• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top Revolutionary Guard commanders assassinated

And why does the US need that region? And how the regime change in Iran will benefit the US?

Oil. Remove support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Nuclear weapons, Regional arms race, Sunni-Shia conflict, Afghanistan.
 
Who asked the US to come and invade them, or to meddle in their affairs? Can you name such country please?

Individuals ask us to help them breathe free. Individuals who have no voice in their own government.
 
Who asked the US to come and invade them, or to meddle in their affairs? Can you name such country please?

That have to ask? We'll come unannounced.
 
In our favor and in ways that are better for most individuals.

The first criterion actively interferes with the second, which is obviously the most important. I don't share the opinion that the life of one U.S. citizen is equivalent to that of several foreigners, nor any utility that could be added to those respective lives.

Who said anything about objective?

Those interested in ethical analysis. I'm not interested in some promotion of the interests of the U.S. political and financial classes above those of others because I don't believe that dropping out of the right snatch between the right set of imaginary border lines provides anyone with greater moral value, let alone members of those aforementioned classes.
 
Individuals ask us to help them breathe free. Individuals who have no voice in their own government.

If I, as an individual, will ask your government to bomb and invade the UK will your country do it?
 
There's certainly no logical means of arriving at the conclusion that increased profits for the U.S. financial class can acceptably warrant the destruction of the sovereignty, liberty, and self-determination of others, considering that such action would have the obvious consequence of causing suffering of a more intense sort than the happiness it could provide to its beneficiaries. Nothing but deluded jingoistic sentiment could lead one to such a conclusion. :shrug:
 
Those interested in ethical analysis. I'm not interested in some promotion of the interests of the U.S. political and financial classes above those of others because I don't believe that dropping out of the right snatch between the right set of imaginary border lines provides anyone with greater moral value, let alone members of those aforementioned classes.

Subjective ethics are perfectly reasonable. I am lucky to have dropped out of the "snatch" I did. Are you unhappy with your "snatch"? This is a great country to be a part of and I'll continue to promote its interests over a country such as Cuba or Venezuela or Iran. Of course, I have problems with those countries' governments and not their peoples.
 
Source please, specifically with reference to to Iran?

One can always find "uncle Jamal"-the useful idiot in any country, that's why democracy is a rule of the MAJORITY, not minority, and especially not a rule of individuals upset at the government.
 
Then why were you talking about democracy if the aim of your country is plain robbery and control freakery?

Who said anything about robbery and control freakery (whatever that is)? You asked why the country is important, as compared to say east africa, and I responded that it is because of their oil. That's what makes their region important, not that we are going to steal it or something. We'll continue to buy it at market rates.
 
There's certainly no logical means of arriving at the conclusion that increased profits for the U.S. financial class can acceptably warrant the destruction of the sovereignty, liberty, and self-determination of others, considering that such action would have the obvious consequence of causing suffering of a more intense sort than the happiness it could provide to its beneficiaries. Nothing but deluded jingoistic sentiment could lead one to such a conclusion. :shrug:

Nonsense...
 
Who said anything about robbery and control freakery (whatever that is)? You asked why the country is important, as compared to say east africa, and I responded that it is because of their oil. That's what makes their region important, not that we are going to steal it or something. We'll continue to buy it at market rates.

You don't even know where the US gets its oil from, do you? There, have a look: [ame=http://askville.amazon.com/USA-oil-countries/AnswerDetails.do?requestId=10357485&responseId=10358112]Where does the USA get it's oil? Various countries...[/ame]

So why does your country need to control ME and Caspian oil and gas?
 
I recall there was a protest recently where hundreds of thousands took to the streets for freedom. A young woman named Neda lost her life for freedom.

Neda, Iranian Freedom Icon, Immortalized by U.S. Artist

They weren't asking us to storm in there and "help" them, they wanted an honest recount of the vote.

I wonder how we would've liked it if a foreign nation had stormed in here after the debacle that was the Presidential election of 2000...
 
I recall there was a protest recently where hundreds of thousands took to the streets for freedom. A young woman named Neda lost her life for freedom.

