• 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

Welcome to WWIII....
 
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.
 
Agnapostate said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.

Agnapostate said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.

Agnapostate said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure they are.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Your reply makes absolutely no sense, but then again I shouldn't be surprised...
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be surprised because a clear cut answer makes no sense to you?
 
Australianlibertarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bhkad said:
You shouldn't be surprised because a clear cut answer makes no sense to you?
Click to expand...

Um, no, I said I shouldn't be surprised that your answer makes no sense period. I shall recap:

bhkad said:
Individuals ask us to help them breathe free. Individuals who have no voice in their own government.
Click to expand...

TacticalEvilDan said:
Source please, specifically with reference to to Iran?
Click to expand...

bhkad said:
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.
Click to expand...

TacticalEvilDan said:
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...
Click to expand...

... and now, for your follow-up:

bhkad said:
We haven't done anything.
Click to expand...

If you would explain to me how that makes any sense at all, I'd be delighted, but I don't think you can.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

We haven't done anything.
Click to expand...

We didn't storm in there. We didn't bomb them. We have held back from helping them.
 
reefedjib said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the U.S supporting secular, pluralist or anti-theocracy movements. I just feel that we should be careful not to support the flip side of the same coin.
 
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?
 
reefedjib said:
I never said that there was any connection, only that you always cast scenarios in the world in terms of your communist lense.
Click to expand...

Communism is an economic system, and I usually "cast scenarios in the world" in terms of my libertarian lens, particularly in this area.

reefedjib said:
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.
Click to expand...

That may be the case, but others see negative consequences to petty nationalism and oppose it accordingly. That seems to be a consistent and justifiable position.

reefedjib said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is, and more importantly, there's been no observable benefit to the anti-democratic and authoritarian international policies of U.S. political regimes either for the citizens of the U.S. themselves or for the populations directly affected, while there's been a significant number of negative consequences.

reefedjib said:
Sure they are.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. As nationality does not alter one's ability to function as a rational moral agent and experience happiness and suffering to the same degree as other rational moral agents, it's not useful in determining the moral status of actions committed that affect the happiness or suffering of such persons.
 
bhkad said:
We didn't storm in there. We didn't bomb them. We have held back from helping them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Such pedantry bores me. Must I explain everything to you?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I don't.
 
bhkad said:
Such pedantry bores me. Must I explain everything to you?
Click to expand...

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?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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?
Click to expand...

Everything I stated is clear enough for most to understand. Go over everything again in your painstaking fashion and you won't have any questions.

If you still are unclear let me know and I promise I won't belittle you but will do my best to enlighten you.

I promise.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sick and tired of the Iranians using the Quds forces to train, arm, and fund Hezbollah, Sadre Army, AQI, and the Taliban. You reap what you sew.

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.
Click to expand...

Um no that would be the religious fundamentalists, they had a far bigger roll to play in overthrowing the tyrant Mossadeq than did the U.S., in fact the only reason why the Constitutional monarch Pahlavi was overthrown is because he took the education system out of the hands of the clerical power elite.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Iran's government is what it is because of our prior interference.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Bull****, the U.S. has nothing to do with the religious fundamentalists that have populated Iran since it was conquered by the Caliphate. What does Mossadeq being overthrown have to do with Pahlavi being overthrown and religious fundamentalists coming to power? The Mullahs were instrumental in the overthrow of the tyrant Mossadeq in the first place.
 
Elena said:
Seriously, what are the US needs in Iran?
Click to expand...

We need them to stop causing the deaths of our soldiers and those of our allies. And if that need is not fullfilled we will exterminate those responsible to the last IE the revolutionary guard' Quds forces, using the same tactics as they are using against us IE the funding. training and arming of rebel organizations; such as, the MEK.
 
Elena said:
Sorry, I thought you were joking.

And how regime change in Iran will benefit your country?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Agent Ferris said:
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?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly less of our soldiers would have died if Bush would have fought the right battles in the right place. If Iran has committed so many acts of war against the US and Israel then why didn't Bush and Cheney along with the Israelies do the job that you feel that they should have been doing? But never did.

Why not?
 
Last edited:
bhkad said:
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.
Click to expand...

"The criminals will soon get the response for their anti-human crimes"
Click to expand...

President Ahmadinejad vows revenge, meanwhile the Iranian government is scheduled to execute 7 members of the national Baha'i leadership in Iran for ridiculing Islam. Sharia or Islamic Law implemented in Iran consistently violates international law, humanitarian rights and equal rights for homosexuals and women. Islam is a religion amply determined to conquer the world through fear, coercion and violence.
 
reefedjib said:
1. We don't control Iraqi oil today, Iraq does.


2. Why are we the guarantor of security in the ME?
Click to expand...

1. ... and you control Iraq. :lol:

2. Who told you that you are? :shock:

I will correct the link later.

So why does the US need to control ME and Caspian oil and gas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom