NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone else think this whole Iran thing is a load of bullsh*t? I mean, come on, they have the right to make uranium for nuclear power plants -- we certainly do, and no one tells us we cant cause they think we'll nuke them. And even if they do want to build nuclear weapons, we don't have a right to get involved. Remember the cold war, anyone? No one threatened to invade us if we didn't stop building nukes.
I think it's a lot of bush sh*t as an excuse to start another oil war.
Well, not really, i don't think even bush is that stupid, but he surprises me every day. Threatening to launch missiles at their uranium-enrichment places is a new realm of idiocy.

Does anyone else think this whole Iran thing is a load of bullsh*t? I mean, come on, they have the right to make uranium for nuclear power plants -- we certainly do, and no one tells us we cant cause they think we'll nuke them. And even if they do want to build nuclear weapons, we don't have a right to get involved. Remember the cold war, anyone? No one threatened to invade us if we didn't stop building nukes.
I think it's a lot of bush sh*t as an excuse to start another oil war.
Well, not really, i don't think even bush is that stupid, but he surprises me every day. Threatening to launch missiles at their uranium-enrichment places is a new realm of idiocy.


It seems like the rest of the nuclear powers of the world are against them having the technology and capability as well, not just the US and Presdient Bush.

And-do you want Iran to be in a position where they have a nuclear detterent against us or our allies?
Think about it.

And-do you want Iran to be in a position where they have a nuclear detterent against us or our allies?
Think about it.
"An armed society is a polite society." :p

And-do you want Iran to be in a position where they have a nuclear detterent against us or our allies?
Think about it.

They wouldn't be stupid enough to launch nukes at the U.S. even if they could build them. The only two people stupid enough to launch nukes are Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.

Of course they have the right to seek Nuclear power, but when they start saying that Israel is going to get wiped off the face of the planet. And start making threats....you kind of wonder what they are really up to

They wouldn't be stupid enough to launch nukes at the U.S. even if they could build them. The only two people stupid enough to launch nukes are Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.

They don't necessarily have to launch them themselves, rather, they could make them and sell them to the highest bidder, regardless of if it's a radical islamic terrorist or Mr. Rogers.

They wouldn't be stupid enough to launch nukes at the U.S. even if they could build them. The only two people stupid enough to launch nukes are Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.

I doubt they would ever have the launch capability to ever reach the United States. What they MAY do is hand off a nuclear weapon to terrorists for them to carry over to use. But hey, maybe they are honest and only want to build energy plants and not make weapons. :rolleyes:

Of course they have the right to seek Nuclear power, but when they start saying that Israel is going to get wiped off the face of the planet. And start making threats....you kind of wonder what they are really up to
Puberty? It's just a phase, man. :p

I really hope america invades iran simply for the fun of watching them lose very badly (iran is really really well armed (best of european and russian tech) also the fact that no one else (maybe israel) would be stupid enough to go in with them (though blair might knowing his past actions))

Of course they have the right to seek Nuclear power, but when they start saying that Israel is going to get wiped off the face of the planet. And start making threats....you kind of wonder what they are really up to

But have they said that isreal is going to get wiped off the face of the planet? No! Unless i've been really out of it for the last three weeks.

Now i do agree that it's not exactly a good thing to have an unstable middle east country with nuclear capabilities, but i think it's an even worse idea to try to go in and invade and anger the entire middle east and muslim population.

They wouldn't be stupid enough to launch nukes at the U.S. even if they could build them. The only two people stupid enough to launch nukes are Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.
What if they don't use nukes, but they keep doing crap like the Khobar towers bombing and placing Hezbollah cells in the US, like the one found in North Carolina? Then they can use their nuclear status to get away with that kind of terrorism against the US.

Personally I think they need to be stopped from aquiring nuclear weapons, but it's not that big of a priority. They're pretty far from getting nukes, and we've got plenty of time to eliminate the threat.

They don't necessarily have to launch them themselves, rather, they could make them and sell them to the highest bidder, regardless of if it's a radical islamic terrorist or Mr. Rogers.

this is true. but i still think all they want is some electricity and we can't stop them.

They wouldn't be stupid enough to launch nukes at the U.S. even if they could build them. The only two people stupid enough to launch nukes are Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.


Ok then, now that you've qualified yourself....

I really hope america invades iran simply for the fun of watching them lose very badly (iran is really really well armed (best of european and russian tech) also the fact that no one else (maybe israel) would be stupid enough to go in with them (though blair might knowing his past actions))


Yeah!! Another scholar!

But have they said that isreal is going to get wiped off the face of the planet? No! Unless i've been really out of it for the last three weeks.


ACHTUNG! HALT!

You've really been out of it for the last three months!

News!

Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

News!

U.N. finds out Iran has been getting blueprints to build nuclear weapons off the black market.

New!

We landed on the moon.





Jesus, what rock do you live under? North Dakota?

ACHTUNG! HALT!

You've really been out of it for the last three months!

News!

Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map.



Oops. I look stupid now, don't I. :headbang:
Meh.

this is true. but i still think all they want is some electricity and we can't stop them.


Its ok to be naive. Odd that an oil rich country just wants to make electricty. Most other countries make it with oil.

Yes- of course we can stop them.

Listen to this guy (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2512891928977223670&q=Scott+Ritter&pl=true).

this is true. but i still think all they want is some electricity and we can't stop them.

Nuclear power isn't the only way to get electricity. We went quite a while without even knowing about nuclear power while having electricity.

But, at least according to "that guy," Iran is perfectly allowed to do what they're doing under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

But have they said that isreal is going to get wiped off the face of the planet? No! Unless i've been really out of it for the last three weeks.

Yes actually. It is, and has been for some time, the official position of Iran that Israel should be destroyed and the "Zionist threat to the world" eliminated.

While mutually assured destruction can be argued as having kept the world safe in the past (such as preventing a war between NATO and the USSR), the MAD strategy doesn’t do so well when you start talking about suicide bombers. People who have a religious orgasm at the thought of dying in the name of Allah are not the safest people to have low-yield thermonuclear weapons.

There is one sneaky suspicion I have though… personally, I could see a great reason for Iran continuing this confrontational stance. Were I running Iran I would probably be doing the same thing. In fact, I would see just how long I could drag out these games…

Think about it. Iran could be getting serious payment from every oil-producing nation in the world. So long as it keeps this hostile stance the price of oil is way high – and every producer is raking in the cash. It could be paying off the Russians and Chinese with a little oil here and there to make sure nothing actually happens at the security counsel. Every producer could be kicking a few sheckles into Iran’s coffers, two security counsels make sure the status quo is kept, and all oil producers make serious bank.

It’s bloody brilliant.

Oops. I look stupid now, don't I. :headbang:
Meh.

No worries, bro.

Better to admit your mistake, read up on it and come back stronger, than deny it. :)

Although the U.S makes a lot of talk, there's a decent chance we won't need to do anything. Remember when the French gave Iraq a nucleor reactor or something along those lines? Israel launched an airstrike and obliterated it. We watched and were happy.

It seems to me that the Iranian pres is just a little insane to me. After some of the speaches that he has made this year, out lining the destruction of the US, Israel, and Europe in that order, it seems that his advisors are just trying to keep him from doing something too provocative right now.

I've read partial transcripts, and I think that he thinks he could be the next Caliph, who unites the muslim world.

But to the hate america crowd, there are people who can't wait to see America burn, and the enemy. The amount of support that this nut job gets from people he would gladly kill is scary.

just nuke them and get it over with quick clean and easy just by a push of a button. :sniper:

just nuke them and get it over with quick clean and easy just by a push of a button. :sniper:

Clean. Hah. Heard of nuclear fallout?

I don't personally like the idea of Iran getting nukes, because as soon as a country gets nuclear weapons it becomes untouchable.

I just don't think an anti-semetic dictatorship should get Nukes. Shame we won't stop them.

Although the U.S makes a lot of talk, there's a decent chance we won't need to do anything. Remember when the French gave Iraq a nucleor reactor or something along those lines? Israel launched an airstrike and obliterated it. We watched and were happy.
Actually you went apeshit and withdrew their pocket money for the year, because Iraq was your ally. Learn your own history. :rolleyes:

They wouldn't be stupid enough to launch nukes at the U.S. even if they could build them. The only two people stupid enough to launch nukes are Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.

actually if bin laden used a nuke against the US itwould probably be a good move for him since the US can't really retaliate against any single nation to get him

actually if bin laden used a nuke against the US it would probably be a good move for him since the US can't really retaliate against any single nation to get him

Quadruple post, nice.

Iran won't be a problem. Sure Iran has made threats againsts Israel, but threats are just that - threats and not actions. Iran is pushing the boundaries to see how much it can get away with.

Has Iran restricted its oil production during a time when oil prices are already record breakingly high to pressure the west into submission? No.

Sure Iran's president is a bit of an odd ball, but so far he's attacked 3 less countries than Blair has.

Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and Bush is still considering the option of a nuclear strike against Iran. Swings and roundabouts people.

Iran's threats are also in line with that of a democratically elected head of governemnt/state. They are issued more for the ears of the Iran's citizens than the international community.

Bush -
"Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

"The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got."

Bush makes a huge fuss about combating 'terrorists', but has he actually done anything of any significance? No. He's attacked two regimes that never stood a chance against the US military, and found approximately zero terrorists. Iran's President will make many threats against Israel, but will never do anything to damage their national interest. ie attack Israel, because Israel has nuclear weapons.

In summary - Iran is NOT a real threat, but a socially constructed threat, just as the Soviet Union was (remember those propaganda films with a Soviet soldier pouring red paint over a globe?).

A cookie for anyone who guess the ideology to which I currently most sympathetic.

A cookie for anyone who guess the ideology to which I currently most sympathetic.

Communism?

A cookie for anyone who guess the ideology to which I currently most sympathetic.

Anti-Bush Leftisism?

Anyway your wrong. We have captured and killed loads of terrorists.

I don't personally like the idea of Iran getting nukes, because as soon as a country gets nuclear weapons it becomes untouchable.

I just don't think an anti-semetic dictatorship should get Nukes. Shame we won't stop them.What's wrong with Iran becoming untouchable? It's a democracy with free and fair elections. Which is precisely what the Coalition is trying to set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Communism?I'll give you a hint. It's comprised of two words. Both of which have derivatives contained within the summary sentence.

Does anyone else think this whole Iran thing is a load of bullsh*t? I mean, come on, they have the right to make uranium for nuclear power plants -- we certainly do, and no one tells us we cant cause they think we'll nuke them. And even if they do want to build nuclear weapons, we don't have a right to get involved. Remember the cold war, anyone? No one threatened to invade us if we didn't stop building nukes.
I think it's a lot of bush sh*t as an excuse to start another oil war.
Well, not really, i don't think even bush is that stupid, but he surprises me every day. Threatening to launch missiles at their uranium-enrichment places is a new realm of idiocy.

Oh I do not mind if they have nuclear power however I mind them having nuclear weapons. If they want to hide their Nuclear power program then that tells me they are actually up to something and by hiding it, they are inviolation of the NPT.

Anti-Bush Leftisism?

Anyway your wrong. We have captured and killed loads of terrorists.You mean the 'terrorists' that were handed over to us by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? You realised the US paid the Northern Alliance for every 'terrorist' they handed over. A pretty heavy incentive to hand over any old bastard who you had been fighting against. Precisely how many convictions have resulted from these mens' detainment at Guantanamo bay? How many terrorist attacks have been averted because of their detainment? Oh.. right... we can't know because that's classified infomation. The terrorist threat is an illusion that has been blown out of proportion. The UK could have saved more lives by investing in epipens to prevent people from dying of bee stings.

They wouldn't be stupid enough to launch nukes at the U.S. even if they could build them. The only two people stupid enough to launch nukes are Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.

No they would just use nukes against Israel and make it look like they didn't do it. Bush though isn't as stupid as people make him out to be.

You mean the 'terrorists' that were handed over to us by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? You realised the US paid the Northern Alliance for every 'terrorist' they handed over. I pretty heavy incentive to hand over any old bastard who you had been fighting against. Precisely how many convictions have resulted from these mens' detainment at Guantanamo bay? How many terrorist attacks have been averted because of their detainment? Oh.. right... we can't know because that's classified infomation. The terrorist threat is an illusion that has been blown out of proportion. The UK could have saved more lives by investing in epipens to prevent people from dying of bee stings.

You forget Iraq. A battlezone where terrorists from all over the middle east are coming to fight American and comp troops.

Also, your an idiot.

The terrorist threat is an illusion?

I really hope america invades iran simply for the fun of watching them lose very badly (iran is really really well armed (best of european and russian tech) also the fact that no one else (maybe israel) would be stupid enough to go in with them (though blair might knowing his past actions))

Now I'm dubios. Iran does not control the High Ground. Their Air Force will not be able to stand up to the might of the US Air Force nor the Naval and Marine fighters either. Their Navy will not be able to keep their waters open. Their army will not be able to move in secret. This does not bode well for them. We don't have to invade. We can hit most anything we want when we want too by air and sea.

We can keep them pinned down.

What's wrong with Iran becoming untouchable? It's a democracy with free and fair elections. Which is precisely what the Coalition is trying to set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Free and fair? HAHAHAHA Oh brother. You're out to lunch if you believe Iran has fair and free elections. Excuse me while I go die of laughter.

The terrorist threat is an illusion that has been blown out of proportion.

Ya know? I do not think that losing 3000 people were an illusion. I do not believe the USS Cole was an illusion. Kobar sure as heck was not an illusion. London bombings were not an illusion, Lebanon was not an illusion, Bali was not an illusion! The only illusion is what is infront of your eyes. I suggest you come down to the real world.

Free and fair? HAHAHAHA Oh brother. You're out to lunch if you believe Iran has fair and free elections. Excuse me while I go die of laughter.Not free and fair by western standards, but free and fair when taken from a wider scope. The candiates are vetted by the government, just as they are in western countries. We just have different specifications as to who is allowed to run. The US doesn't allow people not born in the US to be a candiate for President. Iran doesn't allow candidates who are not Muslim to be a candiate (ok, so it's worse than that, but the point stands).

Listen to this guy (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2512891928977223670&q=Scott+Ritter&pl=true).
All the rest is warmongering and sabre rattling.

Good post!!

Not free and fair by western standards, but free and fair when taken from a wider scope. The candiates are vetted by the government, just as they are in western countries.

Actually, we let the people decide who their candidates are. That is what we call a Primary. The Iranian Government disqualifies those who do not agree with their point of view. Their are always protests because of this. If you bother to listen to the news once in awhile, you'll understand this.

Actually, we let the people decide who their candidates are. That is what we call a Primary. The Iranian Government disqualifies those who do not agree with their point of view. Their are always protests because of this. If you bother to listen to the news once in awhile, you'll understand this.
But if they did that, they'd have one less thing to blame non-leftist leaders, especially Bush, on. Bush is like their sin. They blame everything bad on him.

Ya know? I do not think that losing 3000 people were an illusion. I do not believe the USS Cole was an illusion. Kobar sure as heck was not an illusion. London bombings were not an illusion, Lebanon was not an illusion, Bali was not an illusion! The only illusion is what is infront of your eyes. I suggest you come down to the real world.3,200 people killed out of a possible 500 million (I'm guessing here) over a period of 6 years? That's 1 person killed per 1 million people per year. Conversely the murder rate in the US was 74 people killed per 1 million people in 1996.
http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/gbo/facts.php

It is an illusion that has been blown out of proportion. You really are more likely to die from a bee sting than a terrorist attack.

Whatever Corneliu and Atlantian Isles said, I agree with basically. :p

Actually, we let the people decide who their candidates are. That is what we call a Primary. The Iranian Government disqualifies those who do not agree with their point of view. Their are always protests because of this. If you bother to listen to the news once in awhile, you'll understand this.Is it possible for you to be in situtation where you could vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger as Presidential candiate? No. You decry the unfairness of the Iranian electoral system, but not of the US'?

3,200 people killed out of a possible 500 million (I'm guessing here) over a period of 6 years? That's 1 person killed per 1 million people per year. Conversely the murder rate in the US was 74 people killed per 1 million people in 1996.
http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/gbo/facts.php

It is an illusion that has been blown out of proportion. You really are more likely to die from a bee sting than a terrorist attack.

I'm more likely to die of a lightning strike than a terrorist attack yes but that does not make the threat of terrorism an allusion.

I don't personally like the idea of Iran getting nukes, because as soon as a country gets nuclear weapons it becomes untouchable.

I just don't think an anti-semetic dictatorship should get Nukes. Shame we won't stop them.
Ummm Pakistan is 97% Muslim. They have nukes.

http://www.uh.edu/~sriaz/religion/index.html

If the US attacks Iran, then all bets are off?

Is it possible for you to be in situtation where you could vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger as Presidential candiate? No. You decry the unfairness of the Iranian electoral system, but not of the US'?

That would require a Constitutional Amendment and one will not be forth coming. Besides, I wouldn't support that anyway. However, we do not disqualify candidates based on belief. Iran does.

Whatever Corneliu and Atlantian Isles said, I agree with basically. :p

Hey, bro...I got MSN...whats your name?


Anyway, glad to have you back, you've missed out....We need some more infantry to hold back the storming leftists.:p

Hey, bro...I got MSN...whats your name?


Anyway, glad to have you back, you've missed out....We need some more infantry to hold back the storming leftists.:p
Infantry? I am one of the Commanding Officers :p Anyway, I have sent you a TG with my MSN address...I won't be on for much tonight though.

Hey, bro...I got MSN...whats your name?


Anyway, glad to have you back, you've missed out....We need some more infantry to hold back the storming leftists.:p

I have MSN as well.

I have MSN as well.
What is yours anyway?

What is yours anyway?

sould be in my profile.

That would require a Constitutional Amendment and one will not be forth coming. Besides, I wouldn't support that anyway. However, we do not disqualify candidates based on belief. Iran does.
The US has been interfering in Middle East politics since at least WW 2.

U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: Blood for Oil (http://www.isreview.org/issues/15/blood_for_oil.shtml)

Iran elected a leader that doesn't toe the US line. No surprise that the US wants to control politics in the ME, just look at Iraq.

The US has been interfering in Middle East politics since at least WW 2.

U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: Blood for Oil (http://www.isreview.org/issues/15/blood_for_oil.shtml)

And have I ever denied that? No I haven't so what does that have to do with Iran having free and fair elections? Nothing.

Iran elected a leader that doesn't toe the US line. No surprise that the US wants to control politics in the ME, just look at Iraq.

Actually we just want elections to be free and fair. There is nothing wrong with that.

That would require a Constitutional Amendment and one will not be forth coming. Besides, I wouldn't support that anyway. However, we do not disqualify candidates based on belief. Iran does.So disqualifying someone based on something that have a choice in is worse than disqualifying someone for something they had no choice in?

I'm more likely to die of a lightning strike than a terrorist attack yes but that does not make the threat of terrorism an allusion.Sorry, I didn't mean illusion as in a hallucination, all or nothing idea, but as trick used for deception. People are killed by terrorism, but terrorism does not warrant the attention it currently receives. I see it as an attempt at fear mongering, not only by the terrorists, but by governments who attempt to get away with things that they otherwise would not be able to.

So disqualifying someone based on something that have a choice in is worse than disqualifying someone for something they had no choice in?

Welcome to the United States Constitution. Sometimes it needs to be amended but to allow a foriegnor to run will fly in the face of it.

Sorry, I didn't mean illusion as in a hallucination, all or nothing idea, but as trick used for deception. People are killed by terrorism, but terrorism does not warrant the attention it currently receives. I see it as an attempt at fear mongering, not only by the terrorists, but by governments who attempt to get away with things that they otherwise would not be able to.

Tell that to the UN. Apparently they take it seriously.

sould be in my profile.
K cool, I added you. :)

Welcome to the United States Constitution. Sometimes it needs to be amended but to allow a foriegnor to run will fly in the face of it.And the reasoning behind this is that a foreign born person will not uphold the ideals of the USA. I believe Iran's reasons run along the same lines - a non-muslim will not uphold the ideals of Iran. Neither country trusts its population enough to vote in candidates that will uphold their country's ideals.
Tell that to the UN. Apparently they take it seriously.The UN is nothing but a collection of states and their national interests. Hardly surprising really.

The reason why a nuclear Iran is such concern not to the US but to Europe is the fact that most of the terrorism that happens around the world is funded by Iran. The terrorists are trained by Iran for their missions.
That 1.


2. Iran has repeatedly threatened to wipe Isreal off the map. They've trained people to engage in suicide bombing against Israel.

3. Now Iran is saying that they are going to give nuclear technology to everyone who asks. Not just Venezuela, but mr. Bin Laden too. Do you want Iran to have nuke technology it can give to terrorists?

But I don't think it will come to war.

The reason why a nuclear Iran is such concern not to the US but to Europe is the fact that most of the terrorism that happens around the world is funded by Iran. The terrorists are trained by Iran for their missions.
That 1.


Oh come on, that's almost word for word what bush said about saddam hussein before we went into that humongous swamp. Saddam Hussein funds terrorists, he runs training camps, he has nukes, lets go in and kill 3,000 of our best soldiers for no f**ing reason.
As you can see, I'm a bit bitter.

And the reasoning behind this is that a foreign born person will not uphold the ideals of the USA. I believe Iran's reasons run along the same lines - a non-muslim will not uphold the ideals of Iran. Neither country trusts its population enough to vote in candidates that will uphold their country's ideals.

So how do you explain why reformers are constently cut and the protests that go with those cuts?

The UN is nothing but a collection of states and their national interests. Hardly surprising really.

For once, I agree with you.

Oh come on, that's almost word for word what bush said about saddam hussein before we went into that humongous swamp. Saddam Hussein funds terrorists, he runs training camps, he has nukes, lets go in and kill 3,000 of our best soldiers for no f**ing reason.
As you can see, I'm a bit bitter.
Except that Europe disagreed with US intell findings on Iraq. On Iran, Europe and Israel both agree with US intell assessments. The UN itself has condemned Iran repeatedly in the past for its covert and overt support of terrorists.

It's not just Bush saying Iran supports terror. The rest of the world is saying it too, in fact has been saying before Bush even arrived on the scene. It's common knowledge that Iran is the main supporter of terrorism in the world today. It has been since the 80's.

It's not just Bush saying Iran supports terror. The rest of the world is saying it too, in fact has been saying before Bush even arrived on the scene. It's common knowledge that Iran is the main supporter of terrorism in the world today. It has been since the 80's.

You mean terrorism pretending to be "in name of Islam". The main supporter of terrorism traditionally is the USA with its direct cashpipeline into the pockets of the IRA.

You mean terrorism pretending to be "in name of Islam". The main supporter of terrorism traditionally is the USA with its direct cashpipeline into the pockets of the IRA.No I mean terrorism. Not just terrorism in the name of Islam.
The US has never supported terrorist groups.
The people you claim are terrorists, were freedom fighters fighting to liberate their nation from oppression.
The US did not support the IRA.
You claim the US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world. Your definition of terrorism then must be: any group that dares to use whatever means at its disposal to gain freedom for their people by kicking out foreign dictators, or overthrowing a dictator running their own country and oppressing their own people. To you, they are terrorists. To me they are freedom fighters. To Americans, they are freedom fighters.

Then you Zarqawi, a non Iraqi who has been killing thousands of people in Iraq, far more than have been killed in misguided American bombings. A man who has threatened to eliminate the Iraqi people unless they adopt an Islamic government. A man who just today, was condemned in universal by the people of Iraq as a foriegner and terrorist, and who the Iraqis are asking us to protect them from. That same man, you call him a freedom fighter, or an insurgent. The Iraqis call him a terrorist, the American people call him a terrorist, Israel calls him and his group terrorists, as does Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and a host of other people around the world. I call him and all who follow him, terrorists. That is all they are. They are not freedom fighters. They illegally entered Iraq to use violence and threats of death squads to try and force Iraqis to adopt their version of Islamic government. Which means Sunni death squads killing off anyone who is not Sunni.

You want us out of Iraq, so Zarqawi can have his way. The Iraqis don't agree with you.

Any group that fights against a nondemocratic government, without targeting civilians, is a freedom fighter that deserves American support.

You mean terrorism pretending to be "in name of Islam".

In the name of islam my ass. The koran supports that shit.

In the name of islam my ass. The koran supports that shit.

The Koran does not support terrorism.

Does anyone else think this whole Iran thing is a load of bullsh*t? I mean, come on, they have the right to make uranium for nuclear power plants -- we certainly do, and no one tells us we cant cause they think we'll nuke them. And even if they do want to build nuclear weapons, we don't have a right to get involved. Remember the cold war, anyone? No one threatened to invade us if we didn't stop building nukes.
I think it's a lot of bush sh*t as an excuse to start another oil war.
Well, not really, i don't think even bush is that stupid, but he surprises me every day. Threatening to launch missiles at their uranium-enrichment places is a new realm of idiocy.
You are sooo wrong it's dangerous. Think of Iran having nukes as a deranged child having a loaded gun and you won't be far wrong.

No I mean terrorism. Not just terrorism in the name of Islam.
The US has never supported terrorist groups. The people you claim are terrorists, were freedom fighters fighting to liberate their nation from oppression.
The US did not support the IRA.

Explain Contra to me then.
Explain Muhjadjin.
Explain coup in latin america.

The US has supported terrorism for a long time. It's just that they don't support Islamic terrorism.

The rest of your post is trying to explain what is a freedom fighter and what is a terrorist when all you had to say is
"Those that fight for us are freedom fighters, those who fight against us are terrorists."

And, yes, the US has supported the IRA.

In the name of islam my ass. The koran supports that shit.
Source please?

I'll take the word of Imans that say you are full of shit over yours anyday. Why? They actually studied this shit.

And, yes, the US has supported the IRA.
No. Some Irish-Americans have supported the IRA.

The Koran does not support terrorism.

That's why we believe in Bush the Koranic man.
Terrorism is the essence of an excuse to make war.
Will Russia advance some nukes to Iran just for fun?

Accidents happen so easely.

Now, we pray for the next asshole to come in the White House, Iran is sad to see brother Bush fading away.

How's this for $!%@ed up. The UN has voted Iran into its committe (or whatever) responsible for helping to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.:eek:
If there is logic in that, I can't really see it.:confused: Reverse pschology won't work in this situation. Iran is basically saying $!%@ you to the rest of the world. :upyours:

I don't know what to think anymore. Survival of the fittest is being circumvented and the stupid aren't being weeded out any longer. :headbang: Maybe the human race should just nuke itself back to the stone age and start over from there. That, or make lawn darts legal again. :D

As for Iran. I say that to be consistent in your ideology, you should remove the Israeli nukes. If you're worried about unprovoked attack, Israel has a pretty good record of agression against it's neighbour.

And while we're at it, you should also remove those of Pakistan. They are, after all, a muslim nation that called for war with it's neigbour India and there's some weird things that happens in pakistan, especially near the Kashmir region.

And if we're taking what the Iranian president said about Israel as a threat, then what do we call the "axis of evil"? That's a blatant threat in the same vein. So let's remove the nukes the US has too. After all, they are a war-mongering nation that has just invaded two countries, one of which was an illegal action as far as the the UN is concerned.

So, I agree to stop Iran having nukes as soon as Israel, Pakistan and the US destroy their stock. ;)

No. Some Irish-Americans have supported the IRA.
And the government did nothing to stop them. I don't remember hearing about anybody going to jail for funding the IRA. Do you?

And the government did nothing to stop them. I don't remember hearing about anybody going to jail for funding the IRA. Do you?
That is because suicide bombers are evil, non-suicide bombers are not.

That is because suicide bombers are evil, non-suicide bombers are not.

Really?

2 August 1998 Car bomb exploded in centre of Banbridge, County Down. The bomb resulted in 33 civilians being seriously injured with over £2m of damage caused.

15 August 1998 The Real IRA's single, bloodiest strike in the 30-year history of partisan conflict resulted with the bombing of the shopping district in Omagh. 29 people were killed and hundreds injured when a car packed with 500Ib of explosives detonated at 3.10pm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Irish_Republican_Army

Really?

2 August 1998 Car bomb exploded in centre of Banbridge, County Down. The bomb resulted in 33 civilians being seriously injured with over £2m of damage caused.

15 August 1998 The Real IRA's single, bloodiest strike in the 30-year history of partisan conflict resulted with the bombing of the shopping district in Omagh. 29 people were killed and hundreds injured when a car packed with 500Ib of explosives detonated at 3.10pm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Irish_Republican_Army
Not a suicide bombing. Hence, not evil (not very nice either).

Not a suicide bombing. Hence, not evil (not very nice either).

So are you saying that if somebody blow's up a 747 with a remote bomb they are not evil?

That's why we believe in Bush the Koranic man.
Terrorism is the essence of an excuse to make war.
Will Russia advance some nukes to Iran just for fun?

Accidents happen so easely.

Now, we pray for the next asshole to come in the White House, Iran is sad to see brother Bush fading away.

:confused:

Now can you actually explain your logic here because I think this is illogical.

That is because suicide bombers are evil, non-suicide bombers are not.
Sarcasm :p I like it :D

So are you saying that if somebody blow's up a 747 with a remote bomb they are not evil?
Misguided, perchance. But not evil like the vengeance-driven mother, who after seeing her family killed, goes on a suicide bus tour. That's evil. Especially if she is a muslim.

In the name of islam my ass. The koran supports that shit.
Are you sure? Have you read the koran? I have not therefore I make no assumptions except the fact that I know terrorists claim authority from it. But it does not mean the Koran supports their murderous cause.

That would be like saying the Bible supports people getting wealthy and then snobbing it over those who are less fortunate. Or that the Bible supported the crusades because crusaders claimed to have been given authority by it.

You get my point?

Explain Contra to me then.
Explain Muhjadjin.
Explain coup in latin america.

The US has supported terrorism for a long time. It's just that they don't support Islamic terrorism.

The rest of your post is trying to explain what is a freedom fighter and what is a terrorist when all you had to say is
"Those that fight for us are freedom fighters, those who fight against us are terrorists."

And, yes, the US has supported the IRA.

The Mujahedeen were freedom fighters who rightfully fighting to kick the world domination bent soviets out of their country. We were justified in supporting them. The soviets were bent on imposing a nondemocratic, brutal authoritarian regime.

You contradict yourself. First you said the US supported the Mujahedeen, which you think is a terrorist group cause they opposed soviet and communist aggression against their nation, and then you in the same post, say the US always supports terrorists but not Islamic ones.
Either the Mujahedeen are terrorists or they are freedom fighters. I submit that they were freedom fighters.

Prove it.

Private US citizens giving money to the IRA is not the same as the US government supporting the IRA. In fact, at one point, the US considered the IRA a terrorist organization.

The Mujahedeen were freedom fighters who rightfully fighting to kick the world domination bent soviets out of their country. We were justified in supporting them. The soviets were bent on imposing a nondemocratic, brutal authoritarian regime.

You contradict yourself. First you said the US supported the Mujahedeen, which you think is a terrorist group cause they opposed soviet and communist aggression against their nation, and then you in the same post, say the US always supports terrorists but not Islamic ones.
Either the Mujahedeen are terrorists or they are freedom fighters. I submit that they were freedom fighters.

Prove it.
Fine, I modify my statement:
The US has supported terrorism for a long time. It's just that they don't currentlysupport Islamic terrorism.

Prove that they were freedom fighters. It's as absurd as proving they were terrorists. It all goes to the definition and your definition of freedom fighter is not the same as mine. For example, I don't define those attacking Communism as automatically freedom fighters.

Private US citizens giving money to the IRA is not the same as the US government supporting the IRA. In fact, at one point, the US considered the IRA a terrorist organization.
The US has recieved Sin Feinn diplomats at the white house. The Sin Feinn is the diplomatic arm of the IRA. The White House has had discussion with the IRA. They certainly weren't hindering them in any way.

Of course they have the right to seek Nuclear power, but when they start saying that Israel is going to get wiped off the face of the planet. And start making threats....you kind of wonder what they are really up to

*sighs* Please don't take the "wiping Isreal off the map" thing out of context. The president was talking about how geography will be taught in schools, he wasn't actually talking about annihilating Isreal.

And I would prefer that the world just left them alone. Let them have nukes as a deterrent, that way tey can make their own choices without ridiculous measurees being taken against them simply because they can't defend themselves.

*sighs* Please don't take the "wiping Isreal off the map" thing out of context. The president was talking about how geography will be taught in schools, he wasn't actually talking about annihilating Isreal.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh brother. An Iranian apologist. HAHAHAHA!!!

And I would prefer that the world just left them alone. Let them have nukes as a deterrent, that way tey can make their own choices without ridiculous measurees being taken against them simply because they can't defend themselves.

If they have nukes, how long do you think it would take them to sell one to hezbullah and they use it against Israel?

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh brother. An Iranian apologist. HAHAHAHA!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh brother. Someone who'd rather not actually take something at immediate false value. HAHAHAHAHA!!!

If they have nukes, how long do you think it would take them to sell one to hezbullah and they use it against Israel?

Why would they want to?

The USA supported the IRA, but no my knowledge they have no nukes. The USA also supported the Muhaj'adeen and to my knowledge they have no nukes.

And both of those groups furthered the US' aims over the years. And the US is about as trustworthy as Iran, to be honest.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh brother. Someone who'd rather not actually take something at immediate false value. HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Then why are they threatening to hide their nuclear program if it was for peaceful purposes only? Why were they buying plans on the black market to make nuclear bombs? Why is their president stating that Israel should be wiped off the map (a complete violation of the UN Charter)?

Why would they want to?

Think about that for a moment.

The USA supported the IRA, but no my knowledge they have no nukes. The USA also supported the Muhaj'adeen and to my knowledge they have no nukes.

1) The IRA didn't threaten to blow a nation off the map. 2) Neither did the Muhaj'adeen come to think of it.

And both of those groups furthered the US' aims over the years. And the US is about as trustworthy as Iran, to be honest.

Now I know you don't know what your talking about.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh brother. An Iranian apologist. HAHAHAHA!!!
Coming from you Corneliu, that takes the cake.

If they have nukes, how long do you think it would take them to sell one to hezbullah and they use it against Israel?
A good long while. I'm talking decades if not centuries.

I dont have a problem with Iran having a power plant but if it's for peaceful purposes then why have they hidden it from the U.N. watch dogs? Unless they clear that up it's only safe to say that they (The Iranian Government) is up to something.

Not free and fair by western standards, but free and fair when taken from a wider scope. The candiates are vetted by the government, just as they are in western countries. We just have different specifications as to who is allowed to run. The US doesn't allow people not born in the US to be a candiate for President. Iran doesn't allow candidates who are not Muslim to be a candiate (ok, so it's worse than that, but the point stands).


If I want to stand for parliment here, all I do is goto the local election office and demand to be put on the ballot.. the guy at the office will say
"Are you insane?"
"Are you bankrupt?"
"Do you have £500?"

2 no's and a yes and I'm on the ballot, no stinkin governmnet committee to vet me, do'nt have to follow the major religions here (currently I'm a Jedi).

Actually the rules for being a US president are slightly stricter than the rules quoted above, You must be born in the USA, and you must be aged 35 or over, guess the founding fathers did'nt want some spotty 19 yr old celebrity boy band member running for pres :D

I dont have a problem with Iran having a power plant but if it's for peaceful purposes then why have they hidden it from the U.N. watch dogs? Unless they clear that up it's only safe to say that they (The Iranian Government) is up to something.
They don't. They have been cooperating with the Internationnal Agency for a good long while and all the Agency found was that they were not convinced it was only for peacefull production.

No doubt the agency was never pressured by it's members like the US to put pressure on Iran :rolleyes:

Iran, as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty has a right to develop nuclear energy for peacefull means. Who are you to say they can't?

I really hope america invades iran simply for the fun of watching them lose very badly (iran is really really well armed (best of european and russian tech) also the fact that no one else (maybe israel) would be stupid enough to go in with them (though blair might knowing his past actions))

You've got to be kidding me. A U.S. carrier group (including marines, support ships, etc.) probably has the firepower to destroy atleast a small continent. And the U.S. has about six of these battle groups.

Then why are they threatening to hide their nuclear program if it was for peaceful purposes only?

Maybe, just maybe, because the IAEA is the US lapdog, is treating the Iranians as children and tends to apply double standard after double standard.
If they hadn't actually started developing, they simply would never have been allowed to. No matter how many restrictions, no matter how many inspectors - they would have been fed excuse after excuse and never get that powerplant.

Why were they buying plans on the black market to make nuclear bombs?
I have no idea. *I* can tell you how to make a primitive nuclear device, comparable to the things dropped on Japan in WW II. It really is not that hard.
Most plausible explanation however is that theyy wish to know how to build one. So what ?

If I want to stand for parliment here, all I do is goto the local election office and demand to be put on the ballot.. the guy at the office will say
"Are you insane?"
"Are you bankrupt?"
"Do you have £500?"



O.k I think I will join the Greens, UKIP or BNP (because they have vey good odds on the 5 May) demand to be put into ballot, encorage young people to vote for me and talk crap about the Tories, Libs and Labour and then I should have no problem, or was that your Idea? :D

Now do you think a bank will loan me £500?

Then why are they threatening to hide their nuclear program if it was for peaceful purposes only? Why were they buying plans on the black market to make nuclear bombs? Why is their president stating that Israel should be wiped off the map (a complete violation of the UN Charter)?

Because they're sick of people interfering with their energy program/because they actually are making nuclear weapons as a deterrent, which is a fairly legitimate use of them.

And, once again, the president said that relating to geography lessons in schools. That's quite different from the out-of-context meaning that most people give it.

Think about that for a moment.

I've finished thinking. I still see no reason why they'd want to destroy Isreal in a random attack.

1) The IRA didn't threaten to blow a nation off the map. 2) Neither did the Muhaj'adeen come to think of it.

That doesn't mean that they wouldn't, if given a nuclear weapon. The IRA's bombings of English cities were already pretty bad. If the USA had supplied them with a nuclear weapon then things would have become totally out of hand.

Think about who the Muhaj'adeen were lead by, and who they turned into. Would you really trust Bin Laden with a nuke?

And why would they even want to give hezbullah a nuclear weapon?

Now I know you don't know what your talking about.

Please, Mr(s) Corneliu, tell me why you'd rather trust the USA than Iran.

Think about all of the various horrible things that the USA has done to gain money/enforce its capitalist ideology all over the world.

Think about how little Iran has.

Because they're sick of people interfering with their energy program/because they actually are making nuclear weapons as a deterrent, which is a fairly legitimate use of them.

And, once again, the president said that relating to geography lessons in schools. That's quite different from the out-of-context meaning that most people give it.



I've finished thinking. I still see no reason why they'd want to destroy Isreal in a random attack.



That doesn't mean that they wouldn't, if given a nuclear weapon. The IRA's bombings of English cities were already pretty bad. If the USA had supplied them with a nuclear weapon then things would have become totally out of hand.

Think about who the Muhaj'adeen were lead by, and who they turned into. Would you really trust Bin Laden with a nuke?

And why would they even want to give hezbullah a nuclear weapon?



Please, Mr(s) Corneliu, tell me why you'd rather trust the USA than Iran.

Think about all of the various horrible things that the USA has done to gain money/enforce its capitalist ideology all over the world.

Think about how little Iran has.

Iran has no right to build or possess nuclear weapons. As a member of the nonproliferation treaty they are banned from having nuclear weapons.
That is why they have done nothing but stonewall the UN.
That is why they have said that if the UN imposes sanctions they will leave the nonproliferation treaty.

The last country that left the treaty ended up with nuclear weapons less than a year later.

Not to mention that they have been trying to buy nuke plans on the black market.

Their goal is clearly to get nukes.

And you keep denying Iran's virulent, genocidal hatred of Israel.

Iran has no right to build or possess nuclear weapons. As a member of the nonproliferation treaty they are banned from having nuclear weapons.
That is why they have done nothing but stonewall the UN.
That is why they have said that if the UN imposes sanctions they will leave the nonproliferation treaty.

The last country that left the treaty ended up with nuclear weapons less than a year later.

Not to mention that they have been trying to buy nuke plans on the black market.

Their goal is clearly to get nukes.

And you keep denying Iran's virulent, genocidal hatred of Israel.

Alright, I'll put it this way.

YOU SILLY FUCKING FOOL! THAT QUOTE FROM THE ISREALI PRESIDENT IS ALWAYS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT BY THOSE WHO WANT SOME KIND OF REASON TO HATE IRAN!

Right... now onto the main part of your post.

Why can't they have nukes?

Also, why can't anyone have nukes if Russia, China, France, Britain and the USA are allowed to?

That's all I'm asking. The USA, Britain and Russia have all been in several wars in the last 50 years. Iran hasn't been in nearly as many as the USA. This suggests that they are less warlike. Which suggests that they'd be safer with nukes in their hands than the USA.

Right?

If I want to stand for parliment here, all I do is goto the local election office and demand to be put on the ballot.. the guy at the office will say
"Are you insane?"
"Are you bankrupt?"
"Do you have £500?"

2 no's and a yes and I'm on the ballot, no stinkin governmnet committee to vet me, do'nt have to follow the major religions here (currently I'm a Jedi).

Actually the rules for being a US president are slightly stricter than the rules quoted above, You must be born in the USA, and you must be aged 35 or over, guess the founding fathers did'nt want some spotty 19 yr old celebrity boy band member running for pres :DAge restrictions? Lovely. So someone who is 34 would not make a competant President, whereas someone who is 35 would? For UK parliamentary elections you must also be 21 or above, despite the having considered you competant enough to vote for 3 years.

There is no committee that you must go before to make your case to be on the ballot, but rules are made that exclude certain sections of society from standing for election. Now we still deem to call out elections free and fair despite the fact that we may have excluded people who wished to run as a candidate in an election.

Because they're sick of people interfering with their energy program/because they actually are making nuclear weapons as a deterrent, which is a fairly legitimate use of them.

But a violation of the NPT which they are apart of. They have an obligation to show to the IAEA that it is not for nuclear weapons and they are not doing that if they threaten to hide it in the face of the UNSC.

And, once again, the president said that relating to geography lessons in schools. That's quite different from the out-of-context meaning that most people give it.

Keep telling yourself that and you might believe it. He stated and I quote "Israel should be wiped off the map." Do I have to drag out the quotes to you to prove that it was not infact for geography? Are you buying that propaganda when no one else is?

I've finished thinking. I still see no reason why they'd want to destroy Isreal in a random attack.

Then your blind.

That doesn't mean that they wouldn't, if given a nuclear weapon. The IRA's bombings of English cities were already pretty bad. If the USA had supplied them with a nuclear weapon then things would have become totally out of hand.

And as I stated before, we never threatened to wipe a nation off the face of the map. Maybe re-arrange the landscape but never wipe it out totally.

Think about who the Muhaj'adeen were lead by, and who they turned into. Would you really trust Bin Laden with a nuke?

Heck no. I don't trust Iran with one either.

And why would they even want to give hezbullah a nuclear weapon?

Is that rhetorical?

Please, Mr. Corneliu, tell me why you'd rather trust the USA than Iran.

Because I know my country and I know Iran's. I'll trust the US of A over a theocratic, belicouse nation of Iran anyday of the week, month, year or century.

Think about all of the various horrible things that the USA has done to gain money/enforce its capitalist ideology all over the world.

Think about how little Iran has.

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Alright, I'll put it this way.

YOU SILLY FUCKING FOOL! THAT QUOTE FROM THE ISREALI PRESIDENT IS ALWAYS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT BY THOSE WHO WANT SOME KIND OF REASON TO HATE IRAN!

Right... now onto the main part of your post.

Why can't they have nukes?

Also, why can't anyone have nukes if Russia, China, France, Britain and the USA are allowed to?

That's all I'm asking. The USA, Britain and Russia have all been in several wars in the last 50 years. Iran hasn't been in nearly as many as the USA. This suggests that they are less warlike. Which suggests that they'd be safer with nukes in their hands than the USA.

Right?
They are signatories to the Nonproliferatio Treaty. Treaties constitute international law. When they signed the treaty, they gave up all rights to nukes. The treaty states that only those nuclear nations that nukes already, are legally allowed to have nukes. Iran is a nonnuclear nation, and therefore legally banned from nukes or engaging in nuclear research for nuclear weapons which it looking more and more like they are doing. Therefore, Iran is in direct violation of International laws. That is why the UN is coming down on them. Not because the UN is an American puppet. If the UN was an American puppet then why didn't it sanction Bush's invasion of Iraq? If Europe is American puppet then why did they raise such of fuss over the Iraq invasion and other issues?
Because the fact is that neither of them are puppets and the fact is the Iran is in deliberate violation of international law. For that violation, Iran must be held to account.
And supporting terrorism in another nation, is by counts, an act of war against that nation. Once the terrorist you funded and trained has entered another nation and carried out a suicide attack, you are guilty of committing an act of war against that nation. It could be argued that sense you were supporting the terrorist who carried out the attack, you are also guilty of invading that country.

....
And supporting terrorism in another nation, is by counts, an act of war against that nation. Once the terrorist you funded and trained has entered another nation and carried out a suicide attack, you are guilty of committing an act of war against that nation. It could be argued that sense you were supporting the terrorist who carried out the attack, you are also guilty of invading that country.
So is the US at war with South America?

And supporting terrorism in another nation, is by counts, an act of war against that nation. Once the terrorist you funded and trained has entered another nation and carried out a suicide attack, you are guilty of committing an act of war against that nation. It could be argued that sense you were supporting the terrorist who carried out the attack, you are also guilty of invading that country.

So the US was guilty of invading Nicaragua?

So the US was guilty of invading Nicaragua?
I would say yes. But that was under the Reagan administration and their "defeat communism at all costs" project. It has nothing to do with Bush II who wasn't even in political office at the time.

So is the US at war with South America?
Don't be silly. The US is not at war with South America. Bush has his hands full with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

But if you ask "Did Reagan committ acts of war against South America?" I would be inclined to say yes, depending on the evidence. I know more about Nicaragua than South America, so I can definately call the actions in Nicaragua acts of war. In South America, not so.

Besides which, if you notice, unlike previous Presidents, Bush policy has been pretty much "hands off" toward South America. Bush allowed them to choose their own leaders. Do you think Reagan, Carter, Ford, or even John Kennedy would have? NO. Would Bush the first? NO. (just look at Panama). Clinton? NO. (Just look at Haiti and a couple of other places).
When have you seen Bush II launch or threaten a US military invasion of a country in the carribean or latin america? You haven't because he has not.

It is interesting that Venezuela keeps coming up as "proof positive that Bush supports terrorists seeking to overthrow democratic governments in latin america." You guys keep forgetting that is not in keeping with his view on the area that "the people of Latin America should decide their own matters their own way". You keep forgetting that the reason he at first supported the coup was because, as Chavez apologists have sublimely admitted, that Venezuelan news media, which the White House monitors as it does other media in other countries, said the coup had popular support. If you remember, when it became clear the media in Venezuela had lied about their being popular support for the coup, Bush immediately halted his support, and demanded that Chavez be reinstated.
Bush supports the will of the people and would only threaten use of force if that will was being overturned by means of force.
You will notice that Bush has never called for Chavez or any other Latin American leader to be assassinated. Contrary to the paranoid delusions of Chavez and his supporters.

Don't think the next President is going to be as hands off as Bush is right now. In fact, these next 3 years of Bush's White House, maybe the best years for Latin America to do a lot of stuff without US interference.
I fear the same will happen as regards energy policy and dependence on oil. If nothing is done about oil while he is still in office, then it just won't get done cause I don't think the next guy will do anything. In fact the next might undo all the energy reforms that Bush has put in place and also, that next guy, just might invade Venezuela or some other South American nation.

You won't be able to blame Bush II for that cause he won't be the President then.

That is why Bush is working so hard to get Iran keep Iran from getting nukes. Cause he knows he successor won't do a damn thing. Hell, Clinton did absolutley nothing to stop North Korea from violating the NPT and getting nukes. All he did was say "It's bad that NK has nukes." But the fact is he didn absolutely nothing about it. Just like he did absolutely nothing about Al Qaeda, whereby enabling the events of 911.

I would say yes. But that was under the Reagan administration and their "defeat communism at all costs" project. It has nothing to do with Bush II who wasn't even in political office at the time.
So sayeth the ICJ (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inusframe.htm) as well...

Don't be silly. The US is not at war with South America. Bush has his hands full with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

But if you ask "Did Reagan committ acts of war against South America?" I would be inclined to say yes, depending on the evidence. I know more about Nicaragua than South America, so I can definately call the actions in Nicaragua acts of war. In South America, not so.
...[cut for brevity]...
Nice post. I appreciate the effort. I even agree with large parts of it.

...

Any group that fights against a nondemocratic government, without targeting civilians, is a freedom fighter that deserves American support.

The Mujahedeen were freedom fighters who rightfully fighting to kick the world domination bent soviets out of their country. We were justified in supporting them. The soviets were bent on imposing a nondemocratic, brutal authoritarian regime.

...
Actually the Mujahedeen were targeting civilians as well, and Afghanistan had enough fruitcakes to build a cruel authoritarian regime without our help (the coup of April 1978 was a surprise for the KGB, but our senile ideologues were delighted with another country going socialist, and soon we were in the cesspit). But I cannot, and do not, blame the US for supporting these groups -- it was the time of Cold War, after all.

Don't be silly. The US is not at war with South America. Bush has his hands full with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.
sorry but by your previous definition, it is.

You are giving money to columbia which then falls into the hands of the drug cartel. By your definition, the US is accessory of all criminal acts the columbia drug lords are doing.

Methinks you should rethink your definition.

That is why Bush is working so hard to get Iran keep Iran from getting nukes. Cause he knows he successor won't do a damn thing. Hell, Clinton did absolutley nothing to stop North Korea from violating the NPT and getting nukes. All he did was say "It's bad that NK has nukes." But the fact is he didn absolutely nothing about it. Just like he did absolutely nothing about Al Qaeda, whereby enabling the events of 911.
Again with the revisionist history. Under Clinton, North Korea had IAEA inspectors on their territory and their nuclear reactors were sealed. They didn't get the bomb before BushII came along and stopped the previous talks with North Korea in a change of strategy.

Age restrictions? Lovely. So someone who is 34 would not make a competant President, whereas someone who is 35 would? For UK parliamentary elections you must also be 21 or above, despite the having considered you competant enough to vote for 3 years.

There is no committee that you must go before to make your case to be on the ballot, but rules are made that exclude certain sections of society from standing for election. Now we still deem to call out elections free and fair despite the fact that we may have excluded people who wished to run as a candidate in an election.
Well, let's project the Iranian system at the US... Imagine a US presidential election where all candidates must be Protestant Christians, and a council composed of Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the like vets candidates. Moreover, Billy Graham is able to overrule the elected president when he thinks it fit. Maybe this system would be free and fair in someone's eyes -- I'm from Russia, I don't care how Americans elect their head of state -- but it would be undeniably a laughing-stock.

Actually the Mujahedeen were targeting civilians as well, and Afghanistan had enough fruitcakes to build a cruel authoritarian regime without our help (the coup of April 1978 was a surprise for the KGB, but our senile ideologues were delighted with another country going socialist, and soon we were in the cesspit). But I cannot, and do not, blame the US for supporting these groups -- it was the time of Cold War, after all.
that's the thing. People are bringing stuff up from the cold war and claiming that any group that opposes a certain government is a terrorist group and if America supported them, then America supports evil terrorists.
They deny that Americans were supporting legitimate pro-democracy pro-capitalist movements, just like the Soviets (I don't use Russian here because the USSR was composed of more than just Russia), were supporting groups that also were seeking to overthrow governments, but to impose communism.

Both sides committed atrocities. But it doesn't make mean that the US or Soviets are guilty of supporting terrorists. You could make an argument that their leaders were supporting terrorist groups. But not the nations themselves.

