|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Guest Commentary Walking the Tightrope on Iran|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinio...15202,193367,00.html
As far as PBHO's actions/inactions, I think we will have to wait to see how things pan out. I think he could have said something in support of freedom like in Egypt, but I don't have his presidential briefs everyday. Plus, we don't really know what the CIA is doing over there right now with the US-backed Jundollah terrorist group/freedom fighters (depending on your perspective) right now. As far as a fair election after WWII, Eland might want to read a bit about Moussadeq's quasi communist coup de etat: http://www.knowledgerush.com/k.../Mohhamed_Moussadeq/ The US and Britain were protecting our economic and national security interests during the Cold War against the USSR. |
||
|
|
Member |
So the so-called conservatives who's foreign policy failures of the past 8 years still think that acting like an ignorant cowboy is going to further US goals? We don't have anything left to really threaten Iran with, and it was the so-called "get tough with Iran" bunch that encouraged GW Bush to add Iran to the "axis of evil" after they came to us to bury the hatchet (and then compounded the problem further by putting Iran into the power brokers seat by fighting terrorism where it wasn't: Iraq). This president is wise to watch the events and not directly involve himself in this tawdry idiocy. However, Iran might have nuclear ambitions, but NO ONE has proven that they are attempting to build nuclear weapons. In fact, they will run out of oil before terribly long (maybe 10-15 years) and will require some source of methods to generate electricity. Ironically, it is the United States that originally approved Iran moving towards nuclear power when they were still our friends (during the Ford Administration), and the approval signatures included both Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The overwhelming majority of Iranian people support their government acquiring nuclear energy - so regardless of what form of government they end up with, or who is running it, whether they are friendly to the US or not: it is unlikey they will ever give it up. Iran is also a signatory to the NPT, and are therefore entitled to refine uranium and generate electricity if they want to: they are breaking no laws or treatys. That doesn't mean something else might not be happening - but they are not in any violation of the NPT today. It is also notable, that at least Iran, quite unlike our "staunch allies" like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, amongst others, are at least holding elections. They are therefore FAR more democratic than any of these other countries. The US tends to be mighty selective about who needs to "tow the line", and until the blatant double-standard stops, our credibility will suffer. |
|||
|
|
Terminated by the CIC!!! News at 11 !!! not...Nemesis |
It took Obama 10 days to react against Ahmanidijen. Why? Partial to anybody who 'hates America'? Hateful of anybody who hates Ahmanidjen who hates America?
If Obama had not known my comment on political affairs.net which reads that I am 'partial to Ahmanidjen' (as a way of lengthening my life span), he should not had aired his opposition to the Iranian leader who "swore to wipe out Israel off the map". (The comment was 'posted' but was not printed. It has to pass editor's approval. Knowing his control of CIA, he surely have known it). |
|||
|
|
New Member |
It took Obama 10 days to react against Ahmanidijen. Why? Partial to anybody who 'hates America'? Hateful of anybody who hates Ahmanidjen who hates America?
If Obama had not known my comment on political affairs.net which reads that I am 'partial to Ahmanidjen' (as a way of lengthening my life span), he should not had aired his opposition to the Iranian leader who "swore to wipe out Israel off the map". (The comment was 'posted' but was not printed. It has to pass editor's approval. Knowing his control of CIA, he surely have known it).[QUOTE] [/QUOTE Please have some orginal thoughts other than the talking points I see on FOX News. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Wonk,
The last 8 years was the reason we have had problems with Iran. C'mon dude, say it ain't so...Let's look back to WWII for the whole story and chronologically move forward through each administration to get the "Big Picture". Bush made mistakes like all presidents, but how long can some blame him the world's problems? What's important is what will PBHO do and will he be successfull. |
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Well, they don't call it 'burying ones head in the sand' for nothing. That's one right out of the optimist's handbook! Neville Chamberlain would be proud. Also, note the liberal mindset. The penultimate measure of 'democracy' and 'freedom' seems to be staged elections, however rigged. I wonder, do you think Sadaam was a democratically elected leader because he claimed 99.98% of the vote in his last election? Do you believe the Soviet Union possessed a democratically elected government? They had elections too. Fence sitting may seem a good strategy, but at some point delay in stating our position will only look like we're opportunistic. When the new government comes to power, it won't do us any good to state "Solidarity, brother! We were with you all the way!" when in actuality, we didn't do or say squat. Sullivan013 |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yo yanqui69 - I'm not suggesting in any way that GWB is the cause of all problems w/r/t Iraq - not by any stretch of the imagination (if I somehow implied that, that was an error on my part). The US has had a long and inglorious history of meddling in Iranian affairs, including the removal of an elected leader and installing as his replacement the much despised Shah of Iran. However, it is important to note that after 9/11 the Iranians were the first muslim country to offer condolences and aid, and to condemn the attack on the US by Al Queda. The Iranians subsequently gave tremendous help to the US by providing intelligence, offering logistical support (including use of airfields and hospitals) in support of our Afghan campaign to oust the Taliban and go after Al Queda. Furthermore, they made it clear that they were ready to put all problems of the past on the table for resolution with the end goal or renormalizing relations with the United States. Note that the Taliban killed a number of Iranian diplomats and their families: so the Iranians clearly have no love lost with them - they dealt with them at lower levels out of pragmtism/necessity. Instead of taking advantage of this extraordinary opportunity, we took the intelligence they offered and added the Iranians to the "axis of evil", and in rather blunt language warned them that "they were next". A classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and the rest as the saying goes, is history. Lamentably, none of it to the favorable credit of the United States or its president. So he didn't cause all the problems, but he made the pile of problems far, far worse than they ever had to be. The Iranians since went to the dark side (after preferring to work with the United States) and made huge deals with Russia and China, which truely thwarted the majority of the diplomatic pressure the US could bring to bear (for sanctions to work, we have to have something to take away, and we no longer have that). PBHO is taking a long-term view w/r/t handling the Iranians, which is a huge step in the right direction. Knee-jerk reactions similar to that of John McCain, etc, are simply not constructive at this time, and only serve to cause more problems than they are worth. For our foreign policy to be successful, we have to stop creating more problems (especially since they will not favorably affect the outcome in Iran anyway, and will only add credence to the "America is meddling in our internal affairs" crowd). Please note, that the Iranians (and arabs) when viewing the United States, don't necessarily view it as all in the past and therefore something to be forgotten. They carry grudges for centuries and their memories are very long indeed (quite unlike so many Americans), and are perhaps looking for some kind of recognition in this respect. So regardless, our history haunts us. The "Blame America Last" crowd therefore represents an obstruction to progress, by openly refusing to accept the historical record (and demonstrating an unwillingness to accept responsibility for the less-than-proud actions of the United States). Cheers |
|||
|
|
Member |
Note that Neville Chamberlain was a highly decorated war hero, who was all too clearly aware that Europe (let alone Britian) had a long way to go to recover from WWI (millions of people died). His deal with Hitler was widely supported because everyone else (with few exceptions) felt the same way. However, when Hitler violated the deal, Chamberlain immediately put Britian onto a full war footing. There is such a thing a hiding ones head in the sand, and then there was invading a sovereign nation based on completely false pretences. Even if the reason for invading Iraq was attributed to mental illness (and/or paranoia), it was directly contrary to the 2002 NIE that indicated that Iraq was NOT a threat to the United States. One should not be blind, but neither should one encourage belligerence because of what they simply suspect (which only led to thousands of our own people being killed, 10's of thousands wounded, a 100k Iraqi deaths, and so on). Apparently, that lesson has yet to sink in for some (and fortunately, the crimes committed that caused this tragedy have no statute of limitations). The 2008 NIE stated that Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program years ago - but the so-called conservatives can't help but scream how paranoid they are from the rooftops. Iran at least HAS elections, unlike so many of our "staunch allies". This last one (for president) was likely rigged (I never said they were fair - that was your assumption), but the response to that election on the part of the Iranian government only serves to delegitimize their leadership. That problem will likely (eventually) solve itself, without US intervention. Regardless, Iran is entitled to refine uranium and produce electricity as signatories of the NPT. Legally, there is *nothing* the United States or anyone else can do about it. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Nearly too late. During the obvious militarization of Germany, he and the rest of his party refused Churchill's continuous calls for rearmament. Churchill produced facts and figures, Chamberlain produced platitudes AND DID NOTHING. The tragedy of Neville Chamberlain was that he was a good man fooled by his own ego and wishful thinking that all would be well so long as peace was the object. He believed Hitler wanted peace because he (Chamberlain) wished it to be so, despite the clear evidence of the Nazi government's violations of the Versailles Treaty. There is no place for sophomores in the pantheon of world leaders. There is need for practical statesmen skilled in the art of realpolitik in this and all endeavors that face the US. As the latest blurb out of Tehran illustrates, support of the Ahmadinejad government is quite out of the question. That leaves very little to fence to sit on. Sullivan013 P.S. During WWI Neville Chamberlain was Lord Mayor of Birmingham and was later the Director of National Service (head of the national draft for the UK). He never served a day in uniform. Churchill, however, was a cavalry officer, served in India (Northwest Frontier), was a war correspondant who participated in the Sudan, Boer War and eventually led an infantry battalion in the trenches during WWI. When he found out the Brigade mess was "dry", he made a point to spend as much time as he could 'forward' with his men. Oh, and besides that, he was the motivation and support behind the development of the armored 'tank' as a weapon of war. |
|||
|
|
Member |
If you read Churchill's excellent series on the history of WWII, you'll find that even he is highly understanding of Chamberlains perspective, and that they were and remained close friends up until Chamberlains death due to illness (the only reason he left office - no one, or very few, questioned either his competence or judgement). |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
No doubt. Churchill was very loyal to his friends and to whom he thought was worthy. His support of Edward VII is evidence of this.
That doesn't excuse Chamberlain's inaction in the least. Nor the disaster that was Munich. However, given a choice between the two, I'd take Churchill every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Sullivan013 |
|||
|
|
Member |
I'd take Churchill myself - especially in retrospect! I have doubts about even having to excuse Chamberlains "inaction" in the first place because he was doing his job. No one wanted to be involved with another war (indeed, no rational person does), and he had huge support for his work/attempts to prevent exactly that. Again, the memories of WW1 were still in the front of rational people's minds - and few were in favor of risking a major confrontation with Germany. Cheers |
|||
|
|
Member |
Wonk, you make Iran sound like a saint, err excuse me, a martyr...Take a look back at the atrocities they committed throughout history, especially the Persian Empire.
And you want to blame the US for the world's problems in its mere 200 years of existence versus Iran/Persia's thousands? Please, let's get real. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yo yanqui69 - To make Iran sound like saints, etc, is not my intent (and that accusation is a stretch). They did the same things during wars as practially everyone else. By the same standard we could view the Catholic Church the same way, right? If you look at what everyone did throughout all of history then there is no reason to trust anyone, or give them the benefit of the doubt under any circumstance, etc. I'm not blaming the US for all of the problems of the past 200 years either - not by any stretch (thats a pretty tall order). Note the weasels that claim that anyone that brings up the aspects of our history that caused <name of country> serious problems is often referred to as the "blame America first" crowd. Some people do get carried away in this regard. However, to attempt to ignore or otherwise sweep serious offenses under the rug or otherwise pretend these events didn't happen is every bit as destructive (if no more so) to our foreign policy. To formulate a workable foreign policy, we also have to be on solid ground and take recent events/actions into account. Both sides in this respect need to "get real" and act like adults. Cheers |
|||
|
|
Member |
So where do you draw the line on "what is good for the US national security" and "what is good for the world"? Which one is more important?
Everything that happens has MORE than two sides of the story. These are things that are well thought out and controversial in decision in order to protect our way of life. Yes, at the expense of other nations too. The goal is carry out the US foreign policy objectives while trying to "do no harm", but it is easier said than done. What we may do for one ally may not be good for another ally. I'm more a believer of being selfish to the US' national security while assisting the rest of the world if it's strategically in our interests; not just because someone thinks it's ethical right. (I'm not referring to you in this sense). |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Guest Commentary Walking the Tightrope on Iran
