Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week
|
Submitted by: liberty44  Subscribe to this Author Paste this code into your site to promote this story! |
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/23/iran-war-resolution-may-be-passed-next-week/
Type of Content: Article Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week June 23, 2008 in Iran by Eric Garris | 31 comments Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week. The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ”Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors. The bill’s key section “demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.” “Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran” can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war. Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension – meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.” Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran. Those of you who consider this issue controversial can go to the Just Foreign Policy Web site and tell your representative to oppose this resolution. Thanks to Geoffrey V. Gray for this submission. Read »
Created 8 weeks 1 day ago
Made popular 8 weeks 1 day ago |
- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 1064 reads
> You say "their", but I'm not really sure who we are talking about.
< i'm talking about the same "them" as you are. i was responding to this: "as they ramp up their list of demands?"
> Judging by the mobs of angry demonstators [...] accommodate their religious beliefs.
< so what? this is something you fear? a few people demonstrating? this is the big threat? let us not divert from the actual reason that was cited for the twin towers attack. it wasn't about cartoons and accommodating religious beliefs. the reason was simple, take the foreign army out of their land. that was it.
> All of these things are potential triggers for an attack, although they most likely won't be the stated reason. That kind of thing goes over well in Islamic countries, but it's bad PR in the West.
< so i say, pull out, close down bases and we won't have to fear an attack, you say that it's pointless because they'll try to kill us anyway. and you're suggesting that they'll attack us for something and not tell us why they did it? it is silly to say that.
> You put the word terrorists in quotes. What, in your opinion, is a more appropriate designation for the 9/11 attackers? Insurgents? Freedom fighters?
< i put it in quotes when the context requires it. and why do you bring up the 9/11 attackers?
Mao Zedong pronunciation (help·info) (Simplified Chinese: 毛泽东; Traditional Chinese: 毛澤東; Pinyin: Máo Zédōng; Wade-Giles: Mao Tse-tung); December 26, 1893–September 9, 1976 was a Chinese military and political leader who led the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against the Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War, and was the leader of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976.
Regarded as one of the most important figures in modern world history,[1] and named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century,[2] Mao is still a controversial figure today, over thirty years after his death. He is generally held in high regard in China where he is often portrayed as a great revolutionary and strategist who eventually defeated Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese Civil War, and transformed the country into a major power through his policies. However, many of Mao's socio-political programs such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are blamed by critics from both within and outside China for causing severe damage to the culture, society, economy and foreign relations of China, as well as the deaths of 44.5 to 72 million people.[3] Though the majority of these deaths were result of famine, and his direct involvement remains controversial.
Although still officially venerated in China, his influence has been largely overshadowed by the political and economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping and other leaders since his death.[4][5] Mao is also recognized as a poet and calligrapher.[6]
Joseph Stalin (Russian: Иосиф Сталин; Georgian: იოსებ სტალინი, born as Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, December 18, 1878 – March 5, 1953) was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953. During that time he established the regime now known as Stalinism. As one of several Central Committee Secretariats, Stalin's formal position was originally limited in scope, but he gradually consolidated power and became the de facto party leader and dictator[2] of the Soviet Union.
Stalin launched a command economy in the Soviet Union, forced rapid industrialization of the largely rural country and collectivization of its agriculture by confiscating the lands of farmers, who Stalin derogatorily referred to as "kulaks" - millions of whom were killed, exiled to Siberia, or died of starvation after their land, homes, meager possessions, and ability to earn an existence from the land were taken to fulfill Stalin's vision of massive "factory farms." While the Soviet Union transformed from an agrarian economy to a major industrial powerhouse in a short span of time, millions of people died from hardships and famine that occurred as a result of the severe economic upheaval and party policies. At the end of 1930s, Stalin launched the Great Purge, a major campaign of political repression. During the continued repressions in the country under Stalin millions of people who were a threat to the Soviet politics or suspected of being such a threat were executed or exiled to Gulag labor camps in remote areas of Siberia or Central Asia. A number of ethnic groups in Russia were forcibly resettled for political reasons.
Although during Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War (1939–1945), Stalin is also credited with starting World War II by entering into a secret agreement with Nazi Germany to carve up the nation of Poland, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 which led to the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland from the east later that same year, following Nazi Germany's invasion of western Poland. Under Stalin's leadership, the Soviet Union went on to achieve recognition as one of just two superpowers in the post-war era, a status that lasted for nearly four decades after his death until the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Okay, so after WWII, we sit down with the Soviets, they say they want Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. I'm not sure what you'd call that besides expansion.
What should America have done after WWII with regard to the USSR?
> Okay, so after WWII, we sit down with the Soviets, they say they want Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. I'm not sure what you'd call that besides expansion.
< that's called the spoils of war. the winners of the war repelled an invading force and took as a 'reward' the land they repelled it from. the soviets did not invade to spread in Europe during wwII, they were defending themselves from an invasion. this is very different from suggesting that they were actively trying to spread their ideology.
> What should America have done after WWII with regard to the USSR?
< i don't understand the question. you mean with regards to its existence? its ideology? their presence in Europe? can you clarify the question?
Actually, the Soviet Union was on the verge of economic collapse within 5 years after it was formed. If you go back and look at history, what really happened was that the west subsidized it for decades. Remember, when socialism swept the world in the early 20th century, even the United States embraced quite a bit of it. There was strong sentiment that the communist/socialist "sharing" philosophy was morally superior, but not as economically viable in the short term. There was strong sentitment for Soviet Russia in the US. Western companies went to the Soviet Union under Lenin's rule and later and built the USSR infrastructure for them, on the promise that they would be able to stay and make profits there for a set period, usually 30 years. However, once the Soviet infrastructure was built, they simply nationalized the infrastructure and stole the property of the westerners that had built it.
Subsidization of the USSR by western countries, including the US, continued throughout the cold war. Without the west to first build their infrastructure, and then subsidize them in "humanitarian" efforts, they would have starved and died within 5 years of communism.
China experienced similar circumstances until Chairman Mao died, after which they put in huge reforms to make CHina a market economy. China today is politically oppressed, with only one legal political party, their economy is in many ways freer than ours. They do not have the oppressive regulation that our economy does. The negative side is that their industry does not protect the environment at all, but that is only the tip of the iceberg as far as their "unregulatedness" goes. I have dealt with Chinese exporters quite a bit in the past, and I can tell you that doing business in China, especially in an SEZ, is a lot easier than here. We, by contrast, have gone completely out of control with regulation, regarding the environment, labor, licensing, and a lot of other things, which is just as big a reason why their products are cheaper as cheap labor.
China is actually gradually becoming freer, while the US is gradually becoming more socialist (with the danger of a HUGE move after these next elections). We haven't "passed in the night" yet, but we're on our way.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
I would be interested to see for how long the Chinese government can keep economic freedom separate from political freedom, and what will happen if the increasing economic freedom of the people threatens the power of the government.
>>Remember, when socialism swept the world in the early 20th century, even the United States embraced quite a bit of it. There was strong sentiment that the communist/socialist "sharing" philosophy was morally superior
Here is an example of how a totalitarian ideology can spread, and why we needed to fight the spread of collectivism, both on the ground and in everyone's "hearts and minds", to quote an unpopular phrase.
>>Without the west to first build their infrastructure, and then subsidize them in "humanitarian" efforts, they would have starved and died within 5 years of communism.
Really? We were actually feeding every one of those people? Come on. Stalin wouldn't have let a major famine here and there stop him from subjugating his people. In fact, he didn't. Famine actually served his purposes very well.
>>There was strong sentitment for Soviet Russia in the US. Western companies went to the Soviet Union under Lenin's rule and later and built the USSR infrastructure for them, on the promise that they would be able to stay and make profits there for a set period, usually 30 years.
That is exactly the kind of free trade with everybody that Ron Paul would have advocated. What business would our government have had preventing these companies from trading with the USSR?
>> they simply nationalized the infrastructure and stole the property of the westerners that had built it.
That seems to me like another justification for us to have been at war with them.
Subsidies are not "free trade." Subsidies are money stolen by our government from its citizens and sent to citizens of other countries because our government feels they need it more than we do. This has nothing to do with the free trade proposed by Ron Paul. He is on the record time and again against foreign aid and other subsidies.
Fighting the spread of bad ideas here in America does not justify us bombing or otherwise murdering people in other countries. IF we put our own house in order, made armed robbery illegal in America (even when perpetrated by our government for "social programs"), we would again grow rich and eventually those countries would collapse or emulate us.
Regarding famine, etc. in Russa, I didn't say that there were no famines. Stalin killed about 20 million people with them. However, our subsidies help sustain the USSR, even in its miserable state of starvation and poverty, far longer than it would have otherwise lasted.
You still fail to see the relationship between warfare and welfare. Both are schemes by governments to plunder their people and their "enemy's" people. There is only one part of society that benefits from either: government. Our founding fathers actually had limiting the war powers of the government in mind much more than the welfare powers, as socialism at that time was not the movement it became 100 years later. Go read the Constitution again - Congress can only raise armies for 2 years, only Congress can declare war, for pirates (the terrorists of the day), there was the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, so that we wouldn't have to go to war with a whole nation over the acts of a few criminals.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
I think you took my free trade comment out of context. Here it is again. Notice that it was in reply to what you said about western companies going to do business with the Soviet Union, which I assumed was a free market decision. It was not meant as a comment on subsidies:
> >>There was strong sentitment for Soviet Russia in the US. Western companies went to the Soviet Union under Lenin's rule and later and built the USSR infrastructure for them, on the promise that they would be able to stay and make profits there for a set period, usually 30 years.
>That is exactly the kind of free trade with everybody that Ron Paul would have advocated. What business would our government have had preventing these companies from trading with the USSR?
>>Go read the Constitution again
I will.
>>Congress can only raise armies for 2 years
Does this mean we can't have a standing army (I don't know if this is the right term-- I mean an army that is around all the time). I don't see how we are to defend ourselves in the absence of a trained army... Unless the constitution requires every one to have military training. I will look at the constitution.
I have to sign off. Too much work to do!
> Really? We were actually feeding every one of those people? Come on.
< one of my parents, and my grandparents survived in a communist country only because of American food. cmon claire, when will you stop being so cynical about things you have no experience of?
> That seems to me like another justification for us to have been at war with them.
< really? we send our troops to defend private businesses?
>>one of my parents, and my grandparents survived in a communist country only because of American food
I'm glad your family survived. I am surprised that the US was able to keep such a significant amount of people fed for so long, but I'll take your word for it. According to Tom, it would have been better for all of us, although, admittedly not for you, if we hadn't sent humanitarian aid to the USSR.
>>really? we send our troops to defend private businesses?
I think it would have been unwise to send troops into the USSR... That comment relates to another discussion I was having here about what constitutes an act of war, and the ways in which acts of war can be like criminal acts against individuals. In this case, the USSR stole property from US citizens. I'm just thinking that technically that might have been an act of war.
> According to Tom, it would have been better for all of us, although, admittedly not for you, if we hadn't sent humanitarian aid to the USSR.
< it would have been better for everyone, even for me if nobody kept that system alive for as long as they did.
people make a point to say they're leaving
Anyone can leave at any time without saying a word.
Looks to me like someone is fishing for compliments.
I find it lame too, and I'm sorry if I came across that way. My comment about not belonging here was not an appeal for sympathy. In fact, I was shocked by the tone and title of liberty44's "snake" post and I wanted to take a break from the discussion, without giving everyone the impression that I was giving up my position (that's my pride getting the upper hand, I know).
But legitimately I think, I also feel like there is no use in me taking the time to post my thoughts if people think I am a government plant. Moreover I was trying to stand up for everyone's right to speak out on this site without intimidation. I don't know if that was the best way to make my points. Sorry again if it came across as fishing for compliments.
Just kidding. Anyhow I don't think you're a government plant. Perhaps it is more lame when people accuse you of something which you can't possibly prove otherwise.
I think Liberty probably feels bad.
is follow the constitution. No meddling in foreign affairs. Alliance with none trade with all.
"These are plain facts, Claire, they are not in dispute. They are hiding from people like you in plain site. This scam is just as much an illusion, just as much open warfare against you and I, as the welfare system. No everyday citizen in ANY country would ever be moved to join a fellow group of his citizens and go to a foreign land to kill people. EVER! There is no benefit to be derived from it by anyone. There never has."
Ummmm... I'm not sure what you mean by "everyday" citizen, here.
You mean "the men"?
And, I have no idea about your statement about these ordinary citizens being moved to go to war.
I can think of hundreds of instances when "ordinary" citizens went to war with another nation.
I can think of instances right here in America, as we expanded our territory over less "equipped" peoples...
These great declarations you make, as if they were fact, are odd and troubling.
It is as if you read the pamphlet and now you have the facts to solve the world's ills...
BTW, I agree with the assessment that Russia was gonna fall on its own, but remember, also, before it did, it was strafing places like Afghanistan and creating massive refuge problems there...
We disagree on some things, but she has a strong mind and we need her. Everyone that wants her to stay, vote up!
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
I have to go to, so I will rest on my posts and just respond to one of your statements:
"Most of the countries in the world understand that peace is best for all of us, but I think we need strategies for containing the power of those that don't."
Yes, I agree. we need strategies for containing the power of the United States of America, the country that understands least that peace is for the best, demonstrated through her constant, unprovoked wars of aggression.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
>>"Yes, I agree. we need strategies for containing the power of the United States of America, the country that understands least that peace is for the best, demonstrated through her constant, unprovoked wars of aggression."
Understands least?
If that is true why are so many reasonable democracies on our side? We have military bases in Europe, in Japan, South Korea. We are friends with India, Australia, Canada-- pretty much all the consensual democracies.
Why are our enemies all hostile autocracies? Don't tell me Iran is not hostile or an autocracy. And your ol' friend Saddam Hussein was pretty hostile towrd the Kurds, to say the least. By the way, when have we ever exterminated 180 000 innocent, unarmed citizens like he did? I'm not saying that was a reason to intervene, I'm just saying:
Before you make a statement like that, look at who our friends are, and who our enemies are. Doesn't that tell you something anything about who we are?
The only people that hate us and truly fear us are the tyrants. And that's not such a bad thing IMHO. They ought to fear someone.
In your heirarchy of ethics, where coersion is the biggest evil, the strongest must hold themselves to a higher standard, since they are capable of so much coersion, right? It follows in that equation that other states may engage in all kinds of crimes against their citizens, threats against our friends and support of terrorists, while still remaining the oppressed good guys in your equation-- so long as they do not have much military power.
Don't be so down on the US, Tom. We are way more just, way more accountable, way more reasonable than our enemies. And our friends know it. Even though it is fashionable for leftists in Europe to complain about us, they do not fear us, and their governments are quite happy to keep our military bases in their countries.
claire, if you're not gonna listen to me, at least listen to RP on iran http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7354M1QmGYQ
I listened to it twice, and I don't object to much of what he said. He said that there was no evidence Iran was doing anything illegal, which implies that he recognizes the legitimacy of the NPT. He certainly never said that Iran should be allowed to build nuclear weapons. Has he said that elsewhere, or is it just your idea?
As I have stated in an earlier post, I also have a problem with preventing Iranian officials from traveling. I don't understand why that would be necessary. It seems excessive.
I didn't know Iran had been complying with and passing all the IAEA inspections. If that is really the case, how can our government justify taking these new measures? Does our government have a problem with how the IAEA is conducting the inspections? If not, the findings of the IAEA and other concrete evidence of the level of nuclear weapons activity in Iran should override any baseless speculation.
As far as the enrichment goes, isn't there a difference between weapons grade enrichment and energy grade enrichment? If the enriched uranium is no good for weapons, then we should be reassured. If it is too enriched for energy use, we should be worried. It seems likely that the IAEA is on top of all this.
Absent any reason to suppose the IAEA is missing something here, I would have to conclude that we are doing just fine preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
So we need to look at the other justifications for the sanctions. Is Iran indeed financing Hamas and Hezbollah? Are they financing and supporting attacks against US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Ron Paul didn't address this in his speech.
> I don't object to much of what he said.
< what did you object to? i didn't object to anything he said. just curious.
> As I have stated in an earlier post, I also have a problem with preventing Iranian officials from traveling. I don't understand why that would be necessary. It seems excessive.
< 'excessive' i think is a grave understatement. what do you think would happen to, let's say Canada, if travel restrictions like that were implemented? the country would go down in a instant. just like any other country given the same restrictions. also, ask yourself, how can America 'restrict' iranian officials from traveling? will they arrest the officials wherever they might land? will they simply not allow any flights from iran? will they impose sanctions on countries that let iranian officials come over? will they bomb iran if they travel? how can this possibly be enforced? who has this authority to keep an offical from iran visiting Canada? have you any idea how this restriction will be implemented? how can you prohibit the international movement of all iranian officials? will you shoot the planes down as they leave? you can't stop planes in mid-air. i wonder what the implementation part of this looks like.
> I didn't know Iran had been complying with [...] baseless speculation.
< exactly. there is nothing to base this hostility against iran on. nothing. it's a scapegoat. another little guy being assaulted by the big guy. nothing iran can do to stop this. there is no complying with anything or anyone that will satisfy the big guy. they have ran out of inspections to cite noncompliance on but that doesn't seem to faze them. so the next logical step is baseless accusations and doomsday scenarios.
> As far as the enrichment goes [...] If it is too enriched for energy use, we should be worried.
< here we go back to the same issue. "should they be allowed" to do what you think is a threat. should you be worried if they do develop a nuclear weapon? the question you don't put to yourself is: should iran be worried that they don't have a nuclear weapon? i think they are very much worried about that. for the fact that they haven't acquired or developed one they have only themselves to blame. because one thing is for sure, if they had nuclear weapons, they wouldn't have to worry about being attacked. but they don't, so...
> I would have to conclude that we are doing just fine preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
< here you go again. what authority do we have to prevent them from pursuing anything? according to history and the rhetoric coming out from every country that possesses nuclear weapons, the only country that doesn't use them purely for defense and as a deterrent is America. no other country, at least to my knowledge, has publicly stated that they will use a nuclear weapon in an offensive fashion. do you think the iranians are not in fear? how would you feel if another nuclear power publicly stated that they are considering a nuclear strike against yours? who should be in fear here? you fear iran developing a nuclear weapon, iranians fear having one being used on the in the very near future. very different scenarios wouldn't you say?
> Is Iran indeed financing Hamas and Hezbollah?
< you mean supplying deadly weapons like America did to the lunatic saddam hussein (who used them to commit acts of genocide) is something that deserves punishment? financing and supplying weapons to afganistan against the russian invasion is wrong too? or are these instances somehow different from the (speculative) support for hamas and hezbollah by iran? could this be another case of we're on the right side, they're on the wrong one?
> Are they financing and supporting attacks against US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?
< again, is this not what America did, in the same country (afganistan) no less? that was right? this is wrong? what's the difference? (this is a rhetorical question as there is no difference) one instance you are appalled by the other you applaud.
> Ron Paul didn't address this in his speech.
< it's not like he had the whole day to speak. he had limited time. there are plenty of other clips of RP explaining away the points you didn't hear him address in this one.
so claire, with all due respect, you make silly arguments because you have an extreme bias as most people do. you see yourself and your own as right when you perform action xyz, but when 'they' perform the same action, they are wrong to do so.
it's always their kid that's a bad influence on mine. mine is a good kid.
that may be human nature but for us that are capable of critical thinking this should be an obstacle that we strive to overcome. i wonder if you've given this any thought.
>>you see yourself and your own as right when you perform action xyz, but when 'they' perform the same action, they are wrong to do so.
Germany bombed allied cities in WW2. We bombed German cities. So both sides performed action xyz. Would you be prepared to say that both sides were equally bad, regardless of their respective reasons for engaging in xyz?
I think the allies were clearly on the right side of WW2, and I am dismayed that I even have to make this point. Hitler threatened the freedom of everybody in Europe. He was clearly a threat even before he launched the first attack. In my opinion the future allies, Great Britain especially, gave him the benefit of too much doubt, and the whole thing might have been over much sooner had the British been better prepared and more willing to join in the good fight. Unfortunately, they drew the wrong lesson from the first world war, that is, nothing is worse than war. We are to avoid going to war at any cost.
After WW2, we got into a cold war with the Soviet Union. They set about annexing as many other states as they could to themselves, by promoting totalitarian communist regimes in those countries. We saw the threat of the spread of communism as a threat to our national security, and so we responded in kind by arming and supporting with military action whatever side in the conflict was non-communistic. This, of course, included many shady characters and set the stage for further conflicts, but we did manage to contain the spread of communism, by demonstrating our will to fight it.
Communism is an horrible ideology. It is anti-freedom. It stands against everything you and I believe in. Dirty as the cold war turned out to be, we were on the right side of it. Do you deny that? What if communism had been allowed to spread all through the middle east and the Soviet had become that much more powerful? It would have taken them much longer to crumble, in my opinion. Actually, I think everything would be different and we would be worse off. Regardless, we were on the right side of that fight.
I would argue that I am thinking more critically than those of you who would consider all military actions to be equally bad. I think you are making the mistake of ignoring the most important reasons for the actions in question. If that does not enter into your calculation of who was more culpable and who was more justified it is you who are closing your eyes to the truth.
In the middle east there is currently a struggle between freedom and totalitarianism. Maybe it is not our fight, and maybe we should stay out of it as much as possible (which would be a lot easier if we didn't rely on trading with these regimes for oil), but I know the totalitarians are on the wrong side of that ideological battle. That is why my sympathies are with Israel, Lebanon and the new Iraqi democracy, and against those that would destroy them. No state is perfect, but some ideologies are better than others. Absolutely.
well, this is exactly what i was getting at. when we do it it's not only justified but should be commended. when they do it it's evil. i won't comment on all your paragraphs but this one here:
> Germany bombed allied cities in WW2. We bombed German cities. So both sides performed action xyz. Would you be prepared to say that both sides were equally bad, regardless of their respective reasons for engaging in xyz?
< germany was the invading force, the allies were the repelling force. offensive and defensive respectively. given this fact, what side is America on in iraq in this scheme? and what side is iran on when (as is speculated without a shred of proof) they are supporting the iraqi resistance? this i'm sure you cannot bring yourself up to admit. i hope you'll try though.
>>when we do it it's not only justified but should be commended. when they do it it's evil
Unless I misunderstood you, you said that if Iran is supporting attacks against US troops in Afghanistan, they are only doing what we did years before in arming the Taliban to fight the Soviets. And I am saying there is a world of difference. If you cannot see the difference between trying to contain the spread of communism and trying to prevent the spread of free democracies, then I suppose your logic is internally consistent, but then I don't see the point of arguing with you about this. I would choose instead to focus the discussion on which type of government is better. Then maybe we would get somewhere.
> And I am saying there is a world of difference.
< i know you are saying that.
you picked your reason, one of many, that we were right to do what we did and they are wrong to do what they're (supposedly) doing. here is this argument in its generic form:
a: they're doing a bad thing
b: we did the same thing
a: when we did it, it was for a good cause
this is classic and understandable. you will always find reasons to rationalize your evil deeds. you will always dismiss the reasons of the other side. you will always claim that the reasons you picked are valid beyond reproach.
> [..] trying to contain the spread of communism
< this is a misconception. communism does not spread. in fact, it is so rotten that the communists were reduced to building physical barriers on their borders so nobody could come in or out. you were lied to about this. as i've said before, you got this sentiment from the tv, i lived under that system. nobody wanted to spread any of it anywhere and it finally collapsed under its own weight. again, claire, you were lied to and you're using a lie to rationalize away past actions of America.
> then I suppose your logic is internally consistent, but then I don't see the point of arguing with you about this.
< the point is for me to convince you to apply your morals and judgement to everybody equally. you make it sound like America is the angel of the planet, having fought so many wars in the past four decades you seem to be convinced that all were justified and proper and the losers of those wars had it coming. this cannot be true.
> I would choose instead to focus the discussion on which type of government is better. Then maybe we would get somewhere.
< sure, i'll start it off then, the government that does not intervene in any way in other countries' affairs be it economic or military is best. your turn.
< this is a misconception. communism does not spread. in fact, it is so rotten that the communists were reduced to building physical barriers on their borders so nobody could come in or out. you were lied to about this. as i've said before, you got this sentiment from the tv, i lived under that system. nobody wanted to spread any of it anywhere
Awesomo, I was under the impression the USSR took over several eastern european countries and imposed communism. What really happened?
> Awesomo, I was under the impression the USSR took over several eastern european countries and imposed communism. What really happened?
< your impression is wrong. the continent was divided up between the west and the east after wwII. the eastern European countries had no say in this.
>>communism does not spread. in fact, it is so rotten that the communists were reduced to building physical barriers on their borders
If communism destroys itself so easily, why did it last for 70 years in the Soviet Union? If totalitarianism is so weak that it will die on it's own, how do you explain China?
>>the government that does not intervene in any way in other countries' affairs be it economic or military is best. your turn.
The best government is the one that maintains the most freedom for all it's citizens. Your turn.