Actually the Mujahedeen were targeting civilians as well, and Afghanistan had enough fruitcakes to build a cruel authoritarian regime without our help (the coup of April 1978 was a surprise for the KGB, but our senile ideologues were delighted with another country going socialist, and soon we were in the cesspit). But I cannot, and do not, blame the US for supporting these groups -- it was the time of Cold War, after all.
Personally I think the US should have stayed in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviets to help the Afghans set up a peaceful democratic society. After all they even asked us to help them. And it was either Bush I or Clinton who told them to go screw themselves. Basically they looked to us for help and we abandoned them. Now, as a result, we have the situation we have today.

sorry but by your previous definition, it is.

You are giving money to columbia which then falls into the hands of the drug cartel. By your definition, the US is accessory of all criminal acts the columbia drug lords are doing.

Methinks you should rethink your definition.


Again with the revisionist history. Under Clinton, North Korea had IAEA inspectors on their territory and their nuclear reactors were sealed. They didn't get the bomb before BushII came along and stopped the previous talks with North Korea in a change of strategy.
? what book of fiction did you pull that from?????

The US supports the Colombian government against the drug cartels. The Colombian government has been fighting the cartels. Unlike the Chavez regime in neighboring Venezuela which has actuall embraced them and is being funded by them.

As for North Korea, it got its nukes WHILE Clinton was President. They had nukes at least a year before Bush was even elected. That they had developed a nuke was widely reported in the news, again, a year before Bush was elected.

Age restrictions? Lovely. So someone who is 34 would not make a competant President, whereas someone who is 35 would? For UK parliamentary elections you must also be 21 or above, despite the having considered you competant enough to vote for 3 years.

There is no committee that you must go before to make your case to be on the ballot, but rules are made that exclude certain sections of society from standing for election. Now we still deem to call out elections free and fair despite the fact that we may have excluded people who wished to run as a candidate in an election.
If he is an amazing man I'm sure they could petition the Congress to amend the rule, the age limits for Parliament can be lower because no one man in Parliament can make a mistake leading to the end of human life on earth as we know it.

Personally I think the US should have stayed in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviets to help the Afghans set up a peaceful democratic society. After all they even asked us to help them. And it was either Bush I or Clinton who told them to go screw themselves. Basically they looked to us for help and we abandoned them. Now, as a result, we have the situation we have today.
I'm not sure what are you taking about... How the US could have stayed in Afghanistan in 1989, when we withdrew our troops? There were no American soldiers there, and the Afghan civil war continued for several more years.

? what book of fiction did you pull that from?????

The US supports the Colombian government against the drug cartels. The Colombian government has been fighting the cartels. Unlike the Chavez regime in neighboring Venezuela which has actuall embraced them and is being funded by them.

As for North Korea, it got its nukes WHILE Clinton was President. They had nukes at least a year before Bush was even elected. That they had developed a nuke was widely reported in the news, again, a year before Bush was elected.
I was merely going by your logic. Don't blame me. You could always change the goalposts again like you did all through the thread.

As for North Korea, unless you dig a source for these wild assertions, I'll continue to believe my experience in the matter as I remember the headlines from these days.

Well, let's project the Iranian system at the US... Imagine a US presidential election where all candidates must be Protestant Christians, and a council composed of Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the like vets candidates. Moreover, Billy Graham is able to overrule the elected president when he thinks it fit. Maybe this system would be free and fair in someone's eyes -- I'm from Russia, I don't care how Americans elect their head of state -- but it would be undeniably a laughing-stock.You're right, they're not the same system. But in a way it is beginning to seem like that unoffically in the US. Remember the GOP conference of 1992? Particularly William Weld's speech. Luckily H.W.Bush didn't get elected on that platform, but that platform is what seems to have sustained his son. We'll see how long that platform lasts.

You're right, they're not the same system. But in a way it is beginning to seem like that unoffically in the US. Remember the GOP conference of 1992? Particularly William Weld's speech. Luckily H.W.Bush didn't get elected on that platform, but that platform is what seems to have sustained his son. We'll see how long that platform lasts.
Actually I don't remember it at all (we in Russia had much more pressing worries in 1992), but I think that I understand what you mean -- GOP being supported by donations from conservative Bible Belt Protestants, etc. and having to talk, if not always act, according to their wishes. Am I right? To be sure, all this 'God, guns and gays' (not to mention abortion) politicking sickens me.

But we have digressed from Iran... :)

Actually I don't remember it at all (we in Russia had much more pressing worries in 1992), but I think that I understand what you mean -- GOP being supported by donations from conservative Bible Belt Protestants, etc. and having to talk, if not always act, according to their wishes. Am I right? To be sure, all this 'God, guns and gays' (not to mention abortion) politicking sickens me.

But we have digressed from Iran... :)Oh yes... Russia in 1992... quite a busy time in Russian politics. Was when the oil industry was sold off right? Though 1993 was more shocking...

Yeah, you got it right. William Weld made a pro-choice speech and was booed off stage.

So my point is that Iran has its problems, but it's not a real threat to its neighbours, Israel or the West.

Oh yes... Russia in 1992... quite a busy time in Russian politics. Was when the oil industry was sold off right? Though 1993 was more shocking...
Mmm.. it was a bit later. By the way, I have nothing against that -- the Russians weren't getting anything from the supposedly "common" oil anyway.

So my point is that Iran has its problems, but it's not a real threat to its neighbours, Israel or the West.
I'm not so sure about that; moreover, I'm concerned that Iran is a threat not to its neighbours, but to some countries that are a bit farther.

Mmm.. it was a bit later. By the way, I have nothing against that -- the Russians weren't getting anything from the supposedly "common" oil anyway.


I'm not so sure about that; moreover, I'm concerned that Iran is a threat not to its neighbours, but to some countries that are a bit farther.Specifically which countries?

Specifically which countries?
The Zionist entity, if I may. :)

Bush though isn't as stupid as people make him out to be.
He's not? How stupid is he? :confused:

Does anyone else think this whole Iran thing is a load of bullsh*t? I mean, come on, they have the right to make uranium for nuclear power plants -- we certainly do, and no one tells us we cant cause they think we'll nuke them. And even if they do want to build nuclear weapons, we don't have a right to get involved. Remember the cold war, anyone? No one threatened to invade us if we didn't stop building nukes.
I think it's a lot of bush sh*t as an excuse to start another oil war.
Well, not really, i don't think even bush is that stupid, but he surprises me every day. Threatening to launch missiles at their uranium-enrichment places is a new realm of idiocy.

Despite anything else, if you think Iran's goals for a nuclear program are completely peaceful, you are naive beyond belief. The only inevitable conclusion to their nuclear program is another addition of an incredibly unstable nation to the list of nations with nuclear capabilities, and despite anything you might say to the contrary, that is a bad thing. Now yes, there is a certain element of hypocrity in what the US is doing condemning Iran's actions, but for once the US is doing something that is backed by the UN in denouncing Iran's activities. Next, nobody is threatening to launch nukes at anybody, that's a fallacy. Yes, as always, the option of using the US nuclear arsenal was presented, but it is not being seriously considered, thankfully. Next, don't try and compare the cold war with Iran starting a nuclear program. We are not talking about a country that is anything like post WWII America, and the political system is impossible to compare. The facts are this: there is an extremely unstable government, with an easily inflamed populace, and a borderline psychotic leader in power, who are pursuing nuclear ambitions, and this is unacceptable. In my opinion, nuclear proliferation as a whole is detestable, because no country can be trusted with nukes - people can't be trusted with nukes, and the idea of hiding behind a supposedly peaceful power program is detestable. And to your comments about another war: although Iran presents a more imminent threat than Iraq ever has, the current war is thoroughly detested, and honestly, even if George Bush did want to declare war on Iran, he couldn't, he simply doesn't have the political backing to do so. So quit blowing situations out of proportion because you dislike the current administration, because guess what! so does about 68% of the American population, and with approval ratings continually plunging, nobody is stupid enough to try and declare war with absolutely no military support, and the US military already stretched thin across two other middle-eastern countries.

The Zionist entity, if I may. :)Ah, the way you worded it confused me. I do not believe the Council of Guardians or the Supreme Leader would seriously let the President attack Israel. They may dislike or even hate Israel, but I doubt they believe they will be able to sustain a viable government if they wage war on Israel. They logic may be coloured by bias different from our own, but I do not believe it blinds their reason. Iran may irritate or annoy Israel, but they are not a threat.

Was supporting Hezbollah's armed campaign to get Israel to withdraw from Lebanese territory count as threat? I'm don't really think so, but I'm trying to imagine the situtation if instead of talking about Hezbollah we were talking about the IRA. A group that is closer to home to me than Hezbollah.

He's not? How stupid is he? :confused:
he's not as stupid as people make him out to be. he's stupider.

Ah, the way you worded it confused me. I do not believe the Council of Guardians or the Supreme Leader would seriously let the President attack Israel. They may dislike or even hate Israel, but I doubt they believe they will be able to sustain a viable government if they wage war on Israel. They logic may be coloured by bias different from our own, but I do not believe it blinds their reason. Iran may irritate or annoy Israel, but they are not a threat.

Was supporting Hezbollah's armed campaign to get Israel to withdraw from Lebanese territory count as threat? I'm don't really think so, but I'm trying to imagine the situtation if instead of talking about Hezbollah we were talking about the IRA. A group that is closer to home to me than Hezbollah.

I hope you are right.

If he is an amazing man I'm sure they could petition the Congress to amend the rule, the age limits for Parliament can be lower because no one man in Parliament can make a mistake leading to the end of human life on earth as we know it.
Fortunately the Congress can't change the constitution by itself, it needs the consent of 3/4 of the states.

I'm not sure what are you taking about... How the US could have stayed in Afghanistan in 1989, when we withdrew our troops? There were no American soldiers there, and the Afghan civil war continued for several more years.
Correct the US had no troops. What I meant was that we were asked, by the Afghans, to help them rebuild their nation and prevent civil war. We declined their request, a year later the shit hit the fan and they had themselves a civil war, which the Taliban eventually won. And the Taliban gave refuge to Bin Laden and he carried out 911. Next thing you know, not only are we having to rebuild the country, but we are having to have tons of troops there.
We could have saved a lot of money and lives if we had accepted their request the first time, before the Taliban took over and gave aid to Al Qaeda.

Surely you know about this?

Correct the US had no troops. What I meant was that we were asked, by the Afghans, to help them rebuild their nation and prevent civil war. We declined their request, a year later the shit hit the fan and they had themselves a civil war, which the Taliban eventually won. And the Taliban gave refuge to Bin Laden and he carried out 911. Next thing you know, not only are we having to rebuild the country, but we are having to have tons of troops there.
We could have saved a lot of money and lives if we had accepted their request the first time, before the Taliban took over and gave aid to Al Qaeda.

Surely you know about this?
Actually, no. "[A] year later the shit hit the fan and they had themselves a civil war" -- the Afghan civil war started in the 1970s and isn't over yet, so I haven't a clue what are you talking about. BTW, who asked for the American intervention -- Najibullah, Mojadeddi, Rabbani?

Let me say this. Its to late, the entire world is already fucked, we've been going down this path for some time now and there are no more off-ramps. Have you ever seen the movie DELIVERANCE[/I] , lets just say, that is what you have to look forward to. :(

Afghan timeline:

1934- USA formally recognizes Afghanistan as a country.
1940- Afghanistan formally declares itself neutral in world war II
1954- US rejects Aghan request for military equipment to modernize its military (if the US had not done this, the afghans would have been able to repulse the later soviet invasion, we set them up for failure here)
1955-because of the american rejection, Afghanistan turns to soviet union for equipment to modernize its military
1956 soviet union and bulgaria both agree to help Aghanistan modernize
Close ties between Afghanistan and USSR begin
1959- women enter work force and government
1961 Afghanistan and Pakistan almost went to war
1963- the shah of Afghanistan forces the Prime Minister to resign.
1965- Afghan communist party is formed with goal to overthrow Afghan government. Its founder is Barbrak Karmal.
First elections in Afghanistan are held. Karmal is elected to parliament but incites deadly rioting.
A second government is formed.
1969-second elections in Afghan history
Babrak is elected with Moussa
1972-Mousa becomes Prime Minister
July 17th 1973 Shah is illegally overthrown by the communist party while he is vacationing in Europe.
Afghanistan is declared to be a Republic.
1974 afghan city of Herat is one of the first cities to be declared a world heritage site.
1975 Doud Khan, head of Afghan communist party imposes new constitution and begins purging opponents from the government. He confirms womens rights.
1978: very bloody coup by other communists, Doud is murdered and Karmal becomes Prime Minister
mass arrests and torture takes place, new afghan President Taraki, signs treaty of alliance with Soviet Union
the Mujahadeen is created to oppose the communists


1979: mass killings by the communists continue
the US ambassador to Afghanistan is assassinated by the communists
two successive leaders are killed until Karmal takes control of Afghanistan for himself
December 1979-Soviet Union invades Aghanistan to back Karmal

1980: USSR institutes new Afghan secret police
1984: UN sends inspectors to investigate widespread human rights abuses
1986: head of the secret police becomes President of Afghanistan
1987: President Najibullah proposes cease fire. Mujahedeen refuse to deal with Soviet's puppet government.
The Mujahedeen were kicking the Soviet's asses. The defeat of Soviet forces in Afganistan was inevitable.
1988: peace accord signed in Geneva
1989 Russia admits it was defeated by Aghanistan. Last Russian troops leave afghanistan in Feb 15 1989
50,000 Russians died in the war.
Mujahedeen continue to fight communist government which is no longer backed by Moscow.
May 1989-Mujahedeen set up a democratic government in exile.
1992 April 15 Mujahedeen succeed in freeing Aghanistan. But war criminal Najibullah is protected by the UN.
An Islamic state is declared.
Iran and Pakistan begin interfering on a regular basis in Afghan internal affairs.
Rabanni is elected president
1994: Taliban is created by Pakistan. Clashes with government and warlords Dostum and Hekmatyer. Taliban gets much support from Pakistan for its cause.
1995: a lot of interference in Afghan internal affairs by Iran and Pakistan
1996 taliban capture Kabul.
Taliban begins its oppression of women and violation of their basic human rights
Afghan government formally accuses Pakistan of giving direct aid to the Taliban
Taliban engaged in massive human rights violations
1997: a mass grave containing the remains of Taliban's victims is found. It contains 2,000 dead civilians.
1998 August: Taliban succeed in conquering Afghanistan. To celebrate they massacre thousands of more innocent civilians.
August 20th: in retaliation for Taliban alliance with Al Qaeda, the US launches cruise missile strikes at Taliban supported terrorist training camps
September 1998 Iran almost goes to war with Taliban Afghanistan after their diplomats and a journalist are brutally killed by the Taliban in the 1998 massacre.
70,000 Iranian troops mass along the Afghan border but it does not come to war.
1999 Shah in exile calls for peace in Afghanistan. The taliban scoff at him and continue mass human rights violations and mass executions of civilians
October 1999: UN imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Taliban are harboring Osama bin Laden who they consider a guest and ally.
2000 Taliban continue to torture and kill civilians
December 2000 UN passes resolution 1333: stiffer sanctions on Afghanistan for their alliance with Osama Bin Ladens Al Qaeda group and for their trade in narcotics.
Taliban thumb their nose at UN
2001 (year of infamy)
Jan: Taliban atrocities against civilians gets much worse
March: Taliban viciously destroy world's biggest buddha statues
April: Shah lobbies Europe for support against the Taliban
UN charges Pakistan with refusing to allow aid for Aghan refugees
May-nonmuslims are required to wear tags much like the Jews had to do in Nazi Germany. The nonmuslims faced severe persecution
September 9: The Shah is killed in Europe by Al Qaeda assassins acting on behalf of the Taliban
September 11: Al Qaeda, backed by the Taliban, attacks the United States. Bin Laden formally declares war on America. 3,000 Americans were killed in the attack. US President, US Congress declare war on Afghanistan for refusal to turn over Bin Laden and his terrorist henchmen
October: allied air strikes against Afghanistan begin. The US and Britain lead the way. Taliban declare they would protect Bin Laden to the last man.
November: for the first time since their appearance on the scene, the Taliban get their asses kicked and suffer their first defeat at the hands of democratic forces backed by US special ops teams
December 5 2001 interim afgan government is formed with Karzai as President
2002 former king of afghanistan returns to his country but does not claim throne.
August 2002 Nato takes over kabul
2004 A republic is declared



http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm
after soviet withdrawal, US and its allies abandoned
afghanistan to the warlords.

I trust them more than DPRK.

Afghan timeline:

...
A joke of a timeline which, however, does not contain an answer to my question. I am waiting.

I really hope america invades iran simply for the fun of watching them lose very badly (iran is really really well armed (best of european and russian tech) also the fact that no one else (maybe israel) would be stupid enough to go in with them (though blair might knowing his past actions))
You have no concept of military strategy, tactics and technology, do you?

Let me say this. Its to late, the entire world is already fucked, we've been going down this path for some time now and there are no more off-ramps. Have you ever seen the movie DELIVERANCE[/I] , lets just say, that is what you have to look forward to. :(
Deliverance?

A joke of a timeline which, however, does not contain an answer to my question. I am waiting.
My bad, I didn't address it. That was on purpose. I am still looking for those articles if I can find them. But being as the shit was before the internet.
I checking govt archives to see if they had anything cause I know that the LA Times had some stuff on it in it's world section. Actually I haven't tried the archives of US News World Report or Time yet. But I'm not sure theirs goes back that far.

The timeline was just tossed in cause it was of interesting relation. Like the 1954 thing, I did not know about it. But I think, if the US had agreed to help Afghanistan, the Afghans would not have turned to the Soviets and things would have turned out differently. But then again it could have ended up turning the cold war into a hot war. That would have been fun.

My bad, I didn't address it. That was on purpose. I am still looking for those articles if I can find them. But being as the shit was before the internet.
I checking govt archives to see if they had anything cause I know that the LA Times had some stuff on it in it's world section. Actually I haven't tried the archives of US News World Report or Time yet. But I'm not sure theirs goes back that far.

The timeline was just tossed in cause it was of interesting relation. Like the 1954 thing, I did not know about it. But I think, if the US had agreed to help Afghanistan, the Afghans would not have turned to the Soviets and things would have turned out differently. But then again it could have ended up turning the cold war into a hot war. That would have been fun.
I'm sorry, but that tieline is not in the least interesing. It is full of erm... misinformation. "1954- US rejects Aghan request for military equipment to modernize its military (if the US had not done this, the afghans would have been able to repulse the later soviet invasion, we set them up for failure here)" -- how about that? The Afghan military did not even try to attack us in December 1979 -- we were "friends!" even Amin's guards were unsure what do do until our special forces began to shoot them. Even if the Afghan army, equipped with American... what? decided to fight back (BTW, it was full of Soviet military advisers), it would not last long... It wasn't the Afghan army we were afraid of.

I'm sorry, but that tieline is not in the least interesing. It is full of erm... misinformation. "1954- US rejects Aghan request for military equipment to modernize its military (if the US had not done this, the afghans would have been able to repulse the later soviet invasion, we set them up for failure here)" -- how about that? The Afghan military did not even try to attack us in December 1979 -- we were "friends!" even Amin's guards were unsure what do do until our special forces began to shoot them. Even if the Afghan army, equipped with American... what? decided to fight back (BTW, it was full of Soviet military advisers), it would not last long... It wasn't the Afghan army we were afraid of.
the paranthesis were mine. I was making an assumption. Not sure if you knew that.
Afghan military attacking us in 1979? I was suggesting that. I was suggesting the cold war would have turned out a little differently and that 911 probably would never have happened and we likely would not be at war today in Iraq or Afghanistan.

the paranthesis were mine. I was making an assumption. Not sure if you knew that.
Afghan military attacking us in 1979? I was suggesting that. I was suggesting the cold war would have turned out a little differently and that 911 probably would never have happened and we likely would not be at war today in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Are you at war? Thought both were declared won. Hence those who shoot back can be referred to as criminals and worse. And treated accordingly.

the paranthesis were mine. I was making an assumption. Not sure if you knew that.
Afghan military attacking us in 1979? I was suggesting that. I was suggesting the cold war would have turned out a little differently and that 911 probably would never have happened and we likely would not be at war today in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Your assumption is, well, baseless -- the Afghan army did not resist us -- after all, it served the government of the day, which was pro-Soviet. Imagine the South Vietnamese Army resisting the American marines in 1965... I myself cannot contemplate this.

Your assumption is, well, baseless -- the Afghan army did not resist us -- after all, it served the government of the day, which was pro-Soviet. Imagine the South Vietnamese Army resisting the American marines in 1965... I myself cannot contemplate this.
eh. You misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying if we accepted their request for aid and started helping them, Russia would have invaded earlier and the cold war could have turned hot.
The government was not necessarily pro soviet. It just went with the side willing to give it what it wanted. US would not, but USSR would. Therefore they engaged in relations with USSR cause USSR agreed to modernize their military.
In fact, the USSR did not invade Afghanistan until a couple of months after a communist coup overthrew, Afghanistan's previous democratically elected government. The purpose of the invasion was to support the communist coup.
Well, the people of Afghanistan and the members of Afghanistans legitimate government were opposed to communist rule and they didn't like Russia trying to force communism on their country so they formed the Mujahedeen to oppose them.

Our assistance to Aghanistan was not just revenge for Vietnam. We did not send ground units to Afghanistan to oppose Russia. What we did was supply arms to the freedom fighters. Why? Because Russia had launched an illegal invasion to support an illegal and bloodthirsty communist coup that had just overthrown a duely elected government.

eh. You misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying if we accepted their request for aid and started helping them, Russia would have invaded earlier and the cold war could have turned hot.
Which American allies were invaded by the USSR during the Cold War? None.

The government was not necessarily pro soviet. It just went with the side willing to give it what it wanted. US would not, but USSR would. Therefore they engaged in relations with USSR cause USSR agreed to modernize their military.
King Zahir Shah was indeed a good friend of the USSR, and Afghanistan was to us, until the 1970s, a friendly and placid back-of-beyond.

In fact, the USSR did not invade Afghanistan until a couple of months after a communist coup overthrew, Afghanistan's previous democratically elected government. The purpose of the invasion was to support the communist coup.
You do not know the history of Afghanistan at all. The communist coup took place in April 1978. The overthrown president, Daoud, was not just another elected official -- actulally, he came to power in 1973 after ousting his brother-in-law, the king. There was nothing democratic about Daoud -- it can be argued that the civil war began on his watch when the royalists went to the mountains... The purpose of our invasion... Erm, here (I'm ashamed) is the story. The Soviet leadership didn't like Amin ousting and killing Taraki, and they decided to intervene that leader, bloodthirsty maniac to be sure, because he, having studied in New York, was to them an American spy (or Chinese-American spy, spurces differ). The 'American spy', meanwhile, was bombarding them with telegrams asking for the Soviet military intervention in order to quell the numerous uprisings. Andropov, Ustinov and Gromyko concocted a plan -- to grant Amin his wish and to overthrow him in process. Brezhnev assented to that, and we went in. Idiots.

Well, the people of Afghanistan and the members of Afghanistans legitimate government were opposed to communist rule and they didn't like Russia trying to force communism on their country so they formed the Mujahedeen to oppose them.
As for the populace, I dunno. As for the government -- it was very Communist, and it asked us to intervene... sorry.

Our assistance to Aghanistan was not just revenge for Vietnam. We did not send ground units to Afghanistan to oppose Russia. What we did was supply arms to the freedom fighters. Why? Because Russia had launched an illegal invasion to support an illegal and bloodthirsty communist coup that had just overthrown a duely elected government.
Whittier, you really do not know what are you talikng about. You do not bother to check your facts at all.

eh. You misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying if we accepted their request for aid and started helping them, Russia would have invaded earlier and the cold war could have turned hot.
Which American allies were invaded by the USSR during the Cold War? None.

The government was not necessarily pro soviet. It just went with the side willing to give it what it wanted. US would not, but USSR would. Therefore they engaged in relations with USSR cause USSR agreed to modernize their military.
King Zahir Shah was indeed a good friend of the USSR, and Afghanistan was to us, until the 1970s, a friendly and placid back-of-beyond.

In fact, the USSR did not invade Afghanistan until a couple of months after a communist coup overthrew, Afghanistan's previous democratically elected government. The purpose of the invasion was to support the communist coup.
You do not know the history of Afghanistan at all. The communist coup took place in April 1978. The overthrown president, Daoud, was not just another elected official -- actulally, he came to power in 1973 after ousting his brother-in-law, the king. There was nothing democratic about Daoud -- it can be argued that the civil war began on his watch when the royalists went to the mountains... The purpose of our invasion... Erm, here (I'm ashamed) is the story. The Soviet leadership didn't like Amin ousting and killing Taraki, and they decided to intervene that leader, bloodthirsty maniac to be sure, because he, having studied in New York, was to them an American spy (or Chinese-American spy, spurces differ). The 'American spy', meanwhile, was bombarding them with telegrams asking for the Soviet military intervention in order to quell the numerous uprisings. Andropov, Ustinov and Gromyko concocted a plan -- to grant Amin his wish and to overthrow him in process. Brezhnev assented to that, and we went in. Idiots.

Well, the people of Afghanistan and the members of Afghanistans legitimate government were opposed to communist rule and they didn't like Russia trying to force communism on their country so they formed the Mujahedeen to oppose them.
As for the populace, I dunno. As for the government -- it was very Communist, and it asked us to intervene... sorry.

Our assistance to Aghanistan was not just revenge for Vietnam. We did not send ground units to Afghanistan to oppose Russia. What we did was supply arms to the freedom fighters. Why? Because Russia had launched an illegal invasion to support an illegal and bloodthirsty communist coup that had just overthrown a duely elected government.
Whittier, you really do not know what are you talikng about. You do not bother to check your facts at all.
are you russian?

are you russian?
"Olantia
ZX81 H4x0r0r

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,115"

Yes. And why have you asked me? Any problem with that?

"Olantia
ZX81 H4x0r0r

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,115"

Yes. And why have you asked me? Any problem with that?

No. Just curious cause you said "we invaded Afghanistan".

If the Soviet government went in just to get rid Amin, why did it stay?

No. Just curious cause you said "we invaded Afghanistan".

If the Soviet government went in just to get rid Amin, why did it stay?
Removing Amin was a secondary goal. The main object was along the lines of "protecting Socialism in a country threatened by imperialists and their henchmen" (NDPA had a big guerrilla problem on its hands) and stop Afghanistan from falling into the hands of "evil Americans" -- there were some nightmarish (to Ustinov and Co) scenarios -- of Pershing II missiles and GLCMs in Afghanistan, of American military bases, etc... China was also suspected of involvement.

Removing Amin was a secondary goal. The main object was along the lines of "protecting Socialism in a country threatened by imperialists and their henchmen" (NDPA had a big guerrilla problem on its hands) and stop Afghanistan from falling into the hands of "evil Americans" -- there were some nightmarish (to Ustinov and Co) scenarios -- of Pershing II missiles and GLCMs in Afghanistan, of American military bases, etc... China was also suspected of involvement.
so basically like America in Cuba (except America didn't invade Cuba), south vietnam and north korea?

"We are sending troops to SV or NK to prevent those countries from falling into communist hands."

I might include support for latin american dictators to prevent communism from spreading there but we very rarely sent troops to that part of the world. (we sent some to the carribean and to Panama in 1989)
Colombia has more to do with fighting drugs cartels though I am sure the fact there was a marxist rebellion going on was also a factor.


I think you have look at things that occured in the past in historical context. The events in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Latin America, should all be viewed in the context of the cold war in which one power was trying to contain or oppose the other power.

I think the USSR's fears of a US invasion may have been justified, seeing as we actually sent troops to Siberia to fight the communists and install democratic elements or some such. We didn't send many though and I think they were all captured then killed cause the US denied any knowledge of them until the file was released in the 90's.

But the US was right to oppose the USSR the way it did cause at the time, it was USSR that was going around invading people and backing coups and stuff. Though the US backed its own share of coups, just to make sure the coup didn't go commie.

It can appear that the roles have flipped today, in irony.

I thought the Soviet Union was communist.

so basically like America in Cuba (except America didn't invade Cuba), south vietnam and north korea?

"We are sending troops to SV or NK to prevent those countries from falling into communist hands."

I might include support for latin american dictators to prevent communism from spreading there but we very rarely sent troops to that part of the world. (we sent some to the carribean and to Panama in 1989)
Colombia has more to do with fighting drugs cartels though I am sure the fact there was a marxist rebellion going on was also a factor.


I think you have look at things that occured in the past in historical context. The events in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Latin America, should all be viewed in the context of the cold war in which one power was trying to contain or oppose the other power.
Yeah, exactly. Realpolitik etc.

I think the USSR's fears of a US invasion may have been justified, seeing as we actually sent troops to Siberia to fight the communists and install democratic elements or some such. We didn't send many though and I think they were all captured then killed cause the US denied any knowledge of them until the file was released in the 90's.
Now what on Earth you are talking about?? What American troops in Siberia? In say 1918 -- maybe... but... care to elaborate?

But the US was right to oppose the USSR the way it did cause at the time, it was USSR that was going around invading people and backing coups and stuff. Though the US backed its own share of coups, just to make sure the coup didn't go commie.

It can appear that the roles have flipped today, in irony.

I thought the Soviet Union was communist.
Right or wrong, who cares... It's politics! :D

I cannot understand the last sentence. The Soviet Union was ruled by the Communist Party, which was "the society's guide", or something like that (I don't remember the wording of Article 6 now). What do you want to know?

You do not know the history of Afghanistan at all.

Rest assured, nobody here knows that.

Btw, haven't seen you around for a long time..how you been?:)

Yeah, exactly. Realpolitik etc.


Now what on Earth you are talking about?? What American troops in Siberia? In say 1918 -- maybe... but... care to elaborate?


Right or wrong, who cares... It's politics! :D

I cannot understand the last sentence. The Soviet Union was ruled by the Communist Party, which was "the society's guide", or something like that (I don't remember the wording of Article 6 now). What do you want to know?
Yes in 1918 after they had the Russian Revolution. We didn't know about here until the documents concerning were declassified. The reason for the actions was supposedly to topple the Communists in Moscow and install the other group (White Russians?)
You do not know of this episode? It was a regretful action on our nation's part and was partially responsible for the Soviet government's fear of another US invasion and maybe was a factor in starting the cold war.
I think the point of the Soviet occupation of eastern europe was to have a buffer against an invasion the US on that front and to spread socialism or communism.

You referred to the Soviet Union being socialist, Americans were taught that the Soviet Union was communist, not socialist.

Rest assured, nobody here knows that.

Btw, haven't seen you around for a long time..how you been?:)
Well, that's one complicated history... :)

Oh, I'm fine. I've had a lot of work to do recently, and the NS forum is a voracious consumer of time...

Yes in 1918 after they had the Russian Revolution. We didn't know about here until the documents concerning were declassified. The reason for the actions was supposedly to topple the Communists in Moscow and install the other group (White Russians?)
You do not know of this episode? It was a regretful action on our nation's part and was partially responsible for the Soviet government's fear of another US invasion and maybe was a factor in starting the cold war.
Well, I named the year, and that means I know something about that episode. :D IIRC the Americans were mostly concentrated in the vicinity of Archangel though. Siberia was more or less in the Japanese sphere of influence -- we threw the last ones out only in 1922.

I think the point of the Soviet occupation of eastern europe was to have a buffer against an invasion the US on that front and to spread socialism or communism.
The main point was to kick out the Germans.

You referred to the Soviet Union being socialist, Americans were taught that the Soviet Union was communist, not socialist.
The Soviet constitution referred to the socialist state, Brezhnev was calling the system "real socialism" (he did not explain what he meant by that, and no one asked him). According to the Marxist political theory the Soviet Union was not communist -- communism was to be built sometime in the future.

Khrushchev promised communism by 1980. Well, we had the Olympics instead! :D

"Olantia
ZX81 H4x0r0r

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,115"

Yes. And why have you asked me? Any problem with that?
Ummm, Whittier tends to be very anti-socialist/communist.

Ummm, Whittier tends to be very anti-socialist/communist.
'Russian' does not automatically mean 'Communist' or 'Socialist' -- I myself am a liberal. I hope he bears no grudge against Russian liberals. :)

'Russian' does not automatically mean 'Communist' or 'Socialist' -- I myself am a liberal. I hope he bears no grudge against Russian liberals. :)
I agree with that. Being Russian doesn't make a person communist just like being American does not make a person pro freedom. There are quite of few Americans who are anti freedom.

What is a Russian liberal? An American liberal tends to oppose the death penalty even in cases of mass murder, supports releasing all convicts of serious crimes, let drug dealers into our country to run rampant, oppose doing anything about violent gangs, sell nuke technology to countries that will use it against us in the future, think that the life of a coyote is more important than the life of a human, they believe strongly that illegals have not only a right to be in our country but to force their language on us.

What is the position of Russian liberals on those? If they were to be happening in their nation.

I'm not sure a Russian liberal is the same as an American liberal.

An American liberal tends to oppose the death penalty even in cases of mass murder
That's understandable. I myself see nothing wrong with the death penalty in principle.

supports releasing all convicts of serious crimes
I don't believe you.

let drug dealers into our country to run rampant
I don't believe you.

oppose doing anything about violent gangs
The same.

sell nuke technology to countries that will use it against us in the future,
Ditto

think that the life of a coyote is more important than the life of a human
Eh?

they believe strongly that illegals have not only a right to be in our country but to force their language on us.
Erm...

Whittier, I do not believe you. I am sorry. It seems to me that liberal is a swear-word for you.

http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=535
That's what liberalism means to me.

.....An American liberal tends to oppose the death penalty even in cases of mass murder, supports releasing all convicts of serious crimes, let drug dealers into our country to run rampant, oppose doing anything about violent gangs, sell nuke technology to countries that will use it against us in the future, think that the life of a coyote is more important than the life of a human, they believe strongly that illegals have not only a right to be in our country but to force their language on us....
Whittier, you are a funny girl. :D Are you single?

An American liberal tends to oppose the death penalty even in cases of mass murder
That's understandable. I myself see nothing wrong with the death penalty in principle.

supports releasing all convicts of serious crimes
I don't believe you.

let drug dealers into our country to run rampant
I don't believe you.

oppose doing anything about violent gangs
The same.

sell nuke technology to countries that will use it against us in the future,
Ditto

think that the life of a coyote is more important than the life of a human
Eh?

they believe strongly that illegals have not only a right to be in our country but to force their language on us.
Erm...

Whittier, I do not believe you. I am sorry. It seems to me that liberal is a swear-word for you.

http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=535
That's what liberalism means to me.
I agree with some of those things.


American liberals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

In the US, conservatism and liberalism are sometimes seen as polar opposites, yet the situation is more complex. A major area of difference in US politics is that between social liberalism and social conservatism. Social liberals advocate policies that promote change of established ideas, while social conservatives support established traditions of American society, or norms of previous generations. The media widely covers the differences in opinion in issues such as same-sex marriage, sex education, and the separation of church and state. Some extreme American "conservatives" term themselves "libertarians" (including some who support the Libertarian Party) and advocate fiscal conservatism mixed with social liberalism, further blurring the traditional distinctions between liberalism and conservatism.

Fiscally, US liberals advocate consumer protection regulations, and other policies which run contrary to fiscal conservative, (or neoliberal), ideals. In the US, liberal and conservative are generalizations that do not point to any concrete set of ideals or values. In the US, "neoliberal" refers mainly to non-mainstream leftist critics of fiscal conservatism and/or of the free trade movement.

http://www.logosjournal.com/thompson_election.htm

In America, the transformation of liberalism began in the 20th century with the attempt to redefine liberalism wholly in economic terms. It placed emphasis on libertarian ideas of individualism and market coordination, something that would effect a reversal in the understanding of American liberalism as a political doctrine and the political self-consciousness of American political culture. Influential thinkers during the 20th century such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, among others, gave voice to the idea—one that would become central in American political life—that economic freedom was a precondition for political freedom. Society was no longer seen as an entity in itself—as prominent thinkers of the 19th century such as Emile Durkheim had argued—it was now considered little more than an assemblage of individuals, tied together by contract enforced by the laws of a minimal government. But the main aim of thinkers ranging from Hayek to Friedman was, essentially, to redefine what American democratic culture and politics had, by the time of the end of the Second World War, become: not a democracy that was privileging individualism and liberty but, rather, what these thinkers saw as a society bent upon “collectivism,” socialism, and, in time, totalitarian communism. The future was a road to serfdom.

Understanding the conservative attack on these older themes of American liberalism is crucial for comprehending the current state of American politics and its drift rightward. This sustained attack has not only been political in nature, but ideological as well. It has been against what I will call here, after John Dewey, the “social liberalism” of the first several decades of American political thought and policy which emphasized a new conception of political and economic life and steered American democratic ideas down the path of social democracy.

What the contemporary manifestation of liberalism has been unable to provide is an ethical foundation for fighting the unrestrained dynamics of the market that have fragmented and reified the public life, alienated whole swaths of the middle class and working people from their most salient political interests, and contributed to an overwhelming breakdown of the public sphere. Social liberalism was the response to this same tendency in American life in the early 20th century, and looking back is useful. One thinks of the influential figures of the Progressive and New Deal eras—now sadly forgotten but, without doubt, just as relevant as ever in the current context—such as Herbert Croly, Walter Weyl, Thurman Arnold, Rexford Tugwell and Nathan Straus, to name only a few. The new interpretation of democracy and liberalism they set out to construct was one that emphasized the social nature of individual and political life as opposed to the laissez faire individualism of the 19th century. Placing emphasis on the social dimensions of political life and the mythology of laissez faire capitalism meant that what Marx had called man’s “communal essence” became for thinkers like Dewey “social liberalism”: individuals were not autonomous entities, they were socially constituted; each of us relied on complex systems—from the division of labor to bureaucracy—to survive and flourish under the conditions of modernity and especially under capitalism. This was set against all previous understandings of liberalism, of “classical liberalism” specifically, which saw individualism in simplistic, atomistic terms more akin to Newtonian physics than to the complex realities of modern life.

But what we have seen in the last two and a half decades is the degeneration of social liberalism and, as a consequence, its gradual inability to provide vigorous alternatives to the current neoconservative project, which itself has appropriated the old individualistic and Social Darwinist version of economic liberalism. It is an interpretation of liberalism that emphasizes the rights to property and economic liberty and conservatives have been successful in meshing this with populist concerns about big government—one can think of the political potency of tax cuts in this regard. This transformation of liberalism has led to the timidity of the Democratic Party, the rightward drift of organizations such as the DLC and the inability of Democratic candidates at all levels to connect the interests of the majority of Americans with their own agenda. Democrats have seen the erosion of their traditional political base and it has been unable to respond to the neoconservative attack on its traditional policy aims and prescriptions.

Every revolution produces its own counter-revolution; each progressive move toward embracing a more just social order suffers from reaction. In this respect, the virtues of social liberalism still need to be understood in order to understand the nature of the backlash and what this means for American politics. Indeed, social liberalism was able to merge the concerns of economic inequality as well as the assimilation of ethnic minorities and cultural difference. It did not see liberalism as a doctrine of simple toleration, but of the dissemination of civic education and public values. Universalism was privileged over particularism, and the ideal of “social liberalism” was to promote individualism in thought but solidarity through rational laws and universally recognized moral ends. Indeed, religion and ethnic identity in America were never small parts of everyday life, but the religious populism that has underpinned Republican elections since the ascendancy of groups like the Christian Coalition in the early 1990s, has not been the only evidence of the return to religion and its more pernicious effects. The decay of social liberalism—which began with the white backlash against the civil rights movement—has also seen an increased tribalism among religious and ethnic minorities and groups, given rise to a renewed white backlash, called the value of diversity into question, and has made social bonds between different groups and individuals more tenuous, more distant and less conducive to the universalistic dimensions of democratic political life.

We have become accustomed to seeing politics in broad geographic terms. The 2000 election saw the emergence of a new pattern of political geographic voting patterns: a division not simply between red and blue states alone but between urban and metropolitan areas on the one hand and suburban and rural ones on the other. This was a reflection of an emerging split that had been decades in the making. Whereas Kevin Phillips had seen an “emerging Republican majority” rising out the Southern and Southwestern “Sunbelt,” the economic shifts toward mass suburbanization and the cultural divides that this shift entailed made the split between conservatives and liberals ever more acute. It was a shift that began to move the geographical and cultural hegemony of the Northeast to the South and Southwest where everything from labor laws to attitudes toward religion and secularism were in radical contrast.

It was with this shift in the early 1970s that the liberal consensus began to break apart. Unleashed by the populist white backlash to the Civil Rights movement—as well as the shift of economic dominance from the Northeast to the South and Southwest—conservative politics also fused the imperatives of pro-business entities to form the pivotal turn in American politics and ideology since the end of the 19th century. The terrain for this political conflict has been regional and widespread. It has sparked a clash of cultures in America: a serious divide between the interests and cultures of two different Americas, largely divided between urban, liberal, cosmopolitan and metropolitan areas and the massive suburbs and rural areas that dominate the periphery and, in some states, the very heartland of America. This is not simply the classic opposition between what Marx called “the town and the country”; the significance of this divide is meaningful since it reinforced a spatial, racial and ideological divide between working people, severing their common interests.

Ideology—banished to the periphery of America’s “pragmatic” politics—therefore needs to be brought back into the spotlight. A renewal of politics can come only from the renewal of vision, albeit one grounded in material interests and concerns. And no matter how we choose to characterize the politics of the present, the need to transform American political culture has as its centerpiece the need to confront and reorient the contemporary liberal discourse. As Louis Hartz acutely pointed out in the 1950s, America’s political culture was wholly defined by the doctrine of liberalism. Irrespective of this is, America has also been able in the past to transform its liberal doctrine into something more progressive and more deeply democratic, “socialized,” than what we know at present as “liberalism.” Without an alternative understanding of American political life, the commitments of government, and the articulation of the moral needs of society over that of rampant individualism, the Democratic Party will scarcely be able to do more than work in the shadow of the machinations of the Republican Party. And the Democrats cannot spark renewal without themselves looking to the rational left, to the social democratic tradition that was itself emerging with the influential ideas of the New Deal and the Progressives and reformulating and rebuilding the one true intellectual and political movements in American political history that would bring any semblance of real equality and social justice to fruition.


http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schleslib.html

Enough should have been said by now to indicate that liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain. Liberalism in America has been a party of social progress rather than of intellectual doctrine, committed to ends rather than to methods. When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state.

The process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three great reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security

The ideological content of modern American liberalism has been less coherent than its political and administrative evolution. The two Roosevelts and Wilson were ideologists only in the broadest and loosest sense. Their oratory dealt in mood and in program rather than in philosophy; and, with inspired eclecticism, they drew on all types and sources for their ideas and policies. In the 1920's, however, a liberal ideology did begin to crystallize, deriving its main tenets from the philosophy of John Dewey and from the economics of Thorstein Veblen. Dewey, with his faith in human rationality and in the power of the creative intelligence, gave this ideological liberalism a strong belief in the efficacy of overhead social planning; and this bent was reinforced by Veblen, who detested the price system and the free market and thought that the economy could be far more efficiently and sensibly operated by a junta or soviet of engineers.

This liberal ideology, with its commitment to central governmental planning

(does that sound like socialism anyone?)

What's wrong with Iran becoming untouchable? It's a democracy with free and fair elections. Which is precisely what the Coalition is trying to set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not a democracy; the president of Iran is merely the liason between the people of Iran and the Ayatolahs. He is a figuerehead. He defers to the theocrats, his term will pass, and the true rulers will remain.

I agree with some of those things.


American liberals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

In the US, conservatism and liberalism are sometimes seen as polar opposites, yet the situation is more complex. A major area of difference in US politics is that between social liberalism and social conservatism. Social liberals advocate policies that promote change of established ideas, while social conservatives support established traditions of American society, or norms of previous generations. The media widely covers the differences in opinion in issues such as same-sex marriage, sex education, and the separation of church and state. Some extreme American "conservatives" term themselves "libertarians" (including some who support the Libertarian Party) and advocate fiscal conservatism mixed with social liberalism, further blurring the traditional distinctions between liberalism and conservatism.

Fiscally, US liberals advocate consumer protection regulations, and other policies which run contrary to fiscal conservative, (or neoliberal), ideals. In the US, liberal and conservative are generalizations that do not point to any concrete set of ideals or values. In the US, "neoliberal" refers mainly to non-mainstream leftist critics of fiscal conservatism and/or of the free trade movement.

http://www.logosjournal.com/thompson_election.htm

In America, the transformation of liberalism began in the 20th century with the attempt to redefine liberalism wholly in economic terms. It placed emphasis on libertarian ideas of individualism and market coordination, something that would effect a reversal in the understanding of American liberalism as a political doctrine and the political self-consciousness of American political culture. Influential thinkers during the 20th century such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, among others, gave voice to the idea—one that would become central in American political life—that economic freedom was a precondition for political freedom. Society was no longer seen as an entity in itself—as prominent thinkers of the 19th century such as Emile Durkheim had argued—it was now considered little more than an assemblage of individuals, tied together by contract enforced by the laws of a minimal government. But the main aim of thinkers ranging from Hayek to Friedman was, essentially, to redefine what American democratic culture and politics had, by the time of the end of the Second World War, become: not a democracy that was privileging individualism and liberty but, rather, what these thinkers saw as a society bent upon “collectivism,” socialism, and, in time, totalitarian communism. The future was a road to serfdom.

Understanding the conservative attack on these older themes of American liberalism is crucial for comprehending the current state of American politics and its drift rightward. This sustained attack has not only been political in nature, but ideological as well. It has been against what I will call here, after John Dewey, the “social liberalism” of the first several decades of American political thought and policy which emphasized a new conception of political and economic life and steered American democratic ideas down the path of social democracy.

What the contemporary manifestation of liberalism has been unable to provide is an ethical foundation for fighting the unrestrained dynamics of the market that have fragmented and reified the public life, alienated whole swaths of the middle class and working people from their most salient political interests, and contributed to an overwhelming breakdown of the public sphere. Social liberalism was the response to this same tendency in American life in the early 20th century, and looking back is useful. One thinks of the influential figures of the Progressive and New Deal eras—now sadly forgotten but, without doubt, just as relevant as ever in the current context—such as Herbert Croly, Walter Weyl, Thurman Arnold, Rexford Tugwell and Nathan Straus, to name only a few. The new interpretation of democracy and liberalism they set out to construct was one that emphasized the social nature of individual and political life as opposed to the laissez faire individualism of the 19th century. Placing emphasis on the social dimensions of political life and the mythology of laissez faire capitalism meant that what Marx had called man’s “communal essence” became for thinkers like Dewey “social liberalism”: individuals were not autonomous entities, they were socially constituted; each of us relied on complex systems—from the division of labor to bureaucracy—to survive and flourish under the conditions of modernity and especially under capitalism. This was set against all previous understandings of liberalism, of “classical liberalism” specifically, which saw individualism in simplistic, atomistic terms more akin to Newtonian physics than to the complex realities of modern life.

But what we have seen in the last two and a half decades is the degeneration of social liberalism and, as a consequence, its gradual inability to provide vigorous alternatives to the current neoconservative project, which itself has appropriated the old individualistic and Social Darwinist version of economic liberalism. It is an interpretation of liberalism that emphasizes the rights to property and economic liberty and conservatives have been successful in meshing this with populist concerns about big government—one can think of the political potency of tax cuts in this regard. This transformation of liberalism has led to the timidity of the Democratic Party, the rightward drift of organizations such as the DLC and the inability of Democratic candidates at all levels to connect the interests of the majority of Americans with their own agenda. Democrats have seen the erosion of their traditional political base and it has been unable to respond to the neoconservative attack on its traditional policy aims and prescriptions.

Every revolution produces its own counter-revolution; each progressive move toward embracing a more just social order suffers from reaction. In this respect, the virtues of social liberalism still need to be understood in order to understand the nature of the backlash and what this means for American politics. Indeed, social liberalism was able to merge the concerns of economic inequality as well as the assimilation of ethnic minorities and cultural difference. It did not see liberalism as a doctrine of simple toleration, but of the dissemination of civic education and public values. Universalism was privileged over particularism, and the ideal of “social liberalism” was to promote individualism in thought but solidarity through rational laws and universally recognized moral ends. Indeed, religion and ethnic identity in America were never small parts of everyday life, but the religious populism that has underpinned Republican elections since the ascendancy of groups like the Christian Coalition in the early 1990s, has not been the only evidence of the return to religion and its more pernicious effects. The decay of social liberalism—which began with the white backlash against the civil rights movement—has also seen an increased tribalism among religious and ethnic minorities and groups, given rise to a renewed white backlash, called the value of diversity into question, and has made social bonds between different groups and individuals more tenuous, more distant and less conducive to the universalistic dimensions of democratic political life.

We have become accustomed to seeing politics in broad geographic terms. The 2000 election saw the emergence of a new pattern of political geographic voting patterns: a division not simply between red and blue states alone but between urban and metropolitan areas on the one hand and suburban and rural ones on the other. This was a reflection of an emerging split that had been decades in the making. Whereas Kevin Phillips had seen an “emerging Republican majority” rising out the Southern and Southwestern “Sunbelt,” the economic shifts toward mass suburbanization and the cultural divides that this shift entailed made the split between conservatives and liberals ever more acute. It was a shift that began to move the geographical and cultural hegemony of the Northeast to the South and Southwest where everything from labor laws to attitudes toward religion and secularism were in radical contrast.

It was with this shift in the early 1970s that the liberal consensus began to break apart. Unleashed by the populist white backlash to the Civil Rights movement—as well as the shift of economic dominance from the Northeast to the South and Southwest—conservative politics also fused the imperatives of pro-business entities to form the pivotal turn in American politics and ideology since the end of the 19th century. The terrain for this political conflict has been regional and widespread. It has sparked a clash of cultures in America: a serious divide between the interests and cultures of two different Americas, largely divided between urban, liberal, cosmopolitan and metropolitan areas and the massive suburbs and rural areas that dominate the periphery and, in some states, the very heartland of America. This is not simply the classic opposition between what Marx called “the town and the country”; the significance of this divide is meaningful since it reinforced a spatial, racial and ideological divide between working people, severing their common interests.

Ideology—banished to the periphery of America’s “pragmatic” politics—therefore needs to be brought back into the spotlight. A renewal of politics can come only from the renewal of vision, albeit one grounded in material interests and concerns. And no matter how we choose to characterize the politics of the present, the need to transform American political culture has as its centerpiece the need to confront and reorient the contemporary liberal discourse. As Louis Hartz acutely pointed out in the 1950s, America’s political culture was wholly defined by the doctrine of liberalism. Irrespective of this is, America has also been able in the past to transform its liberal doctrine into something more progressive and more deeply democratic, “socialized,” than what we know at present as “liberalism.” Without an alternative understanding of American political life, the commitments of government, and the articulation of the moral needs of society over that of rampant individualism, the Democratic Party will scarcely be able to do more than work in the shadow of the machinations of the Republican Party. And the Democrats cannot spark renewal without themselves looking to the rational left, to the social democratic tradition that was itself emerging with the influential ideas of the New Deal and the Progressives and reformulating and rebuilding the one true intellectual and political movements in American political history that would bring any semblance of real equality and social justice to fruition.


http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schleslib.html

Enough should have been said by now to indicate that liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain. Liberalism in America has been a party of social progress rather than of intellectual doctrine, committed to ends rather than to methods. When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state.

The process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three great reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security

The ideological content of modern American liberalism has been less coherent than its political and administrative evolution. The two Roosevelts and Wilson were ideologists only in the broadest and loosest sense. Their oratory dealt in mood and in program rather than in philosophy; and, with inspired eclecticism, they drew on all types and sources for their ideas and policies. In the 1920's, however, a liberal ideology did begin to crystallize, deriving its main tenets from the philosophy of John Dewey and from the economics of Thorstein Veblen. Dewey, with his faith in human rationality and in the power of the creative intelligence, gave this ideological liberalism a strong belief in the efficacy of overhead social planning; and this bent was reinforced by Veblen, who detested the price system and the free market and thought that the economy could be far more efficiently and sensibly operated by a junta or soviet of engineers.

This liberal ideology, with its commitment to central governmental planning

(does that sound like socialism anyone?)

WTF

dude, be quiet or be brief.