The shift in the military

[mchlwalters]

Sometimes a point by point refuation is neccesary and this is one of those times.

If you attempt diplomacy with someone who has no interest in dealing with you legitimately (as Iran and Syria do not), then what you lose is TIME.

Its merely your assumption that Iran and Syria do not have an interest in dealing. Iran helped us in Afghanistan, you can look that up for your self if you are interested in facts, although I highly doubt it. I also recall that estimates say Iran would have a nuclear bomb in 10 years if they are pursuing it. Time is in the excess.

Stop being so damned naive.

Right I am the naive one who thought the Iraqis would greet us as liberators because America is loved in the World Arena. That's what the neocons were running around saying.

 

[mchlwalters]

Stop being so damned naive. You think the idiots who stormed our embassy and held our hostages for 444 days are going to negotiate in good faith?

If only history started in 1979. But it started in 1953 when we overthrew their democratically elected government and installed the Shah that they revolted against us in 1979. You can look into the Church Commitee Proceedings or "All the Shah's Men" if you are interested. Maybe you understand why others aren't that fond when they say we are fighting for democracy since we helped end one. Let's not forget we then waged a war for 8 years on Iranian soil by gassing Kurds and Shia and then tried to recant and invade Saddam ourselves. We should be so lucky that they should be willing to cooperate with us, as they did in Afghanistan.

 

[mchlwalters]

Do you actually think that a regime that repeatedly has called for and threatened the nuclear destruction of Israel can be dealt with through diplomacy? .

Another distortion. The statements were qualified as saying as when the Soviet Union was wiped off the map. It was a mis-translation. It merely follows that he meant the government should collapse, not any nuclear destruction. Regardless, I remember a while ago when there was a reformist President in power that was making overtures to the West the Administration argued that since the President has very little power in Iran, it does not matter what he says. The Supreme Leader has the real power in Iran, but I bet you didn't know that or even who he is. But now when the President is a different guy who says these things we don't like, now it matters, but it didn't back then. Wonderful.

 

[Zaphod]

So..... As always, the bad guys are mis-quoted and mis-translated, and it's all our fault, anyway.

Go ahaead. Trust this guy more than you do your own countrymen:

Confused, is that you?

 

[mchlwalters]

and it's all our fault, anyway.

No, I don't deal in absolutes or assigning blame. Its you that sees the world as a prism of good and evil, with we being the good and the bad being whoever disagrees with us , us being a small segment of the right wing.

IMO, if you believe that we didn't in intervene in 1953 or help Saddam gas people in the 80's please enlighten me.

 

[mchlwalters]

March 2000 then secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."

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

The United States implemented a policy of support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. At various times, the support took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment, and direct involvement and warfare against Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

IF you disagree with me, tell me why these things were justified and go from there.

 

[nosmileysforme]

mchlwalters:

Comparatively speaking, and not that I disagree with your statements concerning our involvement in Iran, what happened in 1953, or even 1979, is ancient history. Much more recently, Iran was justifiably terrified of the American forces in Iraq after those forces utterly crushed the Iraqi army in a few short weeks; the Iranians were convinced they were next on the regime change chopping block. Under the circumstances it's not difficult to see why they were concerned.

Through the Swiss, which maintain diplomatic relations with both Iran and the U.S., the Iranians indicated that they wanted to discuss differences and disagreements with the United States and that everything was on the table. We told the Swiss that we don't negotiate with Iran and to mind their own business. Some of the authors of that policy are no longer in power, but not much seems to have changed either.

And Zap, you know it's poor debating to attack your opponent, and the straw man approach is likewise weak. Just a friendly reminder....

 

[Zaphod]

mchlwalters:
And Zap, you know it's poor debating to attack your opponent, and the straw man approach is likewise weak. Just a friendly reminder....

Trust me. This clown and I go way back. He deserves every attack he gets, and the strawman argument is perfectly fine when it's true.

As for me, I'm done arguing reality with nitwits, which is why I'm done arguing with him. I've wasted enough time in my life dealing with him.

 

[USNA69]

As for me, I'm done arguing reality with nitwits, which is why I'm done arguing with him. I've wasted enough time in my life dealing with him.

Apparently this guy signed onto the forum with a mission in mind. While he may not be confused, he is totally ignorant of the purpose of the SA forum. My vote is that, in the future, we just ignore him.

 

[Zaphod]

Bingo. You nailed it.

It's a pattern not unknown to those of us familiar with the other place.

 

[The Commissioner]

As for me, I'm done arguing reality with nitwits, which is why I'm done arguing with him. I've wasted enough time in my life dealing with him.

Bummer. And just when I thought you were going for the kill!

 

[Zaphod]

Oh, hell. The horse is dead already. No sense in continuing to beat it up. I've got better things to do.

 

[mchlwalters]

the Iranians were convinced they were next on the regime change chopping block. Under the circumstances it's not difficult to see why they were concerned.

.

The reason why that is lamentable is that, althought it does seem like ancient history, Iran aided the United States in fighting the Taliban because as some are aware there was a large amount of opium production in Afghanistan and a lot of it was smuggled into Iran. Some saw this an opening but after Bush created the new axis that that ended. I don't know how extremely relevant the events of 1953 and 1979 can be, however, it is unacceptable when people who will not be named try to whitewash history and erase our own misdoings from the record. Jingoism at its worst. It is not entirely a partisan issue because Clinton did not open up relations with Khatami and passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act and we all know Reagan and "Iran-Contra" and propping up the Hussein regime.

 

[mchlwalters]

Apparently this guy signed onto the forum with a mission in mind. While he may not be confused, he is totally ignorant of the purpose of the SA forum. My vote is that, in the future, we just ignore him.

I recalled this is the Lightning Forum debate and I followed the rules clearly and made no ad hominem attacks, although the Moderator did. But we can't expect authority to punish authority. He didn't try to disable my membership though so I'll take it as a sign of relative fairness however.

 

[Zaphod]

That's the only reason you're still here; because I try to be fair.

Be warned, however, that coming to this website with the express purpose of stirring the pot WILL get you banned. So far you have yet to post in any other forum, which leads me to conclude that you are not a candidate, an alumni, a current SA student, or a parent of any of the above.

Also, be warned that those of use who run this place take a very VERY dim view of those who run their mouths off about how the United States are the bad guys. We may not be perfect, but we're a damned sight better than anything else on the planet. If you haven't already, I suggest you read the forum rules. It will help you remain a member.

Of course, if you are who I (and others) think you are, you won't be able to hold back, so we'll know soon enough.

 

[jamzmom]

mchlwalters, please re-read #1 of the forum posting rules & the rules to the Lightning Round. If the rules are not to your liking, there are other sites where your views are most welcomed.

 

[mchlwalters]

That's the only reason you're still here; because I try to be fair.


Also, be warned that those of use who run this place take a very VERY dim view of those who run their mouths off about how the United States are the bad guys. We may not be perfect, but we're a damned sight better than anything else on the planet..

First sentence: Commendable.

However, as for the rest. Saying that someone is the bad guys or that we're better are value judgements, which differ from person to person. To chronicle what has happend so far, I said there was a shift in military. That led to the discussion about the Iraq War, which is linked. People tried to talk about the solutions, I mentioned mine about talking to Iraq's immediate neighbors. So you and I discusssed whether or not it would be valid to negotiate with Iran. You constantly brought up value judgements without reference, so I merely stated facts.

Mentioning that the CIA had a coup against Mossadegh in 1953 is not saying anyone is a bad guy. It was acknowledged by the State Department, Madeline Albright, and possibly the Church Commitee although I am not sure of the lattter. Mentioning that the CIA again funded Hussein and gave him chemical weapons that were used to gas Shia's and Kurds in the 1980-1988 original Gulf War is not saying anyone is a bad guy, its stating a fact. You can derive whatever you want it, but you can't deny what happend.

P.S. I re-read #1 and never knew the CIA was part of the military. I always heard they were quite distinct, which is obvious because there was some hubbub about Bush's latest appointment to the CIA Directorship because he is a military guy and they don't want to blur the separation between these two federal departments.

 

[Zaphod]

Moral relativism at it's finest.

Whatever.

 

[mchlwalters]

Speaking of illegaly taking hostages from embassies. Did you hear the news today, Zaphod? We took 6 Iranians from an Iranian consulate/embassy in northern Iraq?

 

[Zaphod]

Payback's a *****. Chain 'em in a sewer for 444 days for all I care.

Lemme guess: They were peaceful diplomats from a friendly nation engaged in wholesome activities for the children until the evil United States showed up, right?

Tell me...... Are you going to post something useful for the folks applying to the Service Academies, or are you here just to be a thorn in our side?