And did they ask the US to come and bomb them into freedom?
 
One can always find "uncle Jamal"-the useful idiot in any country, that's why democracy is a rule of the MAJORITY, not minority, and especially not a rule of individuals upset at the government.

That's why the election protests were so heart rending. In a free society the majority would have voted Ahmadinejad out.
 
They weren't asking us to storm in there and "help" them, they wanted an honest recount of the vote.

I wonder how we would've liked it if a foreign nation had stormed in here after the debacle that was the Presidential election of 2000...

We haven't done anything.
 
You don't even know where the US gets its oil from, do you? There, have a look: Where does the USA get it's oil? Various countries...

So why does your country need to control ME and Caspian oil and gas?

Your link is bad. Again, we don't need to control the oil. We don't control Iraqi oil today, Iraq does.

If I recall correctly, we take about 16% of ME oil. But it's a market. You know what that means right? If a regional war broke out in the ME and oil production was impacted, that would drop supply out of the market and China and all the other countries that need oil would still need it. Price would skyrocket.

Why are we the guarantor of security in the ME? Because we inhirited that role from France and Briton after WWII.
 
Subjective ethics are perfectly reasonable. I am lucky to have dropped out of the "snatch" I did. Are you unhappy with your "snatch"? This is a great country to be a part of and I'll continue to promote its interests over a country such as Cuba or Venezuela or Iran. Of course, I have problems with those countries' governments and not their peoples.

The jingoist does tend to conflate political administrations with national citizens. Regardless, my point was that the interests of the U.S. political and capital classes are not superior to those of average citizens of other countries, and are likely to be inferior, for that matter. If promotion of the interests of those classes causes more suffering than the corresponding happiness caused, there's sufficient basis for declaring that unethical.

Nonsense...

There's not even the illusion of an argument contained here.
 
The jingoist does tend to conflate political administrations with national citizens. Regardless, my point was that the interests of the U.S. political and capital classes are not superior to those of average citizens of other countries, and are likely to be inferior, for that matter. If promotion of the interests of those classes causes more suffering than the corresponding happiness caused, there's sufficient basis for declaring that unethical.

First of all, I am not a jingoist. You of course cast things in your communist rhetoric, so in your view the interests of the US are merely the interests of the political and capital classes. I view them as the interests of all Americans. They are superior interests.

The reality is that the promotion of the interests of the US align with the interests of the average citizens of those countries.
 
First of all, I am not a jingoist. You of course cast things in your communist rhetoric, so in your view the interests of the US are merely the interests of the political and capital classes. I view them as the interests of all Americans. They are superior interests.

'Jingoist' is not communist rhetoric.

The reality is that the promotion of the interests of the US align with the interests of the average citizens of those countries.

Yeah thats worked out great in places like vietnam...
And Iran...
 
Last edited:
You of course cast things in your communist rhetoric,

That's right, but I always gladly admit it...not that identification of your jingoism bears any necessary connection to my advocacy of communist economic structure :shrug:

so in your view the interests of the US are merely the interests of the political and capital classes. I view them as the interests of all Americans. They are superior interests.

The reality is that the promotion of the interests of the US align with the interests of the average citizens of those countries.

No, it's just a matter of acknowledging that the nature of republicanism will always necessitate some degree of divergence between the will of the ruling political administration of the day, the will of the electorate with no ability to recall disloyal executives, and the will of the wider citizenry with no firm commitment to the political process for one reason or another but with an interest in domestic and international policy of the ascendant regime nonetheless. There's scarcely an awareness among the U.S. citizenry of the anti-democratic removals of such figures as Mossadeq, Arbenz, and Allende or the sponsorship of the Shah, the Contras, Somoza, Batista, Marcos, etc., so it's difficult to claim that there's any active fulfillment of their interests involved in those political actions...not that the interests of U.S. citizens are superior to those of citizens of other countries or that utility discriminates according to nationality. There's certainly no ethical basis for claiming so.
 
Back
Top Bottom