this? Ahmadinejad is not going without. Sanctions are despicable.

U.S. policy is very transparent in this area. The goal is to destablize the Iranian regime. Since stricter sanctions were imposed, Iran is already experiencing what could be considered hyperinflation.

This area is a powderkeg. We're playing a dangerous game.

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM. Reason : ]

1/12/2012 11:21:01 AM

That is my response to your post and probably should have been since the beginning. I'm going to practice what I preach and start asking you to back up all the shit your spew out on this board.

1) "Sanctions are despicable." What are the sanctions we placed and how are they hurting the people? Link/source please.

2) "The goal is to destablize the Iranian regime." Why?

3) "This is about asserting military power and keeping the Middle East (especially oil-rich nations) in a chaotic, subservient, and desperate state, which allows us to keep extracting resources from the area." Your facts for believing this are....? Links/source if you got it.

4) "They're trying to create energy for their country, like all nations are entitled to do, and we're sanctioning them, threatening to invade them, and have possibly been assassinating their scientists." Link/source?

5) "Iran attempted to nationalize their oil fields, instead of allowing the British to take 85% of the profits. We wouldn't stand for it, because in the eyes of the U.S. and British governments, the Iranian people do not own that oil, U.S. and British corporations own it." Can you cite anywhere that says this is why Iran is mad at the US today or just speculation on your part?

I'd love to see what evidence or facts you have to back any of this up. Right now it seems like a few partial truths mixed in with your own conjecture, passed off as pure Gospel.

1/12/2012 11:39:46 AM

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

1/12/2012 11:50:14 AM

1/12/2012 11:52:51 AM

Quote :

"What are the sanctions we placed and how are they hurting the people? Link/source please."

really? you asked if the sanctions are hurting people? THAT'S THE POINT OF SANCTIONS! To hurt the people and make them demand a change from their leadership.

Quote :

""The goal is to destablize the Iranian regime." Why?"

Because that's how we operate. We think we know better than the people in the Middle East how they should run their countries. So we do shit like staging coups and deposing leaders. We did it then, and we are happy to do it now.

Quote :

"Your facts for believing this are....? "

History.

Quote :

""They're trying to create energy for their country, like all nations are entitled to do, and we're sanctioning them, threatening to invade them, and have possibly been assassinating their scientists." Link/source?"

Are you even paying attention? Have you not been hearing all of the republican candidates (except Paul) banging the drums of war? Come on, man.

Quote :

"Can you cite anywhere that says this is why Iran is mad at the US today or just speculation on your part?"

It may be speculation, but it's damned good speculation. How the hell do you think we would feel towards a country that tried to overthrow our leader only 60 years ago? We get pissed off at George Soros simply putting funding into elections, and he doesn't even represent a specific nation! But, you are somewhat correct; Iran isn't solely mad because of 1953. They are also mad because of the shitstorm that derived from it, you know, the brutal dictator that we installed then. They also don't like that we put Saddam Hussein in power specifically to attack them and then supported him in the Iran/Iraq War. (and as a side note, how did that whole Saddam Hussein thing work out?)

1/12/2012 12:55:47 PM

Quote :

""Sanctions are despicable." What are the sanctions we placed and how are they hurting the people? Link/source please."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran

We've been sanctioning them for a while. More recently, all financial transactions with the central bank of Iran have been sanctioned. This has a profound effect on the currency, which of course affects consumers.

http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/1/10/the-latest-from-iran-10-january-a-big-atomic-bomb-will-come.html#1735

Quote :

"1735 GMT: Econony Watch 1st-Hand. An EA source reports that a relative in Tehran ordered a washing machine for 400,000 Toman (about $240) this week. When he went to the shop the next day, he was told that --- amidst the currency crisis and rising import costs --- the price was now 800,000 Toman (about $480). Another EA source says that the price of an item of software for a laptop computer has tripled from 50,000 Toman to 150,000 Toman within days."

Quote :

"Analysts believe this is likely to rise further. "A large part of its exports will be dislocated from Europe, and they will have to find new buyers or be replaced by other buyers," said Samuel Ciszuk, a consultant at KBC Energy Economics. "In any of those cases, Iran in sales price negotiations will have a very limited set of cards in its hands, and it's a very plausible assumption that we will see an increase in floating storage.""

Even at the company where I work, a software company, we've received e-mails which require us to cut off/block service to anyone that may be connected to Iranian financial institutions. If you don't understand how this effects the average Iranian, you don't understand basic economics, but that would come as no surprise.

Quote :

""The goal is to destablize the Iranian regime." Why?"

Probably the same reason the U.S. wanted to destabilize Iraq. It's not actually about nuclear weapons - that's a front. Iran is reported as enriching 20% grade Uranium, but that's nowhere close to what is needed for weapons.

It is a bit of a mystery, though. I'm not sure what good could come of this unless there's a full Iranian collapse, but I don't think that's too likely. More likely is that Iranian standard of living will go down, and they will become even more bitter towards Western forces, specifically the U.S.

Quote :

""This is about asserting military power and keeping the Middle East (especially oil-rich nations) in a chaotic, subservient, and desperate state, which allows us to keep extracting resources from the area." Your facts for believing this are....? Links/source if you got it."

I mean, the government wouldn't state this as the goal, but it's evident from our policy. Pakistan went nuclear, but we didn't invade them...they also don't have oil.

Quote :

""They're trying to create energy for their country, like all nations are entitled to do, and we're sanctioning them, threatening to invade them, and have possibly been assassinating their scientists." Link/source?"

Obama administration has been a little more standoffish, but the escalation in the Straight of Hormuz certainly suggests that we're willing to take things to the next level. As far as the scientist assassinations, who knows, but our government isn't above targeted killings of non-military.

On the GOP side of things, yes, all candidates except one are saying that they'd stop Iran from going nuclear.

Quote :

"Can you cite anywhere that says this is why Iran is mad at the US today or just speculation on your part?"

It's a complex issue, but the 1979 Iranian Revolution was, in large part, a response to events set off in 1953.

1/12/2012 1:04:36 PM

Quote :

"As far as the scientist assassinations, who knows, but our government isn't above targeted killings of non-military."

So..... no proof. Just conjecture. Got it.

Quote :

"If you don't understand how this effects the average Iranian, you don't understand basic economics, but that would come as no surprise."

So............... again, no proof or any direct connection that we are the cause of the people's plight; it's just your expert opinion based on the fact we don't do business with them, mixed with a baseless assumption about my knowledge of macroeconomics. Got it.

Quote :

"It is a bit of a mystery, though."

Quote :

"I mean, the government wouldn't state this as the goal, but it's evident ..."

Quote :

"It's a complex issue"

Different wording, same story. You don't have any proof aside from passing it off as "it's complicated" and "they aren't telling us". Really... then how do you know?

1/12/2012 2:09:44 PM

Quote :

"If an entire WAR is unjust, I believe it is necessary to break your oath."

Soldiers can and do break their oath if they have strong moral objections. However, much like civil disobedience, what they do is morally right but technically illegal, and therefore, they still need to be subject to the laws of the land. I'm not saying soldiers who feel that passionately shouldn't take a stand, but I can't philosophically justify making it without consequence.

Quote :

"To illustrate my point, what if it became legal for soldiers to execute civilians? Would it be a soldier's duty to carry out these executions?"

Then we've got much bigger problems at the top levels of our government. Again, civil disobedience is fine, but we can't write some sort of blank check to allow soldiers to openly dissent against orders. Yes, there are extreme examples like you give that warrant it (especially since such a practice violates international norms and the laws of war), but who draws the line for the more subtle, complex and debatable items in the middle?

Quote :

"If you're being shipped off to the other side of the world to "protect" allies (or, more likely, protect corporate interests), you should have the good judgment to know that it's bullshit. If you don't, well...ignorance isn't an excuse in this case."

I understand and share your frustration, but I still am not comfortable with it. In my opinion, what it comes down to is the question of who gets to make the final decision, the elected civilian leadership, however corrupt, and the military leadership. Outside of the most blatant cases of abuse or unconstitutionality, I can't make a case for giving generals that much power in determining national policy. I simply am not comfortable having the military becoming some sort of political arbiter where they can step in and disregard or even overthrow the civilian government whenever the President or Congress does something they disagree with. There are just too many cases of how this is abused, of General Staffs running amok.

Besides, if we do allow what you say to battle the forces of corruption, what's to say that the detrimental interests you highlighted won't come and corrupt military leadership to an even greater consequence? It would be better to try and work to reform Congress than open the Pandora's box of introducing our military into the politics game.

1/12/2012 2:13:33 PM

Quote :

"So............... again, no proof or any direct connection that we are the cause of the people's plight; it's just your expert opinion based on the fact we don't do business with them, mixed with a baseless assumption about my knowledge of macroeconomics. Got it."

