I’m interested in returning here.
It probably is, but not for the reasons Fox news gives…
You’re muddling cause and effect, I reckon. Fox reports on it to justify to the public a decision that has already been made. Look up the Council on Foreign Relations, the Project for a New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute. This decision has already been made by those who make such decisions. The rest is puppet shows, smoke, and mirrors.
So do love and hope. Look at the hippies. They believe all sorts of bollocks.
I understand that the decision has allready been made. I’m doing a paper on National Security, and all I find is our offensive strategy, offense instead of defense.
Summary of National Security Strategy 2002 (post 9/11)
Quotation: To protect our Nation and honor our values, the United States seeks to extend freedom across the globe by leading an international effort to end tyranny and to promote effective democracy.
(across the globe)
(promote effective democracy)
These have nothing to do with what the NSA should be doing. It’s not the correct department for that, leading me to believe that our actual security is fairly weak in many areas.
Oh, and yes, hippies can believe anything. They are on drugs too much of their lives to tell the differance between fact and fiction.
daily life in Iran
Pre-emptive, preventive warfare. A philosophy propagated by the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, no less…
It has nothing to do with national security or promoting democracy. It has to do with making money and maintaining power.
So are non-hippies. More than 50% of people regularly take pharmaceutical drugs.
Nother good guy gonna run for Pres
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/overheard_071005.shtml
Oh gee, you mean like in political realism which I specifically name checked in the first post?
Quit posturing, my BA degree is in political science and I don’t need you to tell me jack squat other than to address the topic.
Yes, its called the NPT. When you understand what that means, let me know.
iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Ia … ndex.shtml
ya, no shit sherlock.
You failed to respond to why Iran can do this of whether or not Iran is acting guilty by essentially playing “The Great Satan” card.
Your post is a worthless dodge and clearly an attempt to excuse Iran’s illegal behavior.
Promoting democracy is also about maintaining power.
If you fail to understand how Western democracy v Fundie-Islamic values does not play significantly into this issue, then I’d suggest you don’t really understand what is going on in this part of the the world.
An autocratic / dictatorial regime with a narrow agenda [a nicer way of saying a bunch of religious nuts] and NUCLEAR AMBITIONS is not good for international stability or anyone else’s national security.
The idea that this is not about national security is laughably false.
I disagree. You don’t have to maintain power to promote democracy at all, you just have to set a good example. If other follow, then that’s that.
How so?
Ad hom and argument by assertion. All dogmatically held beliefs are fundamentalist…
The people running this war do not give a damn for international stability. Instability is more profitable. Instability promotes sectarianism, civil war and the means to divide and thus conquer.
Labelling, a derivation of ad hom…
Try again.
more or less
Then I suppose you’ll know that the view I used in my last post does not have to be political realism, as international anarchy is what states make of it, and perhaps most importantly, what the most powerful state makes of it. Which leads to the essential point, that one cannot legitimately claim that international law is binding on other nations, when the country making the claim does not itself abide.
You say “ya no shit” to the fact that the current relationship of states has generated no enforced and legitimate international government, but at the same time try characterize Iran’s actions as “illegal behavior”. This creates a manifest contradiction in your argument, and clearly subjects you to your eloquent “your opinions on this matter are worthless” argument.
If you reply, spare me your belittling comments and claims of authority. You may not realize it now, but such behavior is counterproductive.
You do realize you have still not answered the question, and you are still posturing relentlessly?
Seriously, do or do you not know the story of why democracy was created in the first place?
Why do you assume that “stability” has anything to do with anything I have said to this point?
That you imply “stability” is what this is all about in the ME is even more fascinating, you talk like a wistful utopian.
Also, you still have not addressed the primary topic of the thread, just sniped from the sidelines.
‘The’ story? Don’t make me laugh.
You mentioned it.
You mentioned it. And yes, I’m a wistful utopian.
You mean like you’ve not argued against a word I’ve said, you’ve just labelled it and tried to insult me?
Try again.
MOL, SIATD, relax before it gets out of hand.
Thanks.
The question was abortive, it included two self-conflicting positions, thus failed to make sense or actually ask something.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure this discussion stagnated a couple posts ago, I’m done.
Well, what do we mean by stability? The perpetuation of the status quo? Is it any wonder that the mature and probably declining great power, the U.S., is going to take steps to increase it’s resources and further it’s interests? Enlarge it’s markets, ensure it’s most valued resources, bring it’s value system to a place that did not have it before… Is this not an attempt to stave off the inevitable downfall, and maintain stability?..What you are forgetting is that international stability and the status quo help these men, they have no interest in changing it, but they will take dramatic steps to maintain it. It can only be maintained through economic expansion and military prowess, IMO the Iraq war was supposed to be a demonstration of the latter, and the acquisition of the former.
Anyway, this need is especially true given the rising power of China…I wouldn’t be surprised if you see even more radical attempts at expanding our resources. If it works, we’ll be the next dynastic China, if it doesn’t, then we’ll be the next Rome. One thing is for sure though, we’re not going to give up our power through appeasement and consolidation as Britain did in the early 20th century.
It’s a tough situation; I really don’t want to see Iran obtain nuclear weapons. They simply aren’t responsible enough to be trusted with them. The problem is that neither are we. No one is! In a better world there wouldn’t be any nuclear weapons. But in reality, can we ban fire? On one level nuclear weapons are an application of technology, but underlying it is a principle of physics. Who are we to attempt to prevent others from exploiting the fundamental mechanisms of the universe? Again, it’s like trying to make it illegal for them to use fire.
This won’t come down to ideals, it will be determined by cold pragmatism. Attacking Iran seems like insanity to me…nearly as insane as Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. A war would be in neither countries best interest, but fear of and threats of war are very useful for both. Bush needs to keep pounding the drums for further wars to cover up the atrocities he’s committing at home and abroad. The constant threat of terrorism is needed to justify the draconian measures of the Patriot Act and his Stasi-like domestic spying program. Likewise, Iran needs a “Great Satan”, a threat from the outside to distract the people from oppression from within.
A few months ago I’d say war was very unlikely. But now it’s unclear. Bush would like to attack Iran, that’s beyond any doubt. How far will he be allowed to go? Is there any limit to the apathy of his subjects? Is there any line that this country will not allow him to cross?
Boring.
I’ll try again, and make it simpler for you.
Why can Iran violate international treaties with regards to nuclear materials?
I’ve no contradiction and you are making semantic equivocations. I’ve already adjusted the question for you, and you are still dodging it.
Why does Iran get a free pass with international treaty violations?
Replace “illegal” in the first post with the words to the effect of “treaty non-compliance” if that’ll make you happy.
You probably have as of yet to realize that, based on you “argument,” there is then no such thing as “war crimes” and apparently the USA does no have to follow the Geneva Conventions? Apparently you’ve solved the “torture problem” by fiat. Somebody should get Rummy and Gonzales on the phone STAT.
Or, maybe you just don’t have any understanding of what you are talking about.