But just to be clear, Iran is the one that is threatening us.
Pretty much says it all:
http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran-has-us-surrounded-all-right.html
Each star is a US base. But just to be clear, Iran is the one that is threatening us.
Comments
-
Considering Iraq and Afghanistan are ripe for the moving in and they already own Lebanon, I'm not sure I disagree with the US base placements. Granted, we brought this nonsense on ourselves by supporting the Shah and getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but that doesn't mean you don't protect yourself from a troublemaker.
-
You call this protecting ourselves?
-
Sure, BG, don't you remember the red menace that was going to expand from Viet Nam to take over the world? It's the same thing, except now it's them Muslim fellas, who jeopardize all us good Christians (especially those of us Christians who are actually Jews)... they're starting over there in Arab land and they're gonna move West and take over Europe and then the good old USA!
Lock you doors!!
-
booklaw said:
Sure, BG, don't you remember the red menace that was going to expand from Viet Nam to take over the world? It's the same thing, except now it's them Muslim fellas, who jeopardize all us good Christians (especially those of us Christians who are actually Jews)... they're starting over there in Arab land and they're gonna move West and take over Europe and then the good old USA!Lock you doors!!
Almost. Ever since 1979, Iran has been looking to become a major player in world influence: both in the political and religious arena . And they've succeeded. They have the very underrated distinction of being strong allies with Venezuela. Maybe, to the point of getting a military base or advisers stationed. They're certainly looking to fill the potential voids in Iraq and Afghanistan so as to occupy two former enemy countries, as well as putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They're looking to gain nuclear technology while threatening to wipe Israel off the map. They, along with Syria, practically own Lebanon: again, Israel. So all of this, while maybe not taking over Europe or the USA, certainly has the potential to involve thousands upon thousands of American lives. Not mentioning the potential life loss of the region.
-
And don't forget, Iran has the drone that we lost over there so now they have more reams of intelligence data. Makes the Wikileaks stuff look like nothing. So, they will eventually have new ways of retaliating. Sure, they may build some nukes but we have a lot more than can go much further and their air force is lacking spare parts for the F-16s they have because we don't sell to them anymore. This is not going to be a good situation for many years to come because even if Ahmedinejad is toppled they won't allow any new leadership to become friendly with the West or even to become more secular.
-
Idlewild said:
Almost. Ever since 1979, Iran has been looking to become a major player in world influence: both in the political and religious arena .They ARE a major player in world influence. Have been for a long time. For a lot of reasons. We could have engaged them diplomatically, instead we deposed their democratically elected government, and 40 years later, invade almost every country surrounding them.
Is it unreasonable that they strike a defensive and noisy posture?
No.
Idlewild said: And they've succeeded. They have the very underrated distinction of being strong allies with Venezuela. Maybe, to the point of getting a military base or advisers stationed.
Then perhaps we shouldn't have deposed Iran's strongest enemy in the region (Iraq), installing instead a government that is FAR more friendly to Shiite Iran than Saddam ever was.
Invading Iraq was and is completely antithetical to your theory here. But hey, that's neoconservatism for you.
Idlewild said:They're certainly looking to fill the potential voids in Iraq and Afghanistan so as to occupy two former enemy countries, potential life loss of the region.
You know how much loss of life our country created in the region? 100,000's, perhaps a million dead Iraqis.
And we did this as what? A preemptive measure to a threat that doesn't exist?
The idea that we should be the bulwark against civilian deaths in the region is a cruel and unfunny joke.
Idlewild said:
as well as putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They're looking to gain nuclear technology while threatening to wipe Israel off the map.That phrase doesn't exist in farci, so it's a lie that you should stop perpetuating.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near nuclear weaponry, or even that they are pursuing it.
So the more belligerent we are, the less likely we are to deter nuclear weaponry.
Choose your diplomacy wisely.
-
PragmaticGuy said:
And don't forget, Iran has the drone that we lost over there so now they have more reams of intelligence data. Makes the Wikileaks stuff look like nothing. So, they will eventually have new ways of retaliating. Sure, they may build some nukes but we have a lot more than can go much further and their air force is lacking spare parts for the F-16s they have because we don't sell to them anymore. This is not going to be a good situation for many years to come because even if Ahmedinejad is toppled they won't allow any new leadership to become friendly with the West or even to become more secular.You know the US is the one who invades countries, is the only country to ever use a nuke, and is as likely as any other to use them again.
It's comical to think that we're the good guys when it comes to war and diplomacy.
-
I agree....I never said we were the good guys. We're just as bad as the rest of the world. The propagandists say we're the good guys. Believe me, I get more embarrassed to live in this country each day. We may have the highest standard of living but our foreign relations leave a lot to be desired. I think we have way too much disdain for people who don't believe in what we do. If people in other countries accept the type of government they have then we have no right to say otherwise or start wars in order to "convince them" they're wrong.
-
Ah, sorry. Misread your perspective.
-
Boygabriel said:
They ARE a major player in world influence. Have been for a long time. For a lot of reasons. We could have engaged them diplomatically, instead we deposed their democratically elected government, and 40 years later, invade almost every country surrounding them.Yes, I know they're a major player. I believe I stated this.
Boygabriel said:Is it unreasonable that they strike a defensive and noisy posture? No.
Then perhaps we shouldn't have deposed Iran's strongest enemy in the region (Iraq), installing instead a government that is FAR more friendly to Shiite Iran than Saddam ever was.
Invading Iraq was and is completely antithetical to your theory here. But hey, that's neoconservatism for you.
When did I ever say or infer invading Iraq was ethical? I was always against it. But it happened. And because it happened, to not be cautious about Iran would be foolish.
Boygabriel said:You know how much loss of life our country created in the region? 100,000's, perhaps a million dead Iraqis.
And we did this as what? A preemptive measure to a threat that doesn't exist?
The idea that we should be the bulwark against civilian deaths in the region is a cruel and unfunny joke.
Yes. I know hundreds of thousands of human beings perished. This is something the western powers will have to face as a shameful act along with retaliation for at least a century. No smiley faces here.
You do know that the enemy territories I'm speaking relates to Iran? That Afghanistan (Taliban), Iraq, and even Pakistan
were not Iran friendly?Boygabriel said:That phrase doesn't exist in farci, so it's a lie that you should stop perpetuating.
That is not a lie. F-a-r-s-i phrase or not. And I'm not even a supporter of Israel. Maybe you think there are no homosexuals in Iran as well?
Boygabriel said:There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near nuclear weaponry, or even that they are pursuing it.
Right! The big major player is acquiring nuclear material for peaceful means. So peaceful that it has the whole region shaking in their boots. So peaceful, that the Saudis are now looking to start a nuke program of their own. Probably so peaceful that most of the Arab nations will look the other way when the Israelis cross their borders to bomb the nuclear "power" processing plant.
Boygabriel said:So the more belligerent we are, the less likely we are to deter nuclear weaponry.
Choose your diplomacy wisely.
No.
-
Alright! I give up on the formatting. Let the chips fall...
-
Idlewild said:
When did I ever say or infer invading Iraq was ethical? I was always against it. But it happened. And because it happened, to not be cautious about Iran would be foolish.Being cautious is one thing, occupying every neighboring nation is another entirely.
You are the one who referenced "potential life loss of the region." The Iraq debacle speaks directly to this point, and to our lack of credibility on the topic.
Idlewild said:You do know that the enemy territories I'm speaking relates to Iran? That Afghanistan (Taliban), Iraq, and even Pakistan
What?
Idlewild said:That is not a lie. F-a-r-s-i phrase or not. And I'm not even a supporter of Israel.
No, it is. It was misquoted and out of context. To claim otherwise is inaccurate. The phrase doesn't exist in farsi.
Idlewild said:
Maybe you think there are no homosexuals in Iran as well?What?
Idlewild said:Right! The big major player is acquiring nuclear material for peaceful means. So peaceful that it has the whole region shaking in their boots. So peaceful, that the Saudis are now looking to start a nuke program of their own. Probably so peaceful that most of the Arab nations will look the other way when the Israelis cross their borders to bomb the nuclear "power" processing plant.
Other nations' fear and Israel's belligerence and military state now counts as justification for… whatever it is you're advocating? invading and occupying neighboring sub regions?
Please.
Idlewild said:Nuclear weaponry will eventually come to those who pursue it, no matter what our stance is with the particular country in question. Iran is a global power: so why shouldn't they produce nuclear weaponry to become a global super-power? Any nation in their situation would. They have the cash, they certainly have the scientific minds-it's inevitable.
So we should engage them diplomatically. Not menace them with invasions and armies.
These bases and occupations have the exact opposite effect of deescalation and prevention of loss of life.
-
I'm not advocating anything. I'm jut telling you why the bases are there. And yes, we should have diplomatic relations with Iran. Using Switzerland as a middle-man for thirty plus years is silly. We should have diplomatic relations with Cuba too.
-
I know WHY the bases are there.
They're unjustified and counterproductive.
On top of that, the Washington establishment, press corps, and especially neoconservatives, are successfully convincing the nation that Iran is the one menacing us.
Meanwhile most Americans couldn't point to Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan on a map, let alone know that we're massing troops and bases up and down Iran's borders.
All some people know is that that bad country with the evil man with the beard wants to nuke us or Israel or both.
Pass the french fries and see what's on the other channel.
-
Your map does not show the submarines, the carrier groups, or amphibious ships in the surrounding waters.
Because of their ability to strike quickly, they may be far more effective (offensive?) than bases.
-
Wonderful.
-
How is that related? I'm lost.
-
Sometimes we are smart enough to "aid" the enemies of our enemies, rather than fight our enemies directly.
Ideally, such tactics allows us to state, "we didn't attack Iran ....Iraq and Oman did".
Or, as in the case of the article I link above: "Look, we are making money for America. Not spending it"
In each case, we were bright enough to "just" supply the planes and the bombs, and trained the pilots.
...if you dig a little deeper, you will find we also train the up-and-coming members of their military's officer class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
-
While this may come off as incredibly pointless and cliche - those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
For decades, the Roman Empire supplied certain neighboring Visigothic tribes tribes with weapons and training, upholding the "enemey of my enemy" foreign policy. In 310 AD, Rome was sacked and the "Eternal City" finally fell, due to an invading army of... Visigoths.
In the 1980's, U.S. foreign policy involved supporting certain Middle Eastern factions with training and information in their fight against Russian occupation in Afghanistan, with the Taliban freedom fighters being the largest benefactor. Then in September 2001...
-
Yup
whynot_31 said:
Sometimes we are smart enough to "aid" the enemies of our enemies, rather than fight our enemies directly.Ideally, such tactics allows us to state, "we didn't attack Iran ....Iraq and Oman did".
Or, as in the case of the article I link above: "Look, we are making money for America. Not spending it"
In each case, we were bright enough to "just" supply the planes and the bombs, and trained the pilots.
...if you dig a little deeper, you will find we also train the up-and-coming members of their military's officer class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
-
threatening to wipe Israel off the map.
That phrase doesn't exist in farci, so it's a lie that you should stop perpetuating.
That so called "threat" has been debunked a thousand times by Professor Juan Cole and others innumerable times over the years. The only ones making threats are Israel and the USA. It's time for the world to put a stop to this nonsense.
-
At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.
that be some war mongering talk there.
-
We now must figure out whether a war with Iran would bring out more voters who are opposed to it, OR for it.
Is an election worth what is at stake?
Tip 1: Always state that you are exhausting all diplomatic options. Repeat this until people believe you have to do something, not merely want to do something.
-
It's funny that we have to "persuade" Israel to do something, when we provide them THREE BILLION dollars a year in combined military & economic "aid".
How about this for persuasion:
Don't attack Iran or we will remove the BILLIONS we give you.
Of course this won't happen b/c the establishment in DC isn't actually opposed to war with Iran.
This like "persuading" your child not to beat up on their younger sibling, while still giving them money & buying them the boxing gloves.
armchair_warrior said:
At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.that be some war mongering talk there.
armchair_warrior said:
At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.that be some war mongering talk there.
-
BG-
Our best scenario may be that we are "smart".whynot_31 said:
Sometimes we are smart enough to "aid" the enemies of our enemies, rather than fight our enemies directly.Ideally, such tactics allows us to state, "we didn't attack Iran ....Iraq and Oman did".
Or, as in the case of the article I link above: "Look, we are making money for America. Not spending it"
In each case, we were bright enough to "just" supply the planes and the bombs, and trained the pilots.
...if you dig a little deeper, you will find we also train the up-and-coming members of their military's officer class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
-
there aren't quotation marks in the world big enough to properly express that.
-
If the US goes to war against Iran (or helps some other country do it), I just hope diehard Democrats will be able to see why many of people perceive the Republican and Democratic parties as being very similar in this regard.
On the other hand, maybe I'll just envy them for believing that one party is always superior to the other. When one has a hero, there is always someone else to blame.
-
National defense, domestic spying and related issues have definitely woken some people up to the similarities between the two parties on these issues.
IMO.
I've watched a lot of people come to realization that Obama is not, and never was, a progressive.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds