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:
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.
We haven't done anything.
Your reply makes absolutely no sense, but then again I shouldn't be surprised...
I am a bit bemused as to why some people hope that the U.S was somehow involved in this attack. For me this kind of attitude is what helped to foster the Taleban and Al-Queda.
The people that conducted this attack are most likely a Sunni-Islamist group. The question I ask, is whether or not it would make any long term sense to fund these types of resistant movements?
I think that "the enemy of my enemy kind of insurgency support", is bat **** crazy and has the potential to cause great blow back. What we in the West need to do, is support movements that will move Iran out of theocracy and into some sort of pluralistic-open democracy or government.
Any support of the group that is alleged to have conducted this assassination in my view is short sighted.
You shouldn't be surprised because a clear cut answer makes no sense to you?
Individuals ask us to help them breathe free. Individuals who have no voice in their own government.
Source please, specifically with reference to to Iran?
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.
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.
Um, no, I said I shouldn't be surprised that your answer makes no sense period. I shall recap:
... and now, for your follow-up:
If you would explain to me how that makes any sense at all, I'd be delighted, but I don't think you can.
They weren't asking us to storm in there and "help" them, they wanted an honest recount of the vote.
We haven't done anything.
On second thought, you are absolutely right. I amend my first post in this thread. I hope we were not involved. I get excited about opposition to the regime, in hopes that it will fall. However, this was your standard indiscriminant terrorist attack and it sounds like many innocents were killed. That's not the business we need to be in.
I never said that there was any connection, only that you always cast scenarios in the world in terms of your communist lense.
I read up on jingoism, not really knowing what it means. I've heard it used in a derogatory manner. It turns out that that is my position as stated. I'm ok with that.
I see no such divergence. There is no requirement that awareness precede fulfillment. Truth be told, and I am not very knowledgable about those activities, but I am not sure how my interests were met. I presume some relation to the Soviet Union. Ancient History.
Sure they are.
We didn't storm in there. We didn't bomb them. We have held back from helping them.
Okay, so now that I better understand what you're getting at it still doesn't make sense, given the context of the conversation.
You implied the Iranians were asking for our help in feeing them from tyranny or whatever.
I said that they just wanted a fair election, and referenced our own difficulties from 2000 to demonstrate that they don't want military assistance just because they election was obviously rigged.
Your response was to say we haven't gone in there and done anything.
Your response makes no sense because I wasn't saying we had gone in there, I was saying they don't want us to.
bhkad,
Do you really think that a US led effort to foment revolution in Iran would have positive results? I agree that there is nothing good about the Iranian government and I have a hard time envisioning a revolution or other upheaval that would not have positive benefits both for the Iranian and international communities. I think we can agree, however, that a failed attempt at serious intervention would have severe negative consequences, particularly given the history of US intervention into Iran.
Unless you disagree with some of the above, the question of whether US intervention is a good thing or not depends on whether or not one thinks the US would achieve success. Our current President is unable to achieve any noticable progress on healthcare, which is shaping up to be the defining issue of his first term, or Guantanamo Bay, which he has been working on since day one. I have little faith in Obama's ability to successfully intervene in internal Iranian affairs given his apparent impotence domestically. I'm curious to know where you disagree. Do you think that an Obama-led attempt at direct intervention would be successful or do you think that the consequences of failure are less important than other positive effect that would be gained from intervention?
Such pedantry bores me. Must I explain everything to you?
No, but you must make sense within the context of the discussion.
Now, that said, can you actually produce evidence of your earlier claim, or are you just dancing around the fact that you have none?
I hope we're not involved.
I'm getting sick and tired of the United States being the driving force behind coups, resistance groups and nation-building exercises that ultimately blow up in our faces.
TED,
Reminding you all that the Unites States is directly responsible for the state of Iran's government, which used to be the kind of democracy we claim we love.
Iran's government is what it is because of our prior interference.
:roll:
Seriously, what are the US needs in Iran?
Is it in Iran's interests?
Sorry, I thought you were joking.
And how regime change in Iran will benefit your country?
Less of our soldiers will die in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't see you ****ing hypocrites complaining about the innumerable acts of war which Iran has perpetrated against the U.S. and Israel now do I?
Some of you fail to recognize the inherent evil of Iran's government. They spread terrorism throughout the world and are bent on expanding their Islamic Revolution.
This is not a nice goal.
"The criminals will soon get the response for their anti-human crimes"
1. We don't control Iraqi oil today, Iraq does.
2. Why are we the guarantor of security in the ME?
We need them to stop causing the deaths of our soldiers and those of our allies. .