NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally I think that Iran is a bit dodgier these day, while America keeps on being baited by their new leader there is no hope for a peaceful solution. There are other more pressing issues that need resloving that could be solved a hell of a lot easier. Here is my prefernce, but I'm sure you have your own:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773876.stm

Personally I think that Iran is a bit dodgier these day, while America keeps on being baited by their new leader there is no hope for a peaceful solution. There are other more pressing issues that need resloving that could be solved a hell of a lot easier. Here is my prefernce, but I'm sure you have your own:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773876.stm


I'm at a little bit of a loss to understand what it is that you are asking for. What do you think the US government should be doing about this?

Are you asking that the US goes in and overthrows the Zimbabwe government and returns the farms to the original owners so that they start growing enough wheat again?

I'm at a little bit of a loss to understand what it is that you are asking for. What do you think the US government should be doing about this?
Are you asking that the US goes in and overthrows the Zimbabwe government and returns the farms to the original owners so that they start growing enough wheat again?

All I am saying is:
1. America at the moment dominate the global agenda
2. America's saber rattling only gives Iran, North Korea, Venezuela more power
3. There are plenty of smaller problems that can be resolved if the US, more than anyone else, takes the lead
4. America is desperately in need of allies, because it has pissed off its old ones.

As for Zimbabwe, almost every policy of the ZANU (PF) government has a ligitmate source, but the govenrment chooses the worst possible solution in order to break desent. I don't want the land returned to white farmers, I want the process to be fair on all Zimbabweans, including us whites urbanites.

Zimbabwe can be solved by the US offering some small incentives for a reconciliation if Mugabe and a few (not the full set) ministers are removed from the scene.

All I am saying is:
1. America at the moment dominate the global agenda
2. America's saber rattling only gives Iran, North Korea, Venezuela more power
3. There are plenty of smaller problems that can be resolved if the US, more than anyone else, takes the lead.

Man, sometimes a person can make too much sense! :eek:

Man, sometimes a person can make too much sense! :eek:

?is that a compliment or insult?

I disagree entirely, it's much easier to keep a potential nuclear threat in check than it is to solve -any- problem on the forsaken continent of Africa. Especially with nations like Israel threatening actual pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities should they feel threatened enough.

Ignoring one of the seemingly infinite conflicts in Africa for one that may actually impact the world only makes sense. Unless you feel safer with nations like Iran and North Korea holding ballistic missiles, then by all means...

I disagree entirely, it's much easier to keep a potential nuclear threat in check than it is to solve -any- problem on the forsaken continent of Africa. Especially with nations like Israel threatening actual pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities should they feel threatened enough.

Ignoring one of the seemingly infinite conflicts in Africa for one that may actually impact the world only makes sense. Unless you feel safer with nations like Iran and North Korea holding ballistic missiles, then by all means...

That is what was said by American governments of Middle Eastern conflicts before oil was found, of European conflicts before they spread accross the globe and were a threat to American trading. Iran and North Korea would not be inclined towards having Nukes if the the West hadn't supported the Shar or undermined the UN from the get go. Iran and NK demonstrate what happens when small problems that require some outside "guidance" are left to fester... Honestly, I would have felt safer if American sabber rattling hadn't given the Iranian election to the hardlines, I would have felt safer if the money spent by the American government on bribing Iraqi generals in 2003 not to fight the invading forces had been spent on helping the Kurds and Shites in 1991 to form a reasonable resistance force, I'd felt happier had the US and Britain not stopped funding the Mujahudine in Afganistan once the Red Army was sent back to mother Russia. There are plenty of things that would make me feel safer, as a Zimbabwean and an African I find the cultural racism of the West, throughing all Africans into the same mired pot with Amin and Mobuto disturbing and saddening.

That is what was said by American governments of Middle Eastern conflicts before oil was found, of European conflicts before they spread accross the globe and were a threat to American trading. Iran and North Korea would not be inclined towards having Nukes if the the West hadn't supported the Shar or undermined the UN from the get go. Iran and NK demonstrate what happens when small problems that require some outside "guidance" are left to fester... Honestly, I would have felt safer if American sabber rattling hadn't given the Iranian election to the hardlines, I would have felt safer if the money spent by the American government on bribing Iraqi generals in 2003 not to fight the invading forces had been spent on helping the Kurds and Shites in 1991 to form a reasonable resistance force, I'd felt happier had the US and Britain not stopped funding the Mujahudine in Afganistan once the Red Army was sent back to mother Russia. There are plenty of things that would make me feel safer, as a Zimbabwean and an African I find the cultural racism of the West, throughing all Africans into the same mired pot with Amin and Mobuto disturbing and saddening.

Don't blame the US for the problems in Africa, blame Britain and the rest of Europe for imperialism in the 1700s and 1800s for drawing their own blind borders all over the map. All those things, all those pay-offs and such in the Middle East by Western governments had substantial reasoning behind them if you actually research it from those countries points of view. As idiotic as they may seem from your viewpoint, each was a sound decision on that country's behalf in its own right.

Despite our past "mistakes", we can't take those back, we need to deal with problems like Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea now, because of their potential threat to current world powers. Who's going to help you if Washington D.C. or London were to become a crater? And you can't leave the growing problem with China out either. The conflict over Taiwan is far more a threat to us both than something small in Africa that should be left to more humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the UN. The US Government does what it can, but right now, as the sole superpower in the world, we have an -obligation- to use our power to police and protect. Nuclear deterrence is our first priority because we're the only ones equipped to handle it on a global scale. I'm sorry that you feel the way you do about the "West", but civil wars, disease, famine, poverty, etc. All that stuff that seems to run so rampant across Africa, pails in comparison to the idea of someone as radical as the Ayatollah Khomeini or Kim Jong (mentally) Il getting ahold of a nuclear weapon.

are you suggesting aid of some sort?

subsidizing countries run by idiots pnly fuels idiocy. the people there are better off with mugabe broke then supported by the world.

besides, iran poses much more of a problem for the US then zimbabwe does.

Iran is not going to attack anybody. Doesn't anyone see echoes of Iraq here? I know I do, but maybe that's because I've been reading Noam Chomsky.

I don't know about you, but I'm VERY skeptical about nuclear weapons claims because I believe that they are propaganda after what the government told us about Iraq. WMD in Iraq? Not even close. Saddam-Osama tie? Completely made-up. End of combat operations in May 2003? Hah, funny. Fighting terrorism? More like increasing it. Spreading democracy? More like spreading chaos, anarchy, and religious hatred.

Let Iran have their damn missles for all I care. It would be better than taking action the same way we did with Iraq. I mean, Russia definitely had nuclear warheads for over 40 years, yet we survived. You're telling me that some crappy rogue nation which probably doesn't even have the ability to mail a letter across the country is going to be able to manufacture a nuclear bomb, design a missle, and somehow hit the U.S. from across the world? I doubt it.

Iran is not going to attack anybody. Doesn't anyone see echoes of Iraq here? I know I do, but maybe that's because I've been reading Noam Chomsky.

I don't know about you, but I'm VERY skeptical about nuclear weapons claims because I believe that they are propaganda after what the government told us about Iraq. WMD in Iraq? Not even close. Saddam-Osama tie? Completely made-up. End of combat operations in May 2003? Hah, funny. Fighting terrorism? More like increasing it. Spreading democracy? More like spreading chaos, anarchy, and religious hatred.

Let Iran have their damn missles for all I care. It would be better than taking action the same way we did with Iraq. I mean, Russia definitely had nuclear warheads for over 40 years, yet we survived. You're telling me that some crappy rogue nation which probably doesn't even have the ability to mail a letter across the country is going to be able to manufacture a nuclear bomb, design a missle, and somehow hit the U.S. from across the world? I doubt it.

First of all, Noam Chomsky is full of more sh*t than an overfed cow. And if you don't think they're trying to get weapons, watch the freakin' news. Iran is openly seeking help in -and- building it's own enrichment plants, and if you believe all that crap they say about only wanting it for energy than you deserve to be in Israel or Europe when the mushroom cloud looms. As for Iraq, that's not something you can argue now anyway, the past is the past. We invaded, get over it. The people of Iraq are better off without Saddam, regardless of their current condition. So what if it looks bleak, I've got an epiphany for you... Democracy doesn't take hold over night!

We'll be in Iraq for a -long- time to come, don't get your hopes up about our troops coming home, they have a job to do, and Democracy for -us- the first time took about a century to be fully established. I should know, I'm in the Navy and may end up there some day. Like I said earlier, we have an obligation to use our power to make sure these rogue nations don't end up making the same mistakes nations like -ours- did when we were in our infancy, and we sure as hell don't need them creating nukes...

And sure Russia had nukes for 40 years, but then again you'd be hard-pressed to find a leader in the former USSR -half- as crazy as Kim Jong Il or as fundamentalist and Anti-west as the Ayatollah.

The people of Iraq are better off without Saddam, regardless of their current condition.

I advise reading your posts before you post them. Transparent nonsense like this serves no purpose. Since "better off" is relative statement, it obviously references their current condition, and if their current condition is in fact worse than it was under Hussein, then it is false that they are "better off."

So what if it looks bleak, I've got an epiphany for you... Democracy doesn't take hold over night!

Since democracy isn't taking hold in Iraq at all, the relevance of that statement is questionable. Democracy is more than elections; it requires meaningful elections with meaningful choices, and then a government that actually can implement policy. The choice between a number of reactionary sectarian parties is not "democratic," especially not when a large portion of the real power in the country is held by an occupying power doing its best to assure its continued domination.

I advise reading your posts before you post them. Transparent nonsense like this serves no purpose. Since "better off" is relative statement, it obviously references their current condition, and if their current condition is in fact worse than it was under Hussein, then it is false that they are "better off."

Oh, but I disagree. Their current condition is much "better off" than when Saddam was in power. Unless perhaps you'd personally prefer your own family members disappearing in the middle of the night or day, to say... occupying soldiers actually making an effort to protect you instead of shoot you for amusement.

Since democracy isn't taking hold in Iraq at all, the relevance of that statement is questionable. Democracy is more than elections; it requires meaningful elections with meaningful choices, and then a government that actually can implement policy. The choice between a number of reactionary sectarian parties is not "democratic," especially not when a large portion of the real power in the country is held by an occupying power doing its best to assure its continued domination.

Exactly... why did you even bother to mention all that? I managed to say it in my quote already... Elections are far from Democracy, it takes much more, which is precisely why we'll stay in Iraq for some time to come. Especially in light of recent events such as the bombing of the Mosque. It's only prudent, nay, necessary! to police a country in such an unstable condition until they're established enough of a democratic foothold in their own government to protect themselves. Just ask the Chinese which part of capturing Taiwan would be more difficult, invasion or occupation and establishing a communist regime.

Oh, but I disagree. Their current condition is much "better off" than when Saddam was in power. Unless perhaps you'd personally prefer your own family members disappearing in the middle of the night or day, to say... occupying soldiers actually making an effort to protect you instead of shoot you for amusement.

John Negroponte's efforts seem to be paying off, though not precisely as intended, from what I can tell.

Baghdad official who exposed executions flees (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1721366,00.html)

Exactly... why did you even bother to mention all that? I managed to say it in my quote already... Elections are far from Democracy, it takes much more, which is precisely why we'll stay in Iraq for some time to come. Especially in light of recent events such as the bombing of the Mosque. It's only prudent, nay, necessary! to police a country in such an unstable condition until they're established enough of a democratic foothold in their own government to protect themselves. Just ask the Chinese which part of capturing Taiwan would be more difficult, invasion or occupation and establishing a communist regime.

The US is not interested in democracy in Iraq. Democracy in Iraq would mean a government that would put the interests of the Iraqi people before the interests of the elites in Washington, and as elsewhere such independence is unacceptable.

They do not seem to be getting their wish of properly establishing a puppet regime, though; my inclination is to believe that the original plan to play the Shi'ite leadership against the Sunnis floundered with the ties of the government to Iran, which explains the current belligerence towards that country and the cooling of relations between the intended puppets and the occupying authorities.

The purpose of the thread was for people to show what issues they thought would be ignored while the US follows its self defeating anti-iranian policies. If you want my opinion - which some of you won't but hey "bit me", the US needs someone to blame for the debacle in Iraq, true, Iran probably is helping insergants (though I would doubt al Quaeda).

?is that a compliment or insult?

A compliment. :)

A compliment. :)
Many thanks:) :D :)

Don't forget Afghanistan.

Don't forget Afghanistan.

Yes, thats another thing, leaving a job half done to rush off. No one could possibly blame America for invading Afganistan when it did, but where is the follow up?

Yes, thats another thing, leaving a job half done to rush off. No one could possibly blame America for invading Afganistan when it did, but where is the follow up?

The job is not half done if the US has it's oil. The coalition reasons for invading Afghanistan were bloody flimsy; the UK could've invaded Ireland for similar terrorist harbouring, how would that have gone down?

The job is not half done if the US has it's oil. The coalition reasons for invading Afghanistan were bloody flimsy; the UK could've invaded Ireland for similar terrorist harbouring, how would that have gone down?

Northern Ireland was part of Britain, so couldn't have been invaded by Britain, Though the Paratrooper Regiment and the Gurkahs were based their to keep the Irish in line. Southern Ireland, from time to time, helped the British against the IRA.

Afganistan's oil syply is negligable

Northern Ireland was part of Britain, so couldn't have been invaded by Britain, Though the Paratrooper Regiment and the Gurkahs were based their to keep the Irish in line. Southern Ireland, from time to time, helped the British against the IRA.

Afganistan's oil syply is negligable

Afghanistan is ideally placed for oil pipelines. The US were refused permission for these not too long before they invaded.

The IRA sought refuge among the civilian population as did AQ

Afghanistan is ideally placed for oil pipelines. The US were refused permission for these not too long before they invaded.

The IRA sought refuge among the civilian population as did AQ

IRA first, countries do not, I repeat, do not invade themselves..... The policing action in NI is nothing whatsoever to do with chasing AQ and shouldn't be used as a referance.

Pipelines through Afganistan.... The Taliban agreed to the pipe lines! Lashing out at the Taliban regime was perfectly understandable hence the popular global support throughout the world, even Yasser Arafat and Robert Mugabe said it was justifiable! The problem with Afganistan is it has been tarnished by both the dodgy behaviour of American Soldiers and, more importantly, the invasion of Iraq on flimsy grounds. none of which asnwers the question I asked, are there not better things for the world to be doing than sabber rattling against Iran and thereby making things worse and only ferther ligitimising the nuclear testing process?

2. America's saber rattling only gives Iran, North Korea, Venezuela more powerWhy is Venezuela put in the same sentence with these two?

Why is Venezuela put in the same sentence with these two?

Because everytime a US official or high ranking individual rants on about Chavez they make him stronger, just as everytime they rant on about Iran they make Iran stronger!

Because everytime a US official or high ranking individual rants on about Chavez they make him stronger, just as everytime they rant on about Iran they make Iran stronger!Yes, but so what if they make Chavez stronger?

Yes, but so what if they make Chavez stronger?

I wasn't saying that HC is some evil despot, all I was saying is America doesn't like Chavez, but insulting does not undermine him in anyway, in fact it makes him stronger and is therefore the policy is self-defeating. If America paid greater attention to other problems they would stop fueling the flames.

I wasn't saying that HC is some evil despot, all I was saying is America doesn't like Chavez, but insulting does not undermine him in anyway, in fact it makes him stronger and is therefore the policy is self-defeating. If America paid greater attention to other problems they would stop fueling the flames.Ohh, okay. ;) I get you now.

Anyway, my list of problems the U.S. should do:
Pay more attention to North Korea
Withdraw from the WTO
Drop the idiotic contraception bans in places in Africa
Criticize Nigeria for possibly banning gay sex and homosexual relationships
Criticize Mugabe and his lunatic policies

IRA first, countries do not, I repeat, do not invade themselves..... The policing action in NI is nothing whatsoever to do with chasing AQ and shouldn't be used as a referance.

My analogy isn't particularly very good I know, however, the general picture is there: invading a country for the acts of a small minority is logically unsound and abhorrent. That is, how many bloody civilians (or non-target individuals) are worth 1 of these terrorists (you are not assured of getting them in this way anyway)? You can see what I'm trying to say here, I hope?

The purpose of the thread was for people to show what issues they thought would be ignored while the US follows its self defeating anti-iranian policies. If you want my opinion - which some of you won't but hey "bit me", the US needs someone to blame for the debacle in Iraq, true, Iran probably is helping insergants (though I would doubt al Quaeda).

No, it probably isn't. The ironic thing is that Iran is backing exactly the same people the US is backing, though both are trying to bring that faction over to their side.

My very tentative guess is that the US is currently trying to force Iran to do one of two things:

1. Overplay its cards, thus provoking a violent US response that removes them from the picture;
2. Back down, thus allowing the US to solify its control over Iraq and weaken a notable rival.

The Iranian leadership seems to understand this, and is carefully avoiding doing either.