It's funny how so many of the people here clamoring for action against Iran were opposed to intervention in Syria a few months back. They fail to realize that the surest way to destroy the Iranian regime short of an invasion (and by far a less costly method to do so) is to eliminate Tehran's most crucial client state. That would sever the connection that Iran has to Hamas and Hezbollah and force the regime to collapse inward, where they'll collapse due to internal pressures.
Isn't that why they're angry with us anyway? Because we sent ships over there because of the mess in Syria? That was the gist I got from everything I've heard at least.
I still don't want us involved in the mess in Syria because then we'll just be making NEW enemies.
1. Our national security interests
2. The safety of innocent civilians
3. The security of our allies
4. Our economic interests
(skip a few)
999,648. What some asshole dictator or a rabidly angry fundamentalist thinks of us.
It's such a polarized issue I just don't see how it can be rationally discussed at this point in time, which is one reason I give my opinion and run when it comes to this subject.I know from our previous discussions you think I'm respectful, but I'm really just being a pushover because you know more about the Constitution and guns than I do. Trust me, I can be a real douche when talking international relations
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
That's one of the problems with foreign policy. Whenever something interesting or important happens, you suddenly have a swarm of experts who probably couldn't identify a country on a map or name more than two actors in a given conflict. The rest of the time it's a little boring, and there's no one new to talk with.It's such a polarized issue I just don't see how it can be rationally discussed at this point in time, which is one reason I give my opinion and run when it comes to this subject.