I can't believe that you're trying to argue this point. The stricter sanctions went in on January 1st, 2012, now people are dumping the Rial.

Here's another one for you: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-12/iran-bazaar-sees-rush-to-dump-rial-as-sanctions-hurt-economy.html

Quote :

"I simply am not comfortable having the military becoming some sort of political arbiter where they can step in and disregard or even overthrow the civilian government whenever the President or Congress does something they disagree with. There are just too many cases of how this is abused, of General Staffs running amok."

I understand your opposition to military leaders ignoring orders from the political end, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the soldiers, who are actually the ones putting their lives on the line. They should be the ones that refuse.

The only thing worse about the fact that we're involved in so many countries is that there are people willing to fight those wars.

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2012 2:51:07 PM

Quote :

"Soldiers can and do break their oath if they have strong moral objections. However, much like civil disobedience, what they do is morally right but technically illegal, and therefore, they still need to be subject to the laws of the land. I'm not saying soldiers who feel that passionately shouldn't take a stand, but I can't philosophically justify making it without consequence."

You're telling me here that legality should direct a person, not morality. That goes against just about every philosophy out there. Of course there are consequences when you break the law. I'm saying it's your duty to break the law when the law is not just, consequences be damned. Obviously there is a balance here where you can break your morals for the "bigger picture" or for your personal safety. There is a limit somewhere, however.

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2012 2:56:52 PM

I don't doubt that the Rial is failing. Actually, if you read the article, the people are trying to adapt. It's the government that's keeping them from doing so.

Quote :

"It’s increasingly tough for Iranians to satisfy that demand. Websites posting currency rates were blocked last week, many official change bureaus were closed, and the government has halved the amount of dollars that Iranians planning trips abroad can buy. "

Even if you try to make an argument that sanctions are hurting Iran, you can't paint this as an "Evil Empire" thing. Iran violated UN policies and the EU (also from your article) are the ones considering choking off Iran's life-blood... their oil.

But.......... I can see how you could arrive at "The US is harming the Iranian people" through assumptions and conjecture, which would be perfectly aligned with how you arrived at your other conclusions.

1/12/2012 2:57:14 PM

We're giving you evidence and you're ignoring it, whereas your own views are NOT backed by evidence. What in the hell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran#Effects_and_criticism

I mean what exactly do you want to see? I feel like I'm trying to prove that 2+2=4.

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2012 3:00:41 PM

it really takes a shit ton of ignorance to look at what we have right now and throw your hands in the air and say "I can't fathom how US actions have affected Iran's feelings about the US." You even discounted the direct effect of the 1953 on the 1979 revolution. You do realize that the leadership that is in place today was created in 1979, right? Do some simple extrapolation from there. No, we can't give you a flow chart that shows how every last single person is affected by US actions, but it shouldn't be hard to understand that when the US pushes, through the UN, to enforce an embargo on the #1 export of a nation, that the average person in that nation will be harmed. Jesus, dude

and then, to deny that sanctions harm the average person? what in the fuck are you smoking, man, because it must some real good stuff!

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2012 3:04:45 PM

I'm not ignoring it at all; I am reading destroyer's links and they don't make the claims that he is making; he is infering conclusions that aren't there. Every single thing you are posting just says that the sanctions are harming their economy. Uhhh........ yeah, that's kind of the point of sanctions. The UN is trying to have an affect on Iran and influence their decisions by harming their interactions with other nations. What part of that is denying that we influence Iran?

The problem with it affecting the people is that as the people attempt to adapt, the government siezes control of more and more aspects of their economy closing down any ability of the people to provide for themselves (my proof: destroyers article and the part I quoted from it). The UN powers are placing economic restrictions on Iran, but their solution is to continue to refuse to reach compromise with the other UN nations and instead try to "handle it themselves".

---

I'm not posting links because I'm not the throwing these wild claims out there about our involvement with other countries. Destroyer's response to my request for facts proves my point; the best proof that you have for any of this is an assessment that the sanctions are hurting their economy (which is exactly what they are suppose to do) and that the government is keeping the people from pursuing anything that could help them provide for themselves.

The argument that would be smart to make if you really want to argue that this is the US's fault is if you want to get into the discussion regarding whether Iran should be allowed to have nukes. If you make that argument, you can suggest that instead of being stubborn and cruel to it's own people by refusing to work with the UN to find a compromise on it's nuclear programs, Iran is really just standing up for their inherent right to pursue technilogical advancement. I wouldn't agree with it, but at least it would jive with the facts that HAVE been presented.

1/12/2012 3:12:22 PM

Quote :

"I'm not ignoring it at all; I am reading destroyer's links and they don't make the claims that he is making; he is infering conclusions that aren't there. Every single thing you are posting just says that the sanctions are harming their economy. Uhhh........ yeah, that's kind of the point of sanctions. The UN is trying to have an affect on Iran and influence their decisions by harming their interactions with other nations. What part of that is denying that we influence Iran? The problem with it affecting the people is that as the people attempt to adapt, the government siezes control of more and more aspects of their economy closing down any ability of the people to provide for themselves (my proof: destroyers article and the part I quoted from it). The UN powers are placing economic restrictions on Iran, but their solution is to continue to refuse to reach compromise with the other UN nations and instead try to "handle it themselves"."

so, then, what part of this doesn't sound like "the sanctions are hurting the common man"? We do shit, which then provokes a response from the Iranian gov't which hurts the comman man there. This isn't a damned leap across the Grand Canyon of logic, dude. So, you now, at least, admit that the sanctions hurt the average Iranian. Do you not think this would cause any resentment against the US?


moreover, you've morphed you argument a bit to the point where I don't even know where to start, because your claims aren't at all the same as they were. Do you not think sactions are hurting the average Iranian? Are you now not asking the original numbered questions which are all fairly straightforward to show our points? I mean, hell, you bolded something that implies that you don't believe we are threatening to invade Iran...

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2012 3:20:02 PM

Quote :

"We do shit, which then provokes a response from the Iranian gov't which hurts the comman man there."

Your timeline starts at a place that is only convenient to you making your point. In reality, the US has maintained sanctions against the Iranian government for decades, but the Iranian government has "delt with it" (which is also elluded to in Destroyer's link.... what a terrible link to "prove me wrong").

The latest sanctions are the results of Iran pursuing what is believed to be a nuclear program by the UN and not allowing investigators into the country to follow-up on intelligence on weapon's programs.

Due to Iran's incompliance with UN resolutions, sanctions were placed on the country. They could ease sanctions by complying with the UN and taking away the political perogative for the US to place it's own sanctions on the nation, but instead they are attempting to ignore the sanctions and pretend that the sanctions have no affect on their economy ("proof" below). THAT is what is harming the average Iranian.

1/12/2012 3:22:16 PM

And the Iraqi Information Minister denied that there were US troops anywhere near Baghdad

again, is it your contention that preventing the export of the #1 product of a nation will have zero impact on that country's citizens?

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2012 3:23:40 PM

Quote :

"again, is it your contention that preventing the export of the #1 product of a nation will have zero impact on that country's citizens?"

Added this to my last post (Ironically, the point you raise about Iran's mis-information is part of my argument that Iran is killing themselves; denial is a bitch)...

Quote :

"The latest sanctions are the results of Iran pursuing what is believed to be a nuclear program by the UN and not allowing investigators into the country to follow-up on intelligence on weapon's programs. Due to Iran's incompliance with UN resolutions, sanctions were placed on the country. They could ease sanctions by complying with the UN and taking away the political perogative for the US to place it's own sanctions on the nation, but instead they are attempting to ignore the sanctions and pretend that the sanctions have no affect on their economy ("proof" below). THAT is what is harming the average Iranian. "

1/12/2012 3:29:18 PM

so, it is your contention, then, that Iran should just do whatever we say, and then they will be fine? because that specifically speaks to #3 above:

Quote :

""This is about asserting military power and keeping the Middle East (especially oil-rich nations) in a chaotic, subservient, and desperate state, which allows us to keep extracting resources from the area." Your facts for believing this are....? Links/source if you got it."

and, would it be your contention that Iran's gov't going apeshit and doin things that hurt the people is not related to us imposing sanctions, even though you say that us imposing sanctions is what is causing the reaction from Iran's gov't?

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2012 3:38:16 PM

Quote :

"(Ironically, the point you raise about Iran's mis-information is part of my argument that Iran is killing themselves; denial is a bitch)..."

We are talking about harm to the Iranian people, not the government. You have continually failed to recognize the distinction.

1/12/2012 5:04:52 PM

Former marine talks about combat and his gradual realization that what we were doing in Iraq was morally wrong: http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=17346

1/14/2012 3:55:18